Bush to veto ban on waterboarding

Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Level -> Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 6:13:48 AM)
quote: President Bush is poised to veto legislation that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding — a technique that simulates drowning — and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects. The president planned to talk about the veto in his Saturday radio address. Bush has said the bill would harm the government's ability to prevent future attacks. Supporters of the legislation argue that it preserves the United States' right to collect critical intelligence while boosting the country's moral standing abroad. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_torture

farglebargle -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 6:50:44 AM)
"ABOVE THE LAW" is the phrase we have here... It's already unlawful to torture prisoners, in any context, up to and including the CIA Agent's OATH to protect and defend The Constitution, which means they need to obey the clearly expressed Constitutional limits on their personal actions. I'm fed up with the attitude "The Law doesn't apply to us." Bullshit. Of course, the unlawful replacement of "The Few Good US Attorneys" is helping. Fucking Christian Lunatics. Bush and his supporters are *EXACTLY* like the Nazis and Commies like that... And all the tinpot 3rd world dictators.

Level -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 6:55:46 AM)
Come on, fb, not all of us Christians are nuts, nor support waterboarding. [8\|]

kittinSol -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 6:55:48 AM)
How low has the USA sunk?

Level -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 6:56:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol How low has the USA sunk? Down, but not out, sexy lady.

servantforuse -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 7:01:29 AM)
If the CIA needs to use it to get info from terrorists they should be allowed to do so. The security of his Country is what is important here.

Level -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 7:07:55 AM)
What if they're doing it to non-terrorists? Is it "anything goes" when it comes to gathering information?

farglebargle -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 7:07:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level Come on, fb, not all of us Christians are nuts, nor support waterboarding. [8\|] I know that, the problem is that you're not keeping the crazy ones under control. You're letting them waltz around spreading their insane apocalyptic dogma That gives them credibility. Until every one of your clergyman denounces the Bush Family, and their supporters for their Heresy, you're complicit. FWIW, I'm guilty too for letting it go on for too long. I'm not a member of their Insane "Faith", so I'm limited to advocating for the United States Attorney's to do their duty and submit the evidence of Bush Cheney, Rice Rumsfeld, Powell, et. al. to a Grand Jury.... Which , since they replaced the "Few Good US Attorneys" with Fundamentalist Loonies, probably isn't going to happen. Try to enjoy the show.

farglebargle -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 7:09:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse If the CIA needs to use it to get info from terrorists they should be allowed to do so. The security of his Country is what is important here. Then why wouldn't the CIA Agent who uses it BE PROSECUTED FOR HIS CRIME. I can understand the "Ticking Bomb" hypothesis. Granted. But why absolve the CRIMINAL WHO COMMITTED AN ATROCIOUS VIOLENT FELONY of their liability for their OWN CHOICE? "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time".

farglebargle -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 7:12:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol How low has the USA sunk? Just for discussion, here's an interesting point-in-time to consider when pondering your query... Wikipedia: "The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) of the United States Constitution was passed by the Senate on June 12, 1911 and by the House on May 13, 1912. It was ratified on April 8, 1913 and was first put into effect for the election of 1914. It amends Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution to provide for the direct election of Senators by the people of a state rather than their election or appointment by a state legislature."

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 7:17:35 AM)
I say we waterboard Bush and after about an hour ask if he wants to veto it. What a fucking moron.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 7:18:17 AM)
What happened to the 8th Amendment?[8\|]

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 7:20:02 AM)
Did it get reamended? You people you are so confusing.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 7:20:37 AM)
Part of it is in the bathroom at the Whitehouse and part of it is in the bathroom in Congress.

kittinSol -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 7:34:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level [quotePresident Bush is poised to veto legislation that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding — a technique that simulates drowning — and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects. Note the highlight: suspect means innocent until proven guilty. I shudder to think of the people, innocent or guilty, that had to survive this abominable treatment. En masse exodus back to the Middle-Ages...

Archer -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 7:46:06 AM)
Well if we are to believe the reports of the CIA itself. the number is 4. The names of those 4 have been reported to Congress. That said I would want some back up of that number, before I bought into it whole heartedly. While I'm not sure I'm willing to buy into the number being only 4 at this time, I am more than willing to believe that the number is very low. (Note the question of it being the right thing to do is not eliminated by the low number, however the number/scale of waterboarding does speak to how much reporting of it is out of scale.)

kittinSol -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 7:48:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Well if we are to believe the reports of the CIA itself. the number is 4. (...) That said I would want some back up of that number, before I bought into it whole heartedly. Right. I wouldn't believe the word of the CIA, especially not in the present circumstances. Like you, I demand to see.

MusicalBoredom -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 7:52:19 AM)
Ok first this is just insane. Our laws were designed to err on the side of safety -- that is if we operate in the right side of the law then we have good tools to catch a vast majority of the criminals. Some will obviously get away but not at the cost of being the kind of people we strive to be. We could of course swing the other way and just kill every ethic or religious group that might cause terrorist actions, shoot everyone that is on the street after a curfew and completely close our borders and every government building. We could be required to wear transponders and shoot anyone that didn't produce the right signal or drifted into questionable places. Obviously this is an absurd method to stop crime and terrorism. It is only absurd because we have limits to what we are willing to do in the name of self protection. If we start chipping away at those limits and are willing to step out of our on morality in the name of protection we are heading to the type of police state that, according to history, has proven to be the end of every civilization that has moved in that direction. Our justifications or "reasons" should not be enough to move our on morality to the point of doing wrong. Each group of terrorist whether domestic or foreign has "reasons" to justify their actions. In the end however there is nothing to justify those actions just like there is no justification to us resorting to torture and unchecked violence. On another topic, I am a Christian and like Level am not nuts (well not in terms of religious thoughts anyway) nor support waterboarding or even the current administration. I get tired of being lumped into to some category as some of the lunatics we see. We get mad if someone lumps all Muslims into the category as all terrorists, or all women as ditsy housewives, or all young black men with baggy pants as drug dealers but it seems ok to lump all Christians into some category that I have never identified with. End of rant D

pahunkboy -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 8:32:51 AM)
gasp how DARE we be un patriotic. [??] Why do we think the law will follow the law? especially when there is secret laws that we are not allowed to see. That is troubling. A secret law. This voids the "ignorance is no excuse mantra tha t judges scold with.... i reduced to my tv to the 'family pack" which means fox and the like. the bashing of all things liberal is in full swing- even tho we had 8 years of republican rule. add in e-voting machines- and say hello to 100 year war. due to bushes signng statements- he routinely exempts himself from any law. 1. secret laws. 2. signing statements. we need obama

meatcleaver -> RE: Bush to veto ban on waterboarding (3/8/2008 8:35:37 AM)
The next time the US accuses some regime of being uncivilized, the world will laugh. I guess that is the price of voting in a gristle-head.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875