WTF? I always knew he was a sick fuck, but can someone please explain this latest travesty?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/...h/bush_torture





WTF? I always knew he was a sick fuck, but can someone please explain this latest travesty?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/...h/bush_torture
You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
George Clinton
______________________________________
wow. he just gets better and better.
...
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.
.
"Everything that is in Heaven and on earth is penetrated with connectedness." - Hildegard of Bingen [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Originally Posted by IsobelWren
Originally Posted by Nautilus





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.
You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
George Clinton
______________________________________
He's protecting CIA members from liability. He also might believe what he says.









^^^ 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 !





^^^ 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.
^ 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...





^^^ 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.
^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.





^^ dont kill this thread









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.
Visit my home on the internets:
Lunar Obverse
Where I talk about strip clubs, atheism, computers, and whatever else I wanna.
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.





To answer your first question.
He is just sick!
See things like this make i more presmisble to live in other countries
If you want the present to be differant from the past, study the past.
Baruch Spindza
It is what it is, not what you want it to become, that's important -- at least for now. Today, remember that things worth having are worth waiting for!
The Stars
Minds are like parachutes: They only function when open.
Thomas Dewar
Dont throw away the old bucket until you know whether the new one holds water.
Swedish Proverb
That's right. And the primary duty of the President:The President's sworn duty is to protect the Constitution.
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.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.
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.
Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
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.
Last edited by Tauries; 03-08-2008 at 03:44 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.
Visit my home on the internets:
Lunar Obverse
Where I talk about strip clubs, atheism, computers, and whatever else I wanna.





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.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.
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.If it's amoral, voting to change the definition of "moral" doesn't work for me.
at least 200 years long ...As I recall acts of terrorism have been going on long before Bush came into office
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.




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.




Bookmarks