PDA

View Full Version : Bush vetoes anti-torture bill?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Djoser
03-08-2008, 03:18 AM
WTF? I always knew he was a sick fuck, but can someone please explain this latest travesty?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_torture

pookie
03-08-2008, 03:54 AM
wow. he just gets better and better.

Hot2Trot
03-08-2008, 03:55 AM
:thinking: ...
Very, very interesting Djoser...

Actually, APA members are currently protesting unethical DHS interrogation methods.

Psychology/Psychiatry/Neurology in general is a double-edged sword. It has benefits in its proper context and application, but can, has, and is being used in nefarious operations with rising occurrences and intensity; the consequence being increased psychological trauma in subjects, interrogation administrators and overseers alike.

Horrified, members of the APA want nothing to do with this. They are denouncing and distancing themselves from it.

Probably wants to prevent the scourge of loss of support and formal complaints from the psychological/psychiatric field; i.e. the mental health field, which is currently employed to "supervise" interrogation sessions to ensure proper technique.

So if it is not technically considered "torture," then no one could complain or protest.

A way to put their consciences at ease, and a way to take an inch, while preparing for the yard they are about to pull out from everyone.

Just my humble opinion.


:flirt: .

Djoser
03-08-2008, 04:25 AM
By god, you can write, can't you? You never did tell me where you went to school. If you taught yourself, I am really impressed, lol.

OdysseusNJ
03-08-2008, 09:54 AM
He's protecting CIA members from liability. He also might believe what he says.

Samba
03-08-2008, 10:24 AM
:sing: "Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"

Melonie
03-08-2008, 10:33 AM
^^^ arguably, it has been precisely because the CIA has been able to use 'enhanced interrogation techniques' in counter-terrorism efforts, that the US has been able to gather sufficient intel to thwart subsequent terrorist attacks on US (and western European) soil since 9/11. Had this bill been signed into law as-is, it would have placed the supposed 'rights' of foreign terrorists above the right of average Americans to be reasonably secure against terrorist attacks on US soil. It would also have created a potentially impossible liability issue for American intelligence service personnel ... where in exchange for preventing a terrorist attack they would be exposed not only to public disclosure of their identities via civil lawsuits by thwarted terrorists, but also possibly personally liable for paying cash settlements to the thwarted terrorists !

LadyLuck
03-08-2008, 11:32 AM
He's protecting CIA members from liability.

I'd venture to say he is not just protecting the CIA but also himself and alot of other members of his administration.

Melonie
03-08-2008, 11:41 AM
^^^ well, if he's also protecting myself and millions of other Americans from a replay of the WTC attack in the process, I don't have any problem with it.

LadyLuck
03-08-2008, 11:47 AM
^ and if he isn't? Then what? Are you still ok with it?

Plenty of people "in the know" say he's made things worse not better in terms of people wanting to attack us. Not to mention most experts say torture isn't an effective interrogation technique to begin with so...

Melonie
03-08-2008, 11:53 AM
^^^ well, unfortunately, finding out the answer you way will result in the deaths of more American civilians on American soil than American military personnel on foreign soil.

LadyLuck
03-08-2008, 12:00 PM
^I disagree. Strongly disagree for the reasons already stated.

Plus the same could be said about your way. At least my way doesn't violate international law or the Geneva. You can't say the same.

hockeybobby
03-08-2008, 12:14 PM
^I disagree. Strongly disagree for the reasons already stated.

Plus the same could be said about your way. At least my way doesn't violate international law or the Geneva. You can't say the same.

I agree with you LadyLuck. A regime that condones torture in any way is not worth fighting for. The best way to protect your country IMHO is: don't be a country that they want to come and "get".
My 2 cents
hb

pookie
03-08-2008, 12:16 PM
^^ dont kill this thread

hockeybobby
03-08-2008, 12:20 PM
^^ dont kill this thread

hehe pookie....i got my threadkill cooties all over it now. ;D

Lunarobverse
03-08-2008, 12:21 PM
Nobody has a "right" to be free from attack by "terrorists". We do, however, have a corresponding responsibility to be decent human beings and beacons of democracy. But it seems many people would rather ignore the responsibilities that correspond to our inalienable rights and hide under the bed while Daddy Government beats and tortures random individuals labeled "terrorists" and creates more enemies in the process.

The President's sworn duty is to protect the Constitution. President Bush has failed at this from the moment he sued to stop the recount in Florida, and rather epically over the past 8 years.

I see this veto of President Bush's as a simple continuation of his failure.

SundayMorning
03-08-2008, 12:27 PM
I see both sides and I really had to think about what's more important to me. Ultimately I agree that the ends don't justify the means here. If it's amoral, voting to change the definition of "moral" doesn't work for me.

leilanicandy
03-08-2008, 02:38 PM
To answer your first question.

He is just sick!

See things like this make i more presmisble to live in other countries

Casual Observer
03-08-2008, 02:45 PM
The President's sworn duty is to protect the Constitution.

That's right. And the primary duty of the President:


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The issue here isn't about torture at all; it's about the perennial battle between the legislative and executive branches of government over exactly who has control over intelligence, which has been the province of the executive branch since George Washington.

Let's not forget, it was a member of Congress, after receiving a highly-classified executive briefing, that told the media that we were tracking Bin Laden by his sat phones...which he naturally stopped using. This is the problem with legislative control over intelligence--there's too many people with too many narrow, self-interested agendas and not enough self-control or awareness of the national security ramifications of their actions.

GWB has made a legacy of incompetence for himself at many turns in the last seven years; the flap over CIA interrogation techniques will not be one of the big deals, and be it HRC or Obama who wins in November, they will have the exact same battles with Congress.

No executive ever succeeded in office by giving up more control to Congress.

Tauries
03-08-2008, 03:32 PM
The President's sworn duty is to protect the Constitution.

As I recall acts of terrorism have been going on long before Bush came into office and since you or your friends and family members have not yet been killed or beheaded, maybe you can fly over to the middle-east and explain to them about human responsibilities....I'm real damn sure they will listen.


P.S. nice posts by H2H and CO.

Lunarobverse
03-08-2008, 10:28 PM
Thanks, Casual Observer, for your post. I still disagree with you, but I can see your point of view and I can tell that you have a historical perspective and knowledge that informs your opinion. I respect that.

Tauries, on the other hand, had to edit his post to hide a glaring lack of knowledge of the Constitution. He did not, however, edit out his bed-wetting fear of boogeymen.

Melonie
03-08-2008, 10:49 PM
The issue here isn't about torture at all; it's about the perennial battle between the legislative and executive branches of government over exactly who has control over intelligence, which has been the province of the executive branch since George Washington.

agreed this is a big part of the total issue ... but not all of it. But there is also an issue of the responsibility of a US president to provide for the safety and security of Americans. IMHO that responsibility outweighs any supposed 'rights' of violent foreign subversives who intend to murder and maim. And just for the record, the Geneva convention has some fairly clear attributes about what sort of combatants are covered under its provisions ... spies, saboteurs, etc. have never been covered.


If it's amoral, voting to change the definition of "moral" doesn't work for me.

Herein lies a very slippery slope. When has 'war' ever been moral ? But in the real world, being a nation of 'neutrals' only works as long as there is some other nation that is willing to come liberate your ass after you have been attacked and oppressed by an aggressor due to your perceived weakness. True for the past 2000 years, and still true.


As I recall acts of terrorism have been going on long before Bush came into office

at least 200 years long ...

The difference in recent years, of course, is that the gov't no longer can exercise iron-fisted control of the mainstream media in order to 'control' the information that average Americans are and are not told - both in terms of the actions of 'terrorists' and the actions of our gov't ! ... which was arguably the case right up to the late 1960's.

Tauries
03-08-2008, 11:43 PM
And just for the record, the Geneva convention has some fairly clear attributes about what sort of combatants are covered under its provisions ... spies, saboteurs, etc. have never been covered.


Another great point Mel....Mr. D if you are interested this goes into a little more detail on the torture techniques in question.

As to Lunarobverses' fascination with my urine all I can say is that is creepy dude....

jester214
03-09-2008, 11:18 AM
Maybe we should invite the terrorists over for tea and ask them politely what there plans are?
I'm sorry, but if it saves one life then I think it's worth it. These people aren't soldiers, they aren't fighting America, they're killing innocent people!
They're not going to stop, ever. The torture issue is just another thing politicans are leaping at to use against the Bush administration.

jester214
03-09-2008, 11:19 AM
To answer your first question.

He is just sick!

See things like this make i more presmisble to live in other countries

He's sick?? Why because he wants to try and protect America?? Anything Bush does people have some ridiculous beleif that he has an alterior motive...

Lunarobverse
03-09-2008, 11:25 AM
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

Casual Observer
03-09-2008, 11:32 AM
The torture issue is just another thing politicans are leaping at to use against the Bush administration.

Debating the legitimization of torture in a nation that is a signatory to the UN Human Rights Charter and Geneva Convention is indicative of the problem; we're supposed to be opposed to torture, so therefore there should be no debate on the matter. There just shouldn't be any debate. GWB's involvement in this matter is peripheral, yet wholly obstructionist in the larger scheme of things.

What's disturbing isn't that our intelligence agencies have unpleasant interrogation methods--it's that those methods are defended despite their dubious value and that they generate decidedly negative perceptions about the US and its foreign policy, undoing the very changes in attitude we seek to impress upon developing nations and populations of the developing world. In the realm of international relations, perceptions are indeed reality.

LadyLuck
03-09-2008, 11:54 AM
He's sick?? Why because he wants to try and protect America??

Problem with that is that he isnít making us safer. His policies, actions and ideology are having the opposite effect on our national security.

"America's spy agencies have concluded that the invasion of Iraq has created a flood of new Islamic terrorists and increased the danger to US interests to a higher level than at any time since the 9/11 attacks.

This grim assessment is provided in a classified intelligence document called the National Intelligence Estimate, large parts of which have been leaked to the New York Times. The report is the largest US intelligence survey of the global terror threat carried out since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003."

hockeybobby
03-09-2008, 12:18 PM
My goodness, the last three posts were awfully good.

Melonie
03-09-2008, 04:38 PM
Maybe we should invite the terrorists over for tea and ask them politely what there plans are?
I'm sorry, but if it saves one life then I think it's worth it.

Actually, Barack Obama has proposed doing exactly that !!!

In truth, it would be fairly easy for the USA to cut their risk of terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists by doing two 'simple' things. #1 pull our military out of the middle east entirely, including our presence in Saudi. #2 invite every Israeli to become a US citizen, move to the USA, and give Israel's land to the Palestinians. Of course, taking such actions would have other consequences of rather extreme import !

jester214
03-09-2008, 07:16 PM
Problem with that is that he isnít making us safer. His policies, actions and ideology are having the opposite effect on our national security.

"America's spy agencies have concluded that the invasion of Iraq has created a flood of new Islamic terrorists and increased the danger to US interests to a higher level than at any time since the 9/11 attacks.

This grim assessment is provided in a classified intelligence document called the National Intelligence Estimate, large parts of which have been leaked to the New York Times. The report is the largest US intelligence survey of the global terror threat carried out since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/24/usa.iraq

Ok, I don't agree with what you're saying. But even if you're right that doesn't make him "sick". You might call him misguided if he wants to use stuff that you say doesn't work, but that doesn't make him "sick".

jester214
03-09-2008, 07:27 PM
The Geneva Convention says that Terrorism is prohibited in any shape or form. It's not applicable. I've never read the human rights charter so I can't comment on it.

Casual Observer
03-09-2008, 07:43 PM
The Geneva Convention says that Terrorism is prohibited in any shape or form. It's not applicable.

It's most definitely applicable with regard to torture. Using your "logic," anyone conveniently labeled a terrorist is not entitled to any form of habeas corpus.

You're not very imaginative or perceptive if you can't foresee the potential for problems in that scenario.

jester214
03-09-2008, 07:48 PM
It's most definitely applicable with regard to torture. Using your "logic," anyone conveniently labeled a terrorist is not entitled to any form of habeas corpus.

You're not very imaginative or perceptive if you can't foresee the potential for problems in that scenario.

The Geneva Convention is for people involved in armed conflitcs. Terrorists are not considered to be armed combatants. I wasn't debating right or wrong there, I was just pointing out that GC is not applicable to the treatment of Terrorists.

LadyLuck
03-09-2008, 09:05 PM
The Geneva Convention is for people involved in armed conflitcs. Terrorists are not considered to be armed combatants. I wasn't debating right or wrong there, I was just pointing out that GC is not applicable to the treatment of Terrorists.

Wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 5to 3 ruling establishing that enemy combatants are entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions,

jester214
03-09-2008, 10:22 PM
Wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 5to 3 ruling establishing that enemy combatants are entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions,

Which just brings up the debate of "unlawful enemy combatants" and the idea that terrorists are not enemy combatants. Since terrorism is prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

And also what descision is this? What was the case?

leilanicandy
03-09-2008, 11:47 PM
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

Oh Lunarobverse I totally agree!


Actually, Barack Obama has proposed doing exactly that !!!



Great! Now I can bust out the good china. I will make the brownies. I will go buy the cakes at this really nice bakery.

Mel I think that might actually work! You really cant get threw to people. When everyone is hostile, controling and violent. Tea, brownies, and cake sounds good!
People think better with food in thier stomach.

Lets try it the hawaiian way! lets talk it over and eat!

Djoser
03-10-2008, 01:38 AM
Debating the legitimization of torture in a nation that is a signatory to the UN Human Rights Charter and Geneva Convention is indicative of the problem; we're supposed to be opposed to torture, so therefore there should be no debate on the matter. There just shouldn't be any debate. GWB's involvement in this matter is peripheral, yet wholly obstructionist in the larger scheme of things.

What's disturbing isn't that our intelligence agencies have unpleasant interrogation methods--it's that those methods are defended despite their dubious value and that they generate decidedly negative perceptions about the US and its foreign policy, undoing the very changes in attitude we seek to impress upon developing nations and populations of the developing world. In the realm of international relations, perceptions are indeed reality.

CO, rockin' the house. You have a bottle of Dom on me, whenever you get your fucking ass down here. Your eloquence and perception dictates that it must be so...

Melonie
03-10-2008, 03:42 AM
Mel I think that might actually work! You really cant get threw to people. When everyone is hostile, controling and violent. Tea, brownies, and cake sounds good!
People think better with food in thier stomach.

Lets try it the hawaiian way! lets talk it over and eat!

Well it can definitely avoid conflict. However, you might want to take note that Hawaii USED to be an independent country, and wound up becoming a de-facto 'colonial terroritory' (with most Hawaiians relegated to working on plantations) as a result of Kamehameha II's 'sit down' with the British Navy's Lord George Paulet in 1843. Eventually the US 'rescued' the independence of the Hawaiians, only to have Hawaii become a de facto US 'colonial territory' instead, in 1898.

jester214
03-10-2008, 10:16 AM
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

For the record, Benjamin Franklin probably didn't say this. It was in something that he published.

Lunarobverse
03-10-2008, 10:25 AM
For the record, Benjamin Franklin probably didn't say this. It was in something that he published.

BWAH-HAHahahahahahaha!!

...you really have nothin' to to bring to the debate, do ya? Gotta find little picky tidbits and work around the edges, huh? That's... that's just awesome.

So what's your position on waterboarding, jester214? Torture or not? Can we do it to you or your loved ones, or is it only dirty terrists we can do it to? How about lock you up in Gitmo without recourse to standards of legal rights that have been nearly uncontested for the last several hundred years? Can we do that to ya, huh? Just curious.

jester214
03-10-2008, 10:33 AM
BWAH-HAHahahahahahaha!!

...you really have nothin' to to bring to the debate, do ya? Gotta find little picky tidbits and work around the edges, huh? That's... that's just awesome.

So what's your position on waterboarding, jester214? Torture or not? Can we do it to you or your loved ones, or is it only dirty terrists we can do it to? How about lock you up in Gitmo without recourse to standards of legal rights that have been nearly uncontested for the last several hundred years? Can we do that to ya, huh? Just curious.

Theres nothing picky about it, its why I waited till today to post it... Don't be pissed because you made a mistake... Hell it's still a great quote, I just wanted you and others to know that Franklin may have not said it. I promise you if I missused a quote in this thread I would have 3 people telling me.

Waterboarding... A complex issue but I don't think it's "tortue". If me or my loved ones are involved in terrorist activities against the United States then sure waterboard away. One of the big issues here is the question of the legal rights, the situation is new water.

If we catch a terrorist tommorow who has information on an attack that is going to hurt you or your loved ones, should we put him in a cell with his lawyer and hope everything works out??

LadyLuck
03-10-2008, 11:04 AM
terrorists are not enemy combatants. Since terrorism is prohibited by the Geneva Convention.
Wrong again.

Under the provisions of the Secretary of the Navy Memorandum Implementation of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for Enemy Combatant Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Cuba ... An enemy combatant has been defined as "an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces."

Lunarobverse
03-10-2008, 11:09 AM
Theres nothing picky about it, its why I waited till today to post it... Don't be pissed because you made a mistake... Hell it's still a great quote, I just wanted you and others to know that Franklin may have not said it. I promise you if I missused a quote in this thread I would have 3 people telling me.

It's picky because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's picky because even you, when you "correct" me, say that "probably" he didn't write it but he published it. It's picky because it's the only thing you add - I'm not the only one making the point that giving up freedoms to make yourself "safer" is a false choice. CO and Lady Luck have made the same argument using different tactics, and others have said they agree. But all you have is a contention over provenance of the quote I used? You don't see that as picky?


Waterboarding... A complex issue but I don't think it's "tortue". If me or my loved ones are involved in terrorist activities against the United States then sure waterboard away. One of the big issues here is the question of the legal rights, the situation is new water.

Legal rights like habeas corpus, that have been undisputed for centuries?

The rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence apply to "all men", which in my view does not limit it to just American citizens. It applies to all human beings, at a minimum. As Casual Observer has noted, just the fact that we are even having this debate, that there's a "pro torture" side, is a moral embarrassment of the highest order.


If we catch a terrorist tommorow who has information on an attack that is going to hurt you or your loved ones, should we put him in a cell with his lawyer and hope everything works out??

Ah, yes, the oft-cited "Jack Bauer" scenario. To which I answer, yes, that's exactly what we should do. We should honor the rights of all people to set the highest example possible, and we should honor our own responsibilities as well.

"Better to let ten guilty men go free than allow one innocent to suffer." - William Blackstone

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. ...or perhaps it was Samuel Johnson who said it first? Does it matter who said it? Because I agree completely.

What better example of freedom and democracy than to treat those who hate us with fairness and respect. Maybe that would stop the attack better than making him stand in "stress position" or smearing menstrual blood on him or "simulating" drowning? Maybe, even if the attack takes place after treating him like a human being and not a devil, we could still claim the moral high ground and gain the respect of other fellow humans and thereby marginalize those who have a grievance against us?

As has been said by more eloquent folk than I in this thread, torturing people does not make us safer.

But, y'know, keep picking at my grammar and my citations and my snarkiness. Ignore the larger debate, or pretend that there's "reasonable" arguments to be made for reducing people's rights and ignoring their responsibilities. I'm sure I've made a mistake somewhere, and since that's all the argument you've got, it will let you think you've "won"... um... something.

jester214
03-10-2008, 11:09 AM
I don't know what you did but you totally distorted my post.

"Which just brings up the debate of "unlawful enemy combatants" and the idea that terrorists are not enemy combatants. Since terrorism is prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

And also what descision is this? What was the case?"

That is what I said.

LadyLuck
03-10-2008, 11:16 AM
If we catch a terrorist tommorow who has information on an attack that is going to hurt you or your loved ones, should we put him in a cell with his lawyer and hope everything works out??

Yes. If for no other reason than it has been proven to get better results in terms of intel that can be used to prevent acts of terrorism.

jester214
03-10-2008, 11:21 AM
It's picky because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's picky because even you, when you "correct" me, say that "probably" he didn't write it but he published it. It's picky because it's the only thing you add - I'm not the only one making the point that giving up freedoms to make yourself "safer" is a false choice. CO and Lady Luck have made the same argument using different tactics, and others have said they agree. But all you have is a contention over provenance of the quote I used? You don't see that as picky?


Legal rights like habeas corpus, that have been undisputed for centuries?

The rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence apply to "all men", which in my view does not limit it to just American citizens. It applies to all human beings, at a minimum. As Casual Observer has noted, just the fact that we are even having this debate, that there's a "pro torture" side, is a moral embarrassment of the highest order.


Ah, yes, the oft-cited "Jack Bauer" scenario. To which I answer, yes, that's exactly what we should do. We should honor the rights of all people to set the highest example possible, and we should honor our own responsibilities as well.

"Better to let ten guilty men go free than allow one innocent to suffer." - William Blackstone

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. ...or perhaps it was Samuel Johnson who said it first? Does it matter who said it? Because I agree completely.

What better example of freedom and democracy than to treat those who hate us with fairness and respect. Maybe that would stop the attack better than making him stand in "stress position" or smearing menstrual blood on him or "simulating" drowning? Maybe, even if the attack takes place after treating him like a human being and not a devil, we could still claim the moral high ground and gain the respect of other fellow humans and thereby marginalize those who have a grievance against us?

As has been said by more eloquent folk than I in this thread, torturing people does not make us safer.

But, y'know, keep picking at my grammar and my citations and my snarkiness. Ignore the larger debate, or pretend that there's "reasonable" arguments to be made for reducing people's rights and ignoring their responsibilities. I'm sure I've made a mistake somewhere, and since that's all the argument you've got, it will let you think you've "won"... um... something.

You say picky I say not whatever not important.

The declaration? That's what you're going to use?? It said "all men" and then we kept slaves for a hundred years. Obviously the "all men" didn't mean everybody.

It's pretty easy to say "take the moral high ground" on a message board. A whole lot different when you know that a person might be responsible for the killing of innocents.

You honestly think we can do anything to make these people not hate us? If you beleive that you are really misguided. Their leaders need for them to hate us otherwise the people might figure out they're not very good leaders.

What did I say about your "snarkiness" or your "grammar"... I simply stated that you may have misused a quote. Something I would expect you to do to me.

Oh so now my opinion is "pretend" well good to know.

LadyLuck
03-10-2008, 11:24 AM
I don't know what you did but you totally distorted my post.

LMFAO! I did not distort anything. I quoted the part to which I was responding.

To further clarify my point: Whatever debate previously occured about who is or isn't an enemy combatants has been settled. Unlike what you were claiming, no legal debate occurs anymore.


It has become painfully obvious that you simply don't know about what you speak of on this subject matter.

Please consider educating yourself with the facts before trying to present your case. Thanks.

jester214
03-10-2008, 11:35 AM
LMFAO! I did not distort anything. I quoted the part to which I was responding.

To further clarify my point: Whatever debate previously occured about who is or isn't an enemy combatants has been settled. Unlike what you were claiming, no legal debate occurs anymore.

It has become painfully obvious that you simply don't know about what you speak of on this subject matter. Please consider educating yourself with the facts before trying to present your case.

Then why the hell didn't you show the whole quote? Instead of just showing the me midsentence saying "terrorists are not combatants"!! I don't know if you were trying to be deceptive or not but you were.

If the debate has been settled then why did our President just veto a bill prohibiting waterboarding??

I'm not educated on the matter? Right.

LadyLuck
03-10-2008, 11:52 AM
Then why the hell didn't you show the whole quote? Instead of just showing the me midsentence saying "terrorists are not combatants" !! I don't know if you were trying to be deceptive or not but you were.

If the debate has been settled then why did our President just veto a bill prohibiting waterboarding??


No I was not being deceptive. Not in the least. :banghead: I already explained that to you. Twice as a matter of fact. Once here and once in reply to your unwelcome private message. For the third and final effn time- I quoted that part BECAUSE IT WAS THE PART TO WHICH I WAS RESPONDING.

For now anyway I've lost the required patience needed in dealing with you. I'll let someone else take your hand and slowly walk you through the answers to the rest of you post questions.