Democrats Vote Against Doing Whatever Is Necessary To Protect Americans
December 14th, 2007 at 01:54pm Matt Margolis
On largely party lines, the Democrat-controlled House voted to outlaw using harsh interrogation methods against terrorists.
I’m sorry, but I can’t understand how they could vote in such a way… Five years ago, Democrats wanted to do whatever was necessary America. Now, as 9/11 has faded from their memories, they’ve decided that scoring short term political points with their extremist base is more important than winning the war on terror.
Oh, Democrats can say that using harsh interrogation techniques is torture, that it harms our efforts to fight terror, or that it puts Americans at risk by angering terrorists… but the only way it can anger terrorists is by exposing our interrogation techniques to the world, by, for instance leaking tapes of interrogations to the media — something that only enraged Democrats, clearly disappointed that they lost an opportunity to put our soldiers at risk by leaking those tapes before they were destroyed.
Entry Filed under: Democrats, Kook Left, War on Terror
108 Comments
1. Canadian Observer | December 14th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Perhaps they do not want to be perceived as being no better than the terrorists they abhor. Maybe, just maybe, they would like to be seen by the world community as being better than the scum who terrorize their fellow human beings.
2. SteaM | December 14th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Because we are Americans and we are better than that?
3. Huck Fillary | December 14th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Platitudes from two idiots–probably both Canadian a**hats…
4. plainjane | December 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
The rate of decay of American values under this Republican administration is alarming. I can’t recall the United States citizens having this discussion during WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or Desert Storm. How many Americans died in those wars? Department of Veteran Affairs reports about 608,000. Yet today there are those on the right willing to surrender Constitution Rights and America’s world standing for a bunk promise they will never be part of a terrorist attack if they agree to such things as warrant less wiretapping and government torture.
What has changed between say Vietnam and now? Simple, right wing radio and corporate media such as Fox and Washington Post full of money grubbing chickenhawks who have turned the average Republican’s brain into a vessel full of fear, rage and misunderstanding in a clear attempt to fatten their wallets. Even wingnuts in the farmland of Nebraska are encapsulating their houses with plastic in the belief Bin Laden has his sights squarely on them. I give them credit Limbaugh’s brand of hate and fear radio has been very effective on the naïve.
Let us get back to reality. Turn Limbaugh and Hannity and their Viagra ads off for one minute and think about the consequences of giving up American values on future children. The United States of America is a nation of laws. When our representatives signed the Geneva Conventions that was ratified by the Senate we stand by that decision. Once signed, you can’t pick and chose which portions of the treaty you will abide by. By signing the treaty the United States of America has agreed with the Geneva Convention that certain methods of interrogation are torture.
It is my understanding certain interrogation techniques are in an army field manager. If the US doesn’t want the terrorist to know what methods we will use then get the Democratic and Republican leadership together with the current Republican Secretary of Defense to develop an internal manual not for public consumption. All the public needs to know the manual guarantees the United States has met its obligations to the Geneva Convention.
5. sleepygene | December 14th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
I thought this vote closed the loophole that allowed intelligence agencies to use torture techniques that the miliatry already could not practice because of the 2005 Detainee Act. Doesn’t this law protect the CIA from being tried for war crimes in the future? Why are you people so gung ho about torture when people who have actually experienced it say it is wrong? Shouldn’t you be deferent to their opinions?
6. Joe | December 14th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Platitudes from two idiots–probably both Canadian a**hats…
Keefer, yet again……. GROW THE F#$$& UP. Get out of the 5th grade and have a discussion.
7. eric | December 14th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
plainjane,
Unless you were born in the early 1900’s you probably don’t recall anything about WWI. Are you claiming that the discussion of torture did not arise until the present war in Iraq? If so, back the statement up with some facts. Also, explain the necessity of the Geneva Convention in 1949. Otherwise, I am calling b.s. on your statement.
8. Huck Fillary | December 14th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
if they agree to such things as warrant less wiretapping and government torture.
It’s warrantless, cow! One word! And we don’t spy on Americans, cow! Government torture? Listening to Reidard, Piglosi, Hitlery, and Earbama is torture. As is reading your poorly-written posts, cow. Why don’t you cut-and-paste directly from the DNC talking points, instead of trying to replicate them on your own.
…right wing radio and corporate media such as Fox and Washington Post…
Washington Post? Are you kidding, Elsie?
It is my understanding certain interrogation techniques are in an army field manager.
Well then, we’d better get hold of this person and have those techniques surgically removed, so’s we all can read them.
By signing the treaty the United States of America has agreed with the Geneva Convention that certain methods of interrogation are torture.
Let me clue you in, Elsie–Islamofascist who strap bombs on their kiddies, and send the kiddies into crowded markets to blow up innocent civilians, ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS!!!
9. SEW | December 14th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
plainjane, your ignorance is annoying. How many times do you need to be told Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists, non uniformed combatants. Nor are they US citizens. Geez.
And Billary is the one that does domestic wiretapping, not Dubya. Pelosi is the one who knew! And I thought she didn’t have a brain in her head.
10. Huck Fillary | December 14th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Keefer, yet again……. GROW THE F#$$& UP. Get out of the 5th grade and have a discussion.
There’s no discussing anything with you loons, Josie, so, F*&! off and take your leftist rhetoric back to DailyKooks. You aspire to get to the 5th grade, Nancy-boy…
11. Democrats Vote Against Do&hellip | December 14th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
[...] post by unknown This was written by . Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007, at 2:11 pm. Filed under [...]
12. sleepygene | December 14th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
SEW & Dildohead4life-
You are wrong in the Hamdan V. Rumsfeld the court ruled 5-3 that enemy combatants are covered by the geneva convention.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterror/p/hamdan.htm
13. AgentFear | December 14th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Oh Keithy,
You’re so cute! Can I be “attack dog” for awhile?
Pretty please?
Your act is old, moron.
14. Joe | December 14th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Keef… 2 things.
1) Islamofascist who strap bombs on their kiddies, and send the kiddies into crowded markets to blow up innocent civilians, ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS!!!
— Is that just ONE Islamofascist, or did you leave the S off?
2) You have a little splittle on your chin from that fit you just thru.
15. liberalT | December 14th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Matt - sometimes I wonder about you. Its one thing to argue that waterboarding is needed for security. Its another to seriously accuse democrats of doing this on purpose with the only desire to undercut soldiers or the war on terror. If I wasn’t laughing so hard at you I would write more - but I will let you flounder in stupidity rather than get bothered by your lack of intelligent thought…
16. Joe | December 14th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
So torture is ok as long as it isn’t known by anyone? Is that the point?
Do you think terrorists wouldn’t know that someone was tortured if things weren’t leaked?
If something is leaked by Republicans, is that better than if something is leaked by Dems?
17. SteaM | December 14th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
I’ve finally changed my mind. You guys convinced me and now I see the light. Everyone who isn’t a Bush supporter should be deemed an Enemy Combatant. They should then be placed in a Haliburton/KBR contstructed holding facility with no contact to the outside world. No contact with family, spouses, or laywers. They must then be tortured using any technique nessecary. This interrogation must continue until they finally admit that they are a terrorist, whether they ever were or not. If they do not admit this then they must be stripped naked, paraded around and laughed at. Then human feces must be thrown onto them and forced into their mouths. Waterboarding must be performed until they almost drown. The humiliation and fear of death will break them and they will admit they are terrorists or will be broken to the point that they are willing to implicate their best friend, or mother, or neighbor, and demand that they are a terrorist. All the while hoping this will ensure their freedom from the hell they have been put into. Their family, wives, children, husbands will never know what is going on. Many will die in the meantime. Maybe as many as 3 or 4 million.
Kill them all!
Isn’t this what you guys are saying here? Or am I just taking it too far. This is the problem. If you start setting these precedents, that is right when someone crazy enough and brilliant enough to take over the white house will begin to do these things behind your ever-so-trusting backs. By the time you know what has happened … it’s too late.
Humans are capable of this. We’ve seen it before. That’s why the Geneva Conventions and our Contitution and Justice system exist.
18. MrGone | December 14th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Steam, no that’s pretty much what they’re saying.
19. Joe | December 14th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
steaM,
That won’t ever happen because of Congressional oversight would never allow it.
Oh wait…
20. neocon | December 14th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
I will have to bring up late term abortions again to reveal the hypocrisy of our lefties.
CO mentioned in the first post on this thread that:
“Maybe, just maybe, they would like to be seen by the world community as being better than the scum who terrorize their fellow human beings.”
Yet, how do you think the rest of the world views our practive of sucking the brains out of an innocent American infant?
I would like an honest answer from one of our lefties on how they can condemn waterboarding yet condone partial birth abortion.
21. phnx | December 14th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Would it make you left wing loons happier if we were to telecast each and every interogation of terrorists, err excuse me…non-uniformed armed combatants?
22. neocon | December 14th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
SteaM is my favorite whiny drama queen and it just doesn’t get much better than his 4:55pm post.
Do you suppose there are any real men left amongst liberals?
23. neocon | December 14th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
phnx,
Or freedom fighters, right?
24. Jonathan | December 14th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Maybe its because we, as a nation, are better than that? It does America no good to surrender our moral principles because 19 religious extremists slaughtered almost 3,000 of our citizens in one day.
9/11 has faded from our memories??
Tell me, Matt, which president was it that told the American people that we were going to capture Bin Laden ‘dead or alive?’
Which president was it that let Bin Laden escape, even though we had the bastard corned in the mountains of Tora Bora?
Which president received a memo stating that Bin Laden was determined to attack the United States, one month before the 9/11 attacks, and still did nothing?
Which president still has our troops fighting a costly and pointless war against a country that was never a threat to our security?
It’s not the Democrats who have forgotten 9/11.
Our “Great Leader”, President Dumbs**t, has.
You sir, are nothing more than a partisan hack.
25. Joe | December 14th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
I’ll answer honestly.
Nobody is pushing “abortions on demand” as all you people like to say. Nobody is forcing anyone to have an abortion and you people like to claim. Nobody looks at abortion as the best choice for birth control as many people here claim.
People that are “pro-choice” just think it isn’t up to some 60 year old fat bald white guy in Congress to make that decision for them.
And honestly, I don’t think “the world” gets anywhere near as worked up over this as you do Neocon. I honestly don’t.
Since you thru out that insane comment about “sucking brains out of an innocent child”, let me throw an extreme example out to you…
Why do you want to prevent a 13yo who was raped by her father/uncle/brother from getting an abortion. This is a child who can’t afford to raise a child and is no where even close to being smart enough or mature enough to raise a child. Why is this up to you and politicians?
My biggest question is…
Why do you even compare that to waterboarding? I would have to say that if we torture, some would look at that and get outraged and say they will torture US soldiers. I really don’t believe they look at abortions and think that they need to torture out US soldiers for it.
Why do you not listen to someone that WAS tortured in John McCain? Why do you think you know more than he does?
26. SteaM | December 14th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
neocon,
In 1933 the leader of a country in europe suspended civil rights in the name of security.
It was used to create his dictatorship. Because the people were happy they went with it. They assumed that it would not lead to the death of millions and millions of people.
“Article 48 was an article in the constitution of the Weimar Republic of Germany (1919–1933) that allowed the President to rule by decree without the consent of the Reichstag (parliament). Legislation passed under this article of the constitution was referred to as Notverordnung (emergency decree). Article 48 was used by Adolf Hitler in 1933 to establish a dictatorship, ending the Weimar Republic and ushering in the Third Reich.”
Have a good weekend my fellow Americans. Watch your government. Never turn a blind eye on them.
27. neocon | December 14th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Joe,
First of all you didn’t answer the question. Why do you condone partial birth abortion? I am not saying it is forced on anyone, but it is a proceedure that is performed fairly regularly in this country without one single complaint from the left. And I use the phrase, “sucking the brains out”, because that is how the proceedure is performed. Why do you want to gloss over it? And since liberals typically oppose teaching abstinence in our schools, I will argue that liberals do think abortion is a good birth control method.
Secondly, where have I ever said that I would prevent a 13 year old rape vistim from getting an abortion? I know you have challenged debating skills, but outright lying is………..well typical of liberals.
“some would look at that and get outraged and say they will torture US soldiers.” - Joe
When haven’t they? And do you have concrete proof that if we stop waterboarding, all of our soldiers will be treated humanely? Do you? Because if you do, I might change my opinion.
I despise John McCain, and would probably waterboard him myself.
So, do you care to answer the question?
28. neocon | December 14th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
SteaM,
I may be sorry I asked this, but what the hell is your point?
Are you saying Bush is followin in Hitlers footsteps?
I hope so.
29. Mark Noonan | December 14th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Joe,
Actually, the Democratic Party platform calls for federally funded abortion on demand - and the United States has the most liberal abortion law in the world; most places where abortion is legal, it is only allowed prior to viability.
30. Mark Noonan | December 14th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Joe,
And just in case you think I’m wrong on that:
31. mitche | December 14th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
And Authoritarians do whatever is necessary to erase the tenents of The Constitution, our compliance with The Geneva Convention and our historical moral leadership in the world.
Wouldn’t it be a delicious irony, one to relish for years in my opinion, if when the next president (who most surely will be a member of the Democratic party) employes the same lawlessness and disregard for the rule of law as your mentor GWB has…and does… and all of you Bushbots are declared “enemy combatants”, are hunted down via email transmissions and blog postings and are then redintioned extroidinarily without explaination, tortured and disallowed legal rights because your mentality is a threat to the constitution of the United States?
Would not that be grand?
Turn the tables on you.
The only real solution to the vortex of tyranny that Cheney and GWB have imposed upon us…and the world…is a revolution via the next election.
And it will come my sheepish, paranoid friends. It will come.
Those who support torture need to be tortured. Those that claim it is OK to suspend our belief in the rule of law in order to maintain an on-going crisis; steeped in fantasy and fear, need to be subjected to the same logic that takes away individual rights. Those that think the way the most of the posters here do need to be isolated from the general population. Just like Huckelberry Hound from Arkansas suggested to AIDS sufferers.
You people need your own planet. Like vampires on a day pass, your power and influence wanes in the light of what is truly American.
32. Mark Noonan | December 14th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
mitche,
And yet you come here and freely post on a blog you do nothing to support…and no one arrests you or tortures you…
You really are doing evil just in what you write, and you should carefully rethink your entire worldview.
33. neocon | December 14th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
OK I take that back. Mitche is now my favorite liberal drama queen. The above rantings, and delusional paranoia is astonishingly juvenile and smacks of DailyKos indoctrination.
Well done mitche.
34. neocon | December 14th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Mark,
mitche does not have the ability to think, let alon rethink.
That would be far to taxing on the poor little soul.
35. neocon | December 14th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
>>>Those that claim it is OK to suspend our belief in the rule of law in order to maintain an on-going crisis; - mitche<<<<
Mitche, please tell us your position on illegal immigration.
36. bagni | December 14th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
markture;
you write
like you’ve turned your back
on the virtue
of christianity
?????
37. neocon | December 14th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
bagni,
Really? And you know that because you’re such a good Christian?
38. phnx | December 14th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Mark,
Even though he’s still incoherent…”redintioned extroidinarily without explaination”, at least Mitchie is no longer advocating the violent overthrow of the US government. He must have reconsidered the wisdom of that position. Either that or he has been contacted by the Feds, and is now under investigation.
His call for the rendition and torture of American citizens is a bit disturbing. He seems to be implying that the enemy combatants, now in custody, are democrats. I seriously doubt this, although I’m sure that they do support the Dem agenda, as their talking points are interchangeable.
The most amusing part of his post is the circular logic of his statement…”Those who support torture need to be tortured.” By advocating that those who support torture should be tortured themselves, he is advocating his own torture. He must be from the San Fran S&M crowd.
39. mitche | December 14th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
My position on illegal immigration is that it is; well, illegal. But it is the GWB position to outsource everything from manufacturing to labor so your arguement is phony. And fear based. And supportive of a lawless government that enriches those highest in power and influence.
And as far as you Noonan, I would like to rub your little face in the excreiment that you deposit on an hourly basis to the sheep that you have following the orifice that you lead them with.
You eunich.
You would be the first that I would hold accountable as an enemy of the US constitution.
You mindless christianist authoritarian.
40. Jonathan | December 14th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Neocon said:
Wow. I’m no supporter of Mr. McCain, but that was a disrespectful and disgusting comment you just made.
41. sleepygene | December 14th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
phnx-
Mitche’s notion of americans being rendered and torture is not that extreme if you could ask Jose Padilla. An American citizen, picked up in America and held without a right to challenge his detainment for several years, because Bush deemed him an enemy combatant.
It can happen to anybody if the Decider decides it.
42. phnx | December 14th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Sleepy,
You mean Jose Padilla aka Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, the United States citizen convicted in a Fedearl Court of conspiring to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism. That Jose Padilla?
Could you provide any proof of rendition or torture of this hero/martyr of the Democrat party?
No I didn’t think you could. But nice try.
43. Faceplant | December 14th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
SEW,
“plainjane, your ignorance is annoying. How many times do you need to be told Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists, non uniformed combatants.”
If plainjane’s ignorance is annoying, yours must be reaching a defening pitch.
Because no matter what you say, Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions applies to ALL detainees captured in military conflicts, and that includes Al Queda.
And you don’t even have to believe a “far left liberal” like me. Why don’t we just check with the US Supreme Court.
“Alternatively, the appeals court agreed with the Govern-ment that the Conventions do not apply because Hamdan was cap-tured during the war with al Qaeda, which is not a Convention signa-tory, and that conflict is distinct from the war with signatory Afghanistan. The Court need not decide the merits of this argumentbecause there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not between signato-ries. Common Article 3, which appears in all four Conventions, pro-vides that, in a “conflict not of an international character occurring inthe territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [i.e., signatories],each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,”certain provisions protecting “[p]ersons . . . placed hors de combat by. . . detention,””
Nice try though ;-)
44. Jeremiah | December 14th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
mitche,
Broken is the way you came and broken is the way that you will leave when everything is paid for. Make another hollow claim, a fable of regurgitated nothing that we could tear wide open. False in every possible way, your god is still the powerless creation that you will lose your hope in.
What a waste you have made of your life.
~ Jeremiah
45. SEW | December 14th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
?Alternatively, the appeals court agreed with the Govern-ment that the Conventions do not apply because Hamdan was cap-tured during the war with al Qaeda, which is not a Convention signa-tory, and that conflict is distinct from the war with signatory Afghanistan. The Court need not decide the merits of this argumentbecause there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not between signato-ries. Common Article 3, which appears in all four Conventions, pro-vides that, in a ?conflict not of an international character occurring inthe territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [i.e., signatories],each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,?certain provisions protecting ?[p]ersons . . . placed hors de combat by. . . detention,??
Faceplant, I read your cut and paste and find no mention of non uniformed combatants. And I didn’t realize “an appeals court” was the US Supreme Court. And the ‘appeals’ court agreed [whatever this is about] that Conventions DO NOT APPLY. Surely you can find something better to cut and paste to support your nonsense.
46. mitche | December 14th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
What do I have to pay for Jeremiah? Your wack job Christian nut job religious affectations?
I am not broken. You might be, but not me. I have more self esteem than you and I think that I am god.
47. SEW | December 14th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
mitche, “Faceplant”, Have either of you considered giving up Kool-Aid?
48. Jeremiah | December 14th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
mitche,
I hope you won’t be left behind!
~ Jeremiah
49. Jeremiah | December 14th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
mitche,
I hope you won’t be left behind!
~ Jeremiah
50. neocon | December 14th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Jonathan,
I applaud your sense of humor.
51. Kahn | December 14th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
SEW,
You may find, if you read it that the status is unclear.
1. They are not part of a nation military.
2. They don’t wear uniforms.
3. Some kill military
4. Some kill civilians
5. Assuming they are not mercenaries
They are not P.O.W.’s under existing rules. If they were, the ones that kill civilians can be executed as war criminals.
Are they belligerent civilians? Possibly. If so, the ones that kill military may have a vague POW status, possibly not. The ones that kill civilians can be executed as war criminals. If there was a legitimate government, they might extend military status to these individuals. But, there is no legitimate government willing to do this.
Are they spies? A spy, caught in the act, out of uniform is subject to execution. This is even if they are military. However, once they return to their own territory they can put on a uniform and be part of the military. They are not subject to punishment as a spy after doing this even if later captured.
Are they just criminals? Are they guilty of murder or conspiracy to commit murder? If that is the case, they could face execution.
Except for the spy scenario, long term questioning might not be permitted. Execution could be permitted in EVERY scenario except P.O.W.. But P.O.W. status allows indefinite imprisonment.
What do you think it is?
52. bagni | December 15th, 2007 at 12:43 am
neo
you don’t have to be a good christian
to know that jesus preached virtue
but
alas
your brilliance has shown through
and revealed the truth
you’re right……i’m not a christian
i’m catholic
53. Jonathan | December 15th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Neocon said:
You think I was kidding? Sorry, I don’t see the humor in threatening a decorated veteran with waterboarding.
54. Mark Noonan | December 15th, 2007 at 2:57 am
Gene,
No - you can only think it can happen to “anyone” if you are fool enough to believe the leftwing story line about President Bush. Padilla wasn’t just walking down the street one day, now was he?
55. DougH | December 15th, 2007 at 6:18 am
Ahh yes, Democrats want to take th high road and say the US doesn’t need to any form of torture or other means to collect information from prisoners.
They just don’t bother to mention, it’s the same mentality and attitude that has worked so well in the ‘war on drugs”, which the USA has lost years ago.
There is a difference in how the US uses toture and what terrorists do.. I have yet to see film footage of the USA beheading people, pulling people from their homes/works and taking them out and killing them all, using vehicles loaded with explosives to target women and children to kill.
If your not willing to do what is necessary to win a war, then at least don’t tie the hands of those who are willing to do what is necessary.
If I’m not mistaken, the US beat the British to gain indepence by NOT following the ‘rules of engagment”
Now the Democrats want the US to be like the British were back then
.. stupid
56. searp | December 15th, 2007 at 6:18 am
I love the “real men among liberals” line.
Easy enough to advocate policies when you don’t have to bear the consequences, and none of the jerks on this thread are in danger of being captured by anything more threatening than a huge-screen TV.
Idiots. Cowards.
57. Christian Wright | December 15th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Torture is against Article III of the Geneva Conventions and a violation of US law.
Eventually, the law will catch up with Bush and he will be tried in The Hague as a war criminal.
58. Huck Fillary | December 15th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Josie, two things:
— Is that just ONE Islamofascist, or did you leave the S off?
An occasional typo, compared to your, and your fellow kooks writing skills–none–is mild.
2) You have a little splittle on your chin from that fit you just thru.
“Thru” is slang for “through,” not “threw.” You should take care not to slam typos, when you don’t know proper word usage yourself.
Now, why do I bring up such trivialities? Well, besides the fact that you’re an idiot, you, in an earlier post, stated: Keefer, yet again……. GROW THE F#$$& UP. Get out of the 5th grade and have a discussion.
So, what do you turn around and do? You don’t respond to my post; you do exactly what you slammed me for earlier. Idiot.
markture;
you write
like you’ve turned your back
on the virtue
of christianity
?????
baglady, you write like you’ve turned your back on the virtue of intelligence.
Why do you not listen to someone that WAS tortured in John McCain?
Who was this person, Josie? Who was “tortured in John McCain?” How did he get “in John McCain?” Was his name “Jonah?”
You’re so cute! Can I be “attack dog” for awhile?
Sorry, AgentFart, I don’t swing your way, so stop hitting on me.
Pretty please?
No, AgentFart, I don’t swing your way. Stop begging.
Your act is old, moron.
Sounds as if you’re tired of it, AgentFart. Funny, I never tire from doing it. I think I’ll continue. Got a problem with it? Good. Gonna do anything about it? Didn’t think so. My act is old? So’s your boyfriend, but that doesn’t make you a moron. Oh, wait; you were a moron long before you met him. Never mind…
59. Christian Wright | December 15th, 2007 at 8:14 am
In a case of mistaken identity, the CIA kidnapped and tortured an innocent man for 19 months.
See the link for the story:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/14/bashmilah/?source=whitelist
60. Christian Wright | December 15th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Here is a link to yet another case of mistaken identiy.
A Canadian was kidnapped by the CIA because his name was simular to a known terrorist. He too was tortured.
http://www.maherarar.ca/
61. Huck Fillary | December 15th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Christian Left,
Sh*t happens. It’s the left’s mantra, not mine. Sh*t happened. Hell, the condom broke, and you happened. Too bad…
62. Christian Wright | December 15th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Here is a link to a third innocent person who was tortured. He too was a Canadian.
http://www.abdullahalmalki.com/
If you just look, you can find dozens of these. Unfortunately, not all of these innocent people survived their ordeal. One was beaten to death, others hung themselves in Gitmo and other places.
63. neocon | December 15th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Thank you searp for proving my point that there are no real liberal men.
Christian,
Great salon post. ???
The paranoia that exists amongst our liberal femmes is astonishing. They are so quick to believe the worst of an entity that poses no threat whatsoever to them, yet completely overlook, and demure away from the actual challenges that plague the world. Their mantra seems to be to create world allies by doing absolutely nothing.
Their cocktail party approach to world problems and their stalinist-mothering approach to domestic concerns reveals their obviously high levels of estrogen. Can these people be trusted with serious concerns? I think not.
64. neocon | December 15th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Christian,
Please post more about tortured Islamists. It’s heartwarming to read about those who need to realize what they have been doing to others. I love justice.
Any more examples?
65. neocon | December 15th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Christian,
What are your plans to have the leaders of the Canadian and Syrian governments brought up on charges for the torture of Abdullah?
66. neocon | December 15th, 2007 at 9:16 am
What’s wrong Christian? A terrorist got your tongue?
67. Christian Wright | December 15th, 2007 at 9:54 am
They all need to be tried before the ICC. Bush opted out of the ICC so it is The Hague for him.
68. Christian Wright | December 15th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Two more names of innocent Canadians who were kidnapped and tortured.
Ahmad El-Maati and Muayyed Nureddin
No time for links. I am behind schedule.
69. Canadian Observer | December 15th, 2007 at 10:09 am
What are your plans to have the leaders of the Canadian and Syrian governments brought up on charges for the torture of Abdullah?
neocon | December 15th, 2007 at 8:57 am
There definitely was a major mistake made, neocon, and I agree that the Canadian and Syrian governments should be held responsible and share the blame for this incident.
Hopefully, this will be a lesson for everyone who supports and applauds the use of torture on their fellow human beings.
70. SEW | December 15th, 2007 at 11:09 am
30 to 60 seconds of water being poured on a face should not be allowed even to save civilization or part of civilization. In fact those that do should be prosecuted. ??
71. SEW | December 15th, 2007 at 11:16 am
But 40,000,000 abortions over the past 40 years ia a woman’s right to choice.
Vote Dim.
72. Kahn | December 16th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Christian Wright and SEW - so, what are these prisoners? Belligerent civilians, spies, POW’s, what?
POW’s can be imprisoned indefinitely. That means until the conflict is over. That could me forever.
Civilians committing murder and conspiring to commit murder and spies can be executed.
Spies have no rights whatsoever.
So - are you arguing for POW status? They are protected but may never be released.
Civilian status? They are protected, but may be imprisoned for life (even after the conflict ends) or executed.
Spy status? Absolutely no protection. Imprisonment, severe questioning, execution, all legal.
You say they have rights? Under what definition. The different classes of prisoner have different classes of rights under the Conventions.
Put down the talking points. Read the conventions and attempts to interpret them. And be honest?
There are other sub classes I haven’t described. Surprise me, give me a thoughtful and reasoned response on the status of these prisoners under the conventions and then on the treatment due them based upon that status.
73. phnx | December 16th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Kahn,
Christian Wrong is for amnesty, reparations and immediate US citizenship for all detainees so they can vote in the next election.
74. SEW | December 16th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Kahn, They are nonuniformed enemy combatants. Detainees. I promise not to confuse you with Canadian Observer if you won’t clump me with “Christian Wright”.
75. Faceplant | December 16th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
“Faceplant, I read your cut and paste and find no mention of non uniformed combatants.”
This isn’t debatable. This is the ruling in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. Let me make this simple for you. In Hamdan v Rumsfeld, Hamdan won.
“And I didn’t realize “an appeals court” was the US Supreme Court.”
Apparently that’s not the only thing you didn’t realize, because the quoted section that I posted is part of the US Supreme court opinion written by Justice Stevens. Is it really that hard to do a little research before you try to argue about a topic you clearly know little about.
“And the ‘appeals’ court agreed [whatever this is about] that Conventions DO NOT APPLY.”
Yes they did. That appeals court decision was then overturned by the United States Supreme Court in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. In fact it states that RIGHT THERE in the section that I quoted. Why don’t I break this down for you.
“Alternatively, the appeals court agreed with the Govern-ment that the Conventions do not apply because Hamdan was cap-tured during the war with al Qaeda, which is not a Convention signa-tory, and that conflict is distinct from the war with signatory Afghanistan.”
This is the part where the Supreme Court is stating what the ruling of the lower appeals court was.
“The Court need not decide the merits of this argumentbecause there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not between signato-ries. Common Article 3, which appears in all four Conventions, pro-vides that, in a ?conflict not of an international character occurring inthe territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [i.e., signatories],each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,?certain provisions protecting ?[p]ersons . . . placed hors de combat by. . . detention,??”
And this is the part where the US Supreme Court is stating why they are overturning the decision of the appeals court. Namely that the appeals courts decision is wrong because common article 3 applies to ALL detainees including detainees being held at Guantanamo.
And this wasn’t exactly a minor detail in this supreme court decision. In fact the Supreme Court ruled that absent an act by congress President Bush’s military commissions were illegal because they violated common article 3’s provision that detainees must be tried by a regularly constituted court.
“Surely you can find something better to cut and paste to support your nonsense.”
How about this, from the same ruling.
“(d) The procedures adopted to try Hamdan also violate the Geneva Conventions. The D. C. Circuit dismissed Hamdan’s challenge in this regard on the grounds, inter alia, that the Conventions are not judicially enforceable and that, in any event, Hamdan is not entitled to their protections. Neither of these grounds is persuasive.”
“mitche, “Faceplant”, Have either of you considered giving up Kool-Aid?”
Only the neocon right would consider a supreme court decision to be some conspiracy theory nonsense. This isn’t debatable. The Supreme Court ruled that common article 3 applies to detainees being held in Guantanamo. No matter how much you try to say they didn’t, you will still be wrong. Hamdan WON, and Rumsfeld and the Gov’t LOST.
And Kahn,
“There are other sub classes I haven’t described. Surprise me, give me a thoughtful and reasoned response on the status of these prisoners under the conventions and then on the treatment due them based upon that status.”
You can attempt to interpret who you THINK is intitled to treatment in accordence with common article 3 all you want. In the end the Supreme Court will tell you who IS entitled to it. And the Supreme Court ruled that detainees being held in Guantanamo ARE entitled to treatment in accordance with common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. No ifs, ands, or buts. That is the law of the land whether you agree with it or not. It isn’t debatable.
76. Faceplant | December 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
“Kahn, They are nonuniformed enemy combatants. Detainees.”
Which is completely irrelevant, but thanks for playing!
77. Faceplant | December 16th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
“Please post more about tortured Islamists. It’s heartwarming to read about those who need to realize what they have been doing to others. I love justice.”
Wow. What a pathetic little man you must be. Condoning torture even when the person who was tortured clearly was innocent.
Just wow. If I ever had any respect for you it’s now gone.
78. SEW | December 16th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
So Faceplant, when are your Gitmo buds moving in with you?
79. Faceplant | December 16th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
“So Faceplant, when are your Gitmo buds moving in with you?”
Game, set, match. Statements like yours above is the only thing you have left when you so badly lose an argument.
I have an idea. Why don’t you try and defend a policy of torture that a) doesn’t work b) assumes that every suspect is guilty until proven innocent. A belief completely at odds with one of the most cherished founding principals of this nation. And c) Is almost certainly illegal under US law.
80. SEW | December 16th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
“Is ‘almost certainly’ illegal under US law”.
Game, set, match. Almost certainly, according to Kos. Whoope. And when are your Gitmo buds to be released? Game, set match!
81. Diana Powe | December 16th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Faceplant,
About 40 years ago being a Republican meant you had an inherent suspicion of the actions of the government, especially the Executive Branch. It’s right there in Goldwater’s convention acceptance speech in 1964. As late as the 1980s, the GOP was still mouthing the idea with President Reagan asserting that “government is the problem”. Even as recently as the last Clinton Administration, there was a great deal of hand-wringing and decrying of a federal government trampling on people. However, with Republicans in control in the White House and, at least until a year ago, in Congress, that Republican core value went right over the side and ker-splash into the ocean. Now, most Republicans are quite content for the government to consolidate power in secret, issue routine assurances that everything they do is legal and accuse anyone who wants the government to obey the law of being beyond the pale in terms of political discourse. However, their former pose will doubtless be resurrected, should there be a Democratic president a year from now.
82. Mark Noonan | December 16th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Diana,
Its really rather sad that you can’t tell a real civil rights violation from a paranoid, leftwing conspiracy theory.
We on the right are highly concerned about government abuses of power - such things as when President Clinton had the IRS audit groups opposed to him politically; such as using heavily armed SWAT teams to bust into the house of unarmed citizens in order to return a child to slavery in Castro’s Cuba…things like that. You know, violations of peoples rights…
83. Faceplant | December 16th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
“Game, set, match. Almost certainly, according to Kos. Whoope. And when are your Gitmo buds to be released? Game, set match!”
According to Kos? The Supreme Court is now Kos? You realize how competely incoherent you sound right?
You can’t defend your own views, so you attack me in order to distract from it. Typical.
84. Faceplant | December 16th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
“We on the right are highly concerned about government abuses of power”
In the meantime President Bush claims the right to simply ignore laws passed by congress, and like the good little authoritarian cheer him on.
It amazes me, the level of intellectual dishonesty that you can stoop to.
85. Diana Powe | December 16th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Mark,
Yes, you’re quite right. When the Executive Branch violates Federal law (50 U.S.C. § 1801 aka the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) at the direction of the President of the United States, which establishes these offenses:
that’s not an abuse of power. They’re only doing it to protect us! How do we know that is absolutely, unequivocably and undeniably true? Because the Federal government, which was so Evil and Malign under Bill Clinton, instantly became so Good and Noble under George W. Bush. Yes, Mark, you are quite the government skeptic, all right, you’re a regular Randy Weaver.
86. Ricorun | December 16th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Mark: We on the right are highly concerned about government abuses of power …
Forgive me for saying so, but an enduring criticism I’ve had is that too many on the right aren’t sufficiently concerned about government abuses of power — not in any sort of equananimous way anyway.
87. Diana Powe | December 16th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Contrary to the legal theories of David Addington, which the Administration has consistently worked to avoid being scrutinized by the federal judiciary, the President of the United States may not authorize any subordinate to violate federal law. There is no provision for that except where it is dealt with by Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States. Who says that the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) violates the law? Why, U. S. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor did just last August:
The Court’s conclusion?
Think she’s some kind of America-hating liberal activist judge? Fine, agitate the Supreme Court to get the case as soon as possible, but I don’t think you’ll find many sympathetic to that idea in the White House. The novel legal theories of Addington and John Woo haven’t had such a good track record there. Until then, the only legal words that matter, the Federal statute and Judge Diggs Taylor’s ruling, say the Federal government you trust so much is committing felonies at the direction of the President. Yep, just some “paranoid, leftwing conspiracy theory”. I wonder where I got it from?
88. SEW | December 17th, 2007 at 4:02 am
Intellectual dishonesty? Almost certainly illegal?
When are your Gitmo buds to be released? Crickets.
89. Faceplant | December 17th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
SEW,
“When are your Gitmo buds to be released? Crickets.”
When you say something of substance maybe I’ll respond to it. Instead all you’ve got left is this idiotic drivel. What are you twelve?
It’s pretty obvious you can’t defend the policy you advocate. I’d just quit now, before you come out looking any dumber or immature.
90. Diana Powe | December 17th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Latest evidence of the Administration’s actions being declared unlawful? A Reagan-appointed federal judge tells the White House that they can’t hide the number of times convicted-criminal Jack Abramoff came around by snatching up the Secret Service-produced visitor logs, declaring them “presidential records” and keeping them away from Freedom of Information Act requests.
Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5huwECNWFJHbvOgIgWHReW7Dfq9BwD8TJD5Q00
91. SteaM | December 17th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Diana,
What is the next move? The judge says they can’t do it. But then what? Who’s going to stop them?
92. Diana Powe | December 17th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
SteaM,
The White House may well elect to use taxpayer money in a desperate attempt to keep public records out of the hands of the taxpaying public by appealing Judge Lamberth’s ruling. If not and they still refuse to release the visitor logs, then either he can independently or upon motion by the plaintiffs, initiate contempt proceedings against the White House for failing to obey his ruling. So, once again, another legal quandary at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: “Should we obey the law or not?” Their history indicates the likely answer will be, “Let’s not obey the law.”
93. SteaM | December 17th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Sure, and with the lawyers that Bush has at his disposal this should be a cakewalk for them to get out of at, as you noted, the cost of the taxpayer.
94. Diana Powe | December 17th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Yes, but let me quote Mark here, “We on the right are highly concerned about government abuses of power…”
95. SEW | December 17th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
“When you say something of substance maybe I’ll respond to it.” Plantbrain
You’ve already responded 6 times. Always without an answer. Because it’s game, set, match. Unless Gitmo detainees, non uniformed combatants are released. If released you are correct, if not released you are wrong. Certainly. Not ‘almost’ certainly. You are an idiot and BDS is getting the best of you. Go Gitmo.
96. SEW | December 17th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Plantbrain, Why don’t you start a movement to impeach Bush/Cheney/Halliburton? Or have Bush/Cheney charged with war crimes since what they have done is ‘almost’ certainly illegal.
Sounds like you have all the ammo you need. Rise to the stature of Francois Kerry who has not released his military record to prove Swiftboat vets liars. Or to the stature of Fat ALgore who has closed the case on global warming but want debate it.
‘Almost’ certainly illegal. What a hoot.
97. Diana Powe | December 17th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The White House must release its visitor logs and cannot hide behind a shield of privilege, a federal judge ruled Monday. The Bush administration has resisted public disclosure while it fights a lawsuit over alleged political influence by conservative Christian leaders.
U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth concluded the information is part of the public record and is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act as “agency records.”
“Because the Secret Service creates, uses and relies on, and stores visitor records, they are under its control,” said Lamberth.
He ordered the Secret Service to produce records within 20 days.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/17/visitor.logs/index.html
98. Diana Powe | December 17th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
From the “be careful what you wish for” files:
Source: http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf
This resolution (H. 799) was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on November 6, 2007 by a vote of 218-194.
Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE00799:@@@L&summ2=m&
99. Diana Powe | December 18th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
And…
And…
And…
Darn, those terrorist-loving agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
100. Faceplant | December 18th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
“You’ve already responded 6 times. Always without an answer.”
I’m not going to answer a questioned based on a childish, and petty insult.
“If released you are correct, if not released you are wrong.”
Further proof that you know literally nothing about the topic we are discussing. The supreme court did not rule on the legality of Guantanamo Bay, they ruled on the legality of the military commissions set up to try detainees. Those military commissions were found to be illegal, forcing Congress to legalize it with legislation (the abhorrant military commissions act).
Now, I’ll go over this one more time, since (according to you) I’ve responded six times, and you still can’t comprehend it. The supreme court originally ruled that the military commissions were illegal because they violated common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which, the court ruled DO apply to detainees being held at Guantanamo. Common article 3 states that detainees must be tried in a “regularly constituted court”. And since the military commissions deviated for the regularly constituted courts martial, it violated that stipulation of common article 3.
Among the other prohibitions in common article 3? A ban on cruel, and degrading treatment.
Now if you want to play dumb some more, and throw out your cute little insults then be my guest. It just further proves how incapable you are at grasping simple concepts.
101. Faceplant | December 18th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
“‘Almost’ certainly illegal. What a hoot.”
Maybe when, like you, you have the intellect of a five year old.
This isn’t some radical concept. It’s already ruled upon by the supreme court. And no matter how many times you repeat this childish, and easily knocked down talking points all it will do is further demonstrate how fringe your set of beliefs really is.
102. Ricorun | December 18th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Diana, I’m guessing all the passages in your #99 comment were lifted from “One Percent Doctrine”, am I right?
103. SEW | December 18th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Plantbrain
6-0 6-0 6-0
Please stop using pink tennis balls, K-Swiss shoes, the Wilson wooden racket and the Che T-shirt. Your brain is fried.
Thanks
104. SEW | December 19th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Tennis news
SEW defeats Plantbrain
6-0 6-0 5-0 withdrew
Plantface left the court yelling obsenities at Cyclops complaining about bad calls. Plantbrain stated the match was a right wing conspiracy and the fans were all part of the Republican attack machine. He cited Billary Clinton as proof, but that document is in the Clinton Library and unavailable. Also cited were Ruth Ginsburg and the Huffington Post. Congressional investigation is expected before years end.
105. Faceplant | December 20th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Actually I was citing a US supreme court decision. But of course since you think that a supreme court decision is actually some mythical liberal conspiracy, then there is no point in talking to you.
At least you’ve successfully demonstrated, to me and your peers (notice none of your buddy’s ran to back you up?) that you’ve completely lost touch with reality. And you wonder why Republicans get a reputation for living in fact free world. Must be easy living that way huh sparky?
Whenever you want to refute that Supreme court ruling let me know. I won’t be holding my breath.
I’ve met a lot of idiots in my day, but you sir, take the cake.
106. Diana Powe | December 20th, 2007 at 12:57 am
My error in failing to link to the source in post # 99.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/17/AR2007121702151.html
107. SEW | December 20th, 2007 at 3:28 am
And when are the detainees/nonuniformed combatants to be released? You obviously have met a lot of idiots, being a Dim, and you demonstrate that very, very well.
That has a name. BDS.
“then there is no point in talking to you”
Thank you, but you have stated this before, yet you keep responding with more nonsense #105 being the 7th response. Take your meds or crawl back in your hole.
108. SEW | December 20th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Meathead/Plantbrain. You did not cite a Supreme Court decision. You cited your interpretation or thr KOS intrepretation of less than a paragraph. That paragraph does not state anything close to your talking point BS. If it did, the detainees would have been released. And stop citing your delusion as a Supreme Court decision. Idiot.
You’re delusional. Take your medications.