The Republican Thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

I got a kick out of this.

 

LMAO! That's pretty darn funny.

[mr_genius]

isn't that a Portuguese Water dog? that dog is racist and is to blame for all of south america's problems.

 

[mr_genius]

attack of the Obamatron!

 

So today I was having a conversation with a colleague of mine while walking to the train, we were talking s*** about Obama and totally ripping on him. It was hilarious.

 

Some psycho Obama worshipper (a giant obese woman of a creature) goes totally psycho. I told her she probably shouldn't be voting in the first place because I was positive she supports Obama mainly because of some celebrity endorsement she read in People magazine. This led to total rage on her part; she was so mad she was shaking. I literally thought she would die of a heart attack. But hey, she shouldn't listen in on other peoples conversations if she is prone to freak out all the time. That's just common sense.

 

needless to say, it was f***ing awesome.

 

and yes I know this story is pointless.

Edited April 21, 2009 by mr_genius

[BearSox]

I have a question... how can the people who advised the torture be prosecuted? What laws did they break?

[lostfan]

I have a question... how can the people who advised the torture be prosecuted? What laws did they break?

That's why Obama left it up to the DoJ.

[Balta1701]

I have a question... how can the people who advised the torture be prosecuted? What laws did they break?

How's this for fitting in to the Republican thread, I'm going to cite the dissent in the Hamdan case by Justice Clarence Thomas explaining how joining in a conspiracy to violate the laws of war exposes you to legal jeopardy.

“[T]he experience of our wars,” Winthrop 839, is rife with evidence that establishes beyond any doubt that conspiracy to violate the laws of war is itself an offense cognizable before a law-of-war military commission. World War II provides the most recent examples of the use of American military commissions to try offenses pertaining to violations of the laws of war. In that conflict, the orders establishing the jurisdiction of military commissions in various theaters of operation provided that conspiracy to violate the laws of war was a cognizable offense.

Basically, it's the reverse of the Eichmann defense, and it doesn't work either way. If you're trying to justify and cover up orders to violate the rules of war, it doesn't matter if you were doing the "walling" yourself. It is your job under the laws of war to object and to refuse to enable those violations.

 

It's probably not an easy case to make, but it's probably easier than proving perjury. It's similar to charging a mob lawyer for having been a participant in illegal actions.

[kapkomet]

How's this for fitting in to the Republican thread, I'm going to cite the dissent in the Hamdan case by Justice Clarence Thomas explaining how joining in a conspiracy to violate the laws of war exposes you to legal jeopardy.

Basically, it's the reverse of the Eichmann defense, and it doesn't work either way. If you're trying to justify and cover up orders to violate the rules of war, it doesn't matter if you were doing the "walling" yourself. It is your job under the laws of war to object and to refuse to enable those violations.

 

It's probably not an easy case to make, but it's probably easier than proving perjury. It's similar to charging a mob lawyer for having been a participant in illegal actions.

I love it that you're now a legal expert and know that illegal acts were committed.

 

[Balta1701]

I love it that you're now a legal expert and know that illegal acts were committed.

So I take it you would support the appointment of a special prosecutor to conduct an investigation to determine whether or not enough evidence exists for charges to be filed?

[southsider2k5]

Imagine that. Well, I was Watching The Wheels spin by and decided to spout off some Instant Karma.

 

Anyway, time for lunch. Today I'm Giving Peas A Chance.

 

How can you sleep at night?

 

(yeah, I couldn't walk away, sue me!)

[Cknolls]

So I take it you would support the appointment of a special prosecutor to conduct an investigation to determine whether or not enough evidence exists for charges to be filed?

 

 

So it was probably by chance that the details of the "torture" interrogations were released by the administration, but the "supposed" attacks that the interrogations averted, were redacted.

[southsider2k5]

So it was probably by chance that the details of the "torture" interrogations were released by the administration, but the "supposed" attacks that the interrogations averted, were redacted.

 

Which is why Dick Cheney has been campaigning loudly to get the whole story told.

[NorthSideSox72]

Which is why Dick Cheney has been campaigning loudly to get the whole story told.

As long as it isn't him telling it. That guy is seriously whacked in the head.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Which is why Dick Cheney has been campaigning loudly to get the whole story told.

Here's what kinda pisses me off about the whole thing. Cheney keeps saying "but look what info it got us". So, basically, he is saying the ends justify the means, which is NOT what we stand for as a country. We are against torture... no matter what the results. So, for Chaney to say what he is saying, says he doesnt give a rats ass about the constitution, the Geneva conventions, or the rights of humans. As long as we get what we want, the rules be damned.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Here's what kinda pisses me off about the whole thing. Cheney keeps saying "but look what info it got us". So, basically, he is saying the ends justify the means, which is NOT what we stand for as a country. We are against torture... no matter what the results. So, for Chaney to say what he is saying, says he doesnt give a rats ass about the constitution, the Geneva conventions, or the rights of humans. As long as we get what we want, the rules be damned.

 

-The Geneva convention treaties were designed to protect prisoners of war and innocent civilians. These terrorists technically are neither.

 

-Does our constitution even mention torture?

 

-People like Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad lost their right to "human rights" the second they agreed to help orchestrate and contribute to the murder of thousands of innocent Americans. An act that they also have no remorse for and undoubtedly would support the repeat of if they were ever released.

 

And in certain cases the ends may very well justify the means.

 

[southsider2k5]

Here's what kinda pisses me off about the whole thing. Cheney keeps saying "but look what info it got us". So, basically, he is saying the ends justify the means, which is NOT what we stand for as a country. We are against torture... no matter what the results. So, for Chaney to say what he is saying, says he doesnt give a rats ass about the constitution, the Geneva conventions, or the rights of humans. As long as we get what we want, the rules be damned.

 

Now see, that is exactly how I see Obama's economic policy.

[kapkomet]

Here's what kinda pisses me off about the whole thing. Cheney keeps saying "but look what info it got us". So, basically, he is saying the ends justify the means, which is NOT what we stand for as a country. We are against torture... no matter what the results. So, for Chaney to say what he is saying, says he doesnt give a rats ass about the constitution, the Geneva conventions, or the rights of humans. As long as we get what we want, the rules be damned.

The Constutition is not for non-Us citizens. And the Geneva Convention does not apply in this case. So what other straw man GWB's adminstration is evil as hell arguements do all you people want to keep throwing out there? Oh, the next one: "We're better then that" and the next one is "they are not above the law" - no law was broken.

 

When in the hell do you people want to learn that war is a dirty business? No one likes it, but you all want to make it this nicey nicey nicey thing, and it's just not. Oh, next, "it's not a war, it's an overseas contingency operation"... yea, for a moron with nice flowery words spewing out of his mouth every day on tv. And on top of that, if it's not a "war" then the Geneva Conventions really don't apply... so which way do you people want it?

[BigSqwert]

How would you all feel if one day America became a Muslim majority nation and Christians were being detained and tortured because it was feared they might be terrorists?

[NorthSideSox72]

How would you all feel if one day America became a Muslim majority nation and Christians were being detained and tortured because it was feared they might be terrorists?

Since that isn't happening here, at all, to any religion, I fail to see the point of this comparison.

[kapkomet]

How would you all feel if one day America became a Muslim majority nation and Christians were being detained and tortured because it was feared they might be terrorists?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, because CLEARLY that's what happened. Whatever, straw man.

 

[StrangeSox]

The Constutition is not for non-Us citizens. And the Geneva Convention does not apply in this case. So what other straw man GWB's adminstration is evil as hell arguements do all you people want to keep throwing out there? Oh, the next one: "We're better then that" and the next one is "they are not above the law" - no law was broken.

 

When in the hell do you people want to learn that war is a dirty business? No one likes it, but you all want to make it this nicey nicey nicey thing, and it's just not. Oh, next, "it's not a war, it's an overseas contingency operation"... yea, for a moron with nice flowery words spewing out of his mouth every day on tv. And on top of that, if it's not a "war" then the Geneva Conventions really don't apply... so which way do you people want it?

 

What rules apply to foreign nationals that commit crimes in the US?

[HuskyCaucasian]

-The Geneva convention treaties were designed to protect prisoners of war and innocent civilians. These terrorists technically are neither.

This is the "war on terror", right? So, it's a war, we just never officially declared it.

 

-Does our constitution even mention torture?

\

Warrantless wiretapping?

 

-People like Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad lost their right to "human rights" the second they agreed to help orchestrate and contribute to the murder of thousands of innocent Americans. An act that they also have no remorse for and undoubtedly would support the repeat of if they were ever released.

Timothy McVeigh i guess should have been held at Gitmo and subjected to torture as well.

[BigSqwert]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, because CLEARLY that's what happened. Whatever, straw man.

You never answered my earlier question. What does your religion say about torture?

[HuskyCaucasian]

The Constutition is not for non-Us citizens.

Then these "enemy combatants" should be tried in an international court, not US.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

How would you all feel if one day America became a Muslim majority nation and Christians were being detained and tortured because it was feared they might be terrorists?

 

How many American lives would you be willing to trade for the right to say "we do not waterboard in the United States"? 1? 50? 5,000? How would you feel if you lost someone you loved as a result of a terrorist attack on this country that could have been avoided if we were able to gain enough information to stop it ahead of time?

[BigSqwert]

How many American lives would you be willing to trade for the right to say "we do not waterboard in the United States"? 1? 50? 5,000? How would you feel if you lost someone you loved as a result of a terrorist attack on this country that could have been avoided if we were able to gain enough information to stop it ahead of time?

I think the focus on preventing terrorism is a joke compared to health care. How many tens of thousands of people have died from cancer and other diseases in the past 10 years? How many Americans died from terrorist acts in the last 10 years?