So... how 'bout that Bush?

Originally Posted by Snapdragon

not a law, a bill.

my bad there.

What bill? What are you on about? There was nothing that can be VETOED anywhere in that article.

Seriously, how can the president use VETO POWER over a suggestive, internal department memo? It was a PROPOSAL MEMO sent around the justice department and ultimately struck down for being retarded.

Originally Posted by Tempest

Where? Where in that article does it say that? And if you're talking about some other article (which is a complete tangent you couldn't possible expect me to follow) then provide the article or suitable evidence to support your claims.

listen to him yourself: here (where he's saying, and I quote: "i'm vetoing the bill")
here
and here

Originally Posted by Tempest

What bill? What are you on about? There was nothing that can be VETOED anywhere in that article.

are you basing your view in this on nothing but that one article?

You realize that is unrelated to what is being discussed by the CNN article right? Second, that more protestors to waterboarding have been waterboarded than terrorists have been by the CIA (3 of the latter, in 2002-03 only, to my knowledge)? Third, that waterboarding may or may not even consitute terorism as such, since it's sort of like an unending beer bong and people do that for fun. Fourth, that the bill under discussion there was not directly related to torture, but rather to the ability of government agencies to collect information through wiretaps abroad, etc., and included the possibility of perhaps banning questionable methods (sleep deprivation as well, which Japanese do in parlors with computers all the time) which are not presently defined by any regulatory body as torture.

Talk about a mountain out of a nonexistent speck on a completely flat surface.

Again, FDR killed the jews - he vetoed the move to Madagascar.

Originally Posted by Snapdragon

listen to him yourself: here (where he's saying, and I quote: "i'm vetoing the bill")
here
and here



are you basing your view in this on nothing but that one article?

Okay, those videos are a start (that first one is absolutely not reputable with the commentary).

I'm dealing SOLELY with the article we've been discussing for the past half a page at the moment, and you went and threw some new dimension into this that had nothing to do with the topic that was currently at hand. I'll say it again: The justice department memo had NOTHING TO DO with the bush administration proper.

I'm not going to get into the wider waterboarding debate here because that is a topic unto itself and doing so would derail this trainwreck of a thread further. I've just been pointing out the sheer stupidity of some people attributing events to the Bush Administration (Hurricane Katrina, Terri Schivo, their dog getting run over, whatever) when the link is entirely fictitious.

Originally Posted by Tempest

Okay, those videos are a start (that first one is absolutely not reputable with the commentary).

I'm dealing SOLELY with the article we've been discussing for the past half a page at the moment, and you went and threw some new dimension into this that had nothing to do with the topic that was currently at hand. I'll say it again: The justice department memo had NOTHING TO DO with the bush administration proper.

I'm not going to get into the wider waterboarding debate here because that is a topic unto itself and doing so would derail this trainwreck of a thread further. I've just been pointing out the sheer stupidity of some people attributing events to the Bush Administration (Hurricane Katrina, Terri Schivo, their dog getting run over, whatever) when the link is entirely fictitious.

(just ignore the commentary and listen to what he's saying.)

that's fine, I have to get to work anyway, so I'll just make my exit here by saying that fore many reasons, the waterboarding-thing being one of them, I am horrified that a man like that has been given power like he has.

president of the USA is so not the right place for him.

Do you have any idea about the limits/extent of executive power, or are you blaming everything bad that happened during the past 8 years on the President "because he's in charge"?

This is worth responding to specifically:

Originally Posted by John Yoo

Our previous opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his discretion.

Apparently, to George Bush there's no such thing as a limit on executive power. If you don't think the White House can put pressure on the Justice Department, you're kidding yourself. Here is a second article that makes the same assertions as the first.

Originally Posted by Tempest

No, it DOES require analysis and explanation when you're absolutely misrepresenting and misquoting it. That memo came from the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, not the White House. Had it come from the White House itself you'd have a case. However being an internal Justice Department memo it is strictly an internal matter and the memo lasted a total of 9 months where it was fought during that time. The people involved were using speeches Bush had made as a justification to use intensive interrogation tactics against foreign combatants, it was never, NEVER dictated as part of Bush's plan for the way interrogations would be conducted. Governmental agencies have a good level of autonomy. There was no executive order involved in this memo, just some dumbass decisions by the justice department.

It sounds as if you are making the assertion that the White House was somehow unaware of the memo or the torture. If such is the case, I will consider the debate closed, as any who would put forth such an argument are beyond the reach of reason. If it is not, then please specify why it is not Bush's fault for allowing human rights violations to occur on his watch, especially when you have yourself admitted that his speeches were part of the legal justification for such.

Originally Posted by Snapdragon

(just ignore the commentary and listen to what he's saying.)

that's fine, I have to get to work anyway, so I'll just make my exit here by saying that fore many reasons, the waterboarding-thing being one of them, I am horrified that a man like that has been given power like he has.

president of the USA is so not the right place for him.

The president of the united states of America is charged with the defence of his country, if some foms of toture can be used effectively to extract the information needed to obtain advantages or greater safety then it is his duty and responsibility to do so, you are in no position to judge him upon that whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

The president of the united states of America is charged with the defence of his country, if some foms of toture can be used effectively to extract the information needed to obtain advantages or greater safety then it is his duty and responsibility to do so, you are in no position to judge him upon that whatsoever.

Oh yeah, we don't live in a republic democracy, my bad.

Also, torture on any criminal is pretty much banned under the Bill of Rights. But since you're saying that we the American people are not allowed to say what we want about our President, we may as well consider the Bill of Rights as an after thought.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

The president of the united states of America is charged with the defence of his country, if some foms of toture can be used effectively to extract the information needed to obtain advantages or greater safety then it is his duty and responsibility to do so, you are in no position to judge him upon that whatsoever.

Whether or not torture is effective is irrelevant, as it is not accurate.

Originally Posted by Alexo

Oh yeah, we don't live in a republic democracy, my bad.

Also, torture on any criminal is pretty much banned under the Bill of Rights. But since you're saying that we the American people are not allowed to say what we want about our President, we may as well consider the Bill of Rights as an after thought.

Alright, where is it banned, quote it please.

Stop putting words in my mouth, I said the president is chaged with this countries defense and he is responsible and obligated to take every measure to defend her.

People who protested the Vietnam war didn't know why the hell they were protesting it, they just did it because it was popular. They didn't know ****.

You know what happened when the "people" protested? Millions of the people all these hypocrit activists support got killed. Inform yourself before you start spewing stupidity.

Whether or not torture is effective is irrelevant, as it is not accurate.

My post was not about torue being effecitve and you knew that so cut the crap.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Alright, where is it banned, quote it please.

Originally Posted by Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Stop putting words in my mouth, I said the president is chaged with this countries defense and he is responsible and obligated to take every measure to defend her.

In times of war, I understand that some rights are taken away. However, I still think it is wrong and just plain paranoia. I mean, look at what we did to the Japanese during WWII.

People who protested the Vietnam war didn't know why the hell they were protesting it, they just did it because it was popular. They didn't know ****.

Honestly, did you know any of them? Plus, protest is called voicing you opinion, even if you don't know about it. It doesn't matter, because regardless everybody should be allowed to voice their opinion without getting punished (like being put in jail.).

You know what happened when the "people" protested? Millions of the people all these hypocrit activists support got killed. Inform yourself before you start spewing stupidity.

Haha, nice example of blowing up numbers to support your "facts". Most protesters were actually arrested or beaten. Few were killed and its just like I said, why should people who voice their opinion be silenced, when it is our right to express it? Or what you are trying to say is that anybody who disagrees with you should be persecuted?

Originally Posted by Alexo

In times of war, I understand that some rights are taken away. However, I still think it is wrong and just plain paranoia. I mean, look at what we did to the Japanese during WWII.

I'm assuming you mean the detainment areas for Japanese Americans, right? It's might be paranoia, but that was one brutal war, I'm glad we didn't take any chances. I mean seriously, we sent our own cells and spies over to other countries. And in all honesty stop bellyaching about lost liberties, I know almost no normal citizen's life has changed in the least.(and please don't quite Ben Franklin, as times have drastically changed since his times).

However if you truely want torture discussion, bringing up the Japanese in WWII probably isn't the best idea. Remember the Bataan march anyone?

Eh, I'm against big government for that reason as I think they should just stay out of the peoples business. Its pretty much my libertarian views on why I'm iffy about basic freedoms being taken away during times of war.

Also, just because our enemy tortures troops doesn't give us the right to do it back. The only thing that does is inflame the enemy even more and makes them harder to fight. This makes people who came to this country form the country we are fighting lose faith in America and thus we lose valuable allies.

What we do hardly constitues as harsh torture. Sleep depervation by the Red Hot Chilli Peppers? Hardly something as severe as some cases of mind washing that was seen in early wars.

That being said I don't mind if the government decides to listen in on one of my oh so engaging phone conversations, or if they look into some of my files. I'm not hiding anything, so I don't care. Once again, this would happen even if you were never informed. If you weren't informed your life wouldn't have seemed to change, much like it hasn't even though you do know. So just ignore it, you'll be much happier than you would be if you just kept complaining that your phone conversations about the yankees are sacred thing, or any other type of thing the government might do to "infringe" upon your rights.

People who protested the Vietnam war didn't know why the hell they were protesting it, they just did it because it was popular. They didn't know ****.

Everyone who didn't like Vietnam really did, but pretended not to in order to be cool! YEAH!

Because, of course, being opposed to bombing the **** out of a developing nation, not because they are any threat to you or others, but because they're to the wrong side of "centrist", is, of course, impossible.

And in all honesty stop bellyaching about lost liberties, I know almost no normal citizen's life has changed in the least.

Considering that this country was founded on the idea that we should revolt if our liberties are infringed upon, that's not a very valid argument.

I mean, yes, in this scenario it doesn't impact our lives. However, that is generally the case with a lot of lost liberties, but that doesn't make them any better. Consider, for example, if the government took over the media completely and crushed freedom of press. To the vast majority of people, this would really make no difference.

In fact, it would make much less difference if they weren't informed, which you somehow made one of your supporting points.

Does this somehow make it less of a total attack on our guaranteed constitutional rights?

Of course, in a matter of degree, the Patriot Act is not nearly as bad, and I was the first to point that out. However, I don't think people should be quiet about lost liberties, I think people should be as loud and obnoxious about them as they possibly can.

Originally Posted by Igna

Considering that this country was founded on the idea that we should revolt if our liberties are infringed upon, that's not a very valid argument.

I mean, yes, in this scenario it doesn't impact our lives. However, that is generally the case with a lot of lost liberties, but that doesn't make them any better. Consider, for example, if the government took over the media completely and crushed freedom of press. To the vast majority of people, this would really make no difference.

In fact, it would make much less difference if they weren't informed, which you somehow made one of your supporting points.

Does this somehow make it less of a total attack on our guaranteed constitutional rights?

Of course, in a matter of degree, the Patriot Act is not nearly as bad, and I was the first to point that out. However, I don't think people should be quiet about lost liberties, I think people should be as loud and obnoxious about them as they possibly can.

Sorry, but even though we have these rights, we really abuse them too much. Freedom of speach/press has really screwed us up sometimes during wars because they "had the right" to report what they did. The right to bear arms shouldn't mean that you're allowed to own about 20 guns, guns thats main design is to hurt humans.

So no, I think I'll have to disagree and say that people should be willing to give somethings up for the good of the country. Rights shouldn't be treated like rights sometimes(if that makes sense) they should be treated as privledges.

There's something I'd like to point out right around here.

It's been known for hundreds of years that the rights expressed in the Constitution have limits. You've probably heard of the theoretical scenario where someone shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater isn't protected by freedom of speech because the action of the individual would hurt the community. I don't know about you, but I'd say that a bunch of terrorists plotting to kill Americans in the thousands is a much greater threat than a panicked group of people in a theater.

Sorry, but even though we have these rights, we really abuse them too much. Freedom of speach/press has really screwed us up sometimes during wars because they "had the right" to report what they did. The right to bear arms shouldn't mean that you're allowed to own about 20 guns, guns thats main design is to hurt humans.

So no, I think I'll have to disagree and say that people should be willing to give somethings up for the good of the country. Rights shouldn't be treated like rights sometimes(if that makes sense) they should be treated as privledges.

I never said that our rights were unlimited, if that's what you mean. I don't see how the first paragraph pertains to what I was saying.

And I would say that rights should be treated like rights. My reasoning behind this? The fact that they are rights.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

The president of the united states of America is charged with the defence of his country, if some foms of toture can be used effectively to extract the information needed to obtain advantages or greater safety then it is his duty and responsibility to do so, you are in no position to judge him upon that whatsoever.

oh come on now.
of course I have all the right in the world to think and say whatever I want about him and his actions.