Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
LHStarAlliance
Topic Author
Posts: 2096
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:15 pm

Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:52 am

Is Bush still a democrat with an understanding of a constitutional State , respecting the Human Rights ?

I don't think so .. The fathers of the American Constitution would turn over in their grave if they knew what going on.



Constantin
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5917
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:59 am

Not all of us know what you are referring to here.

A link might help...
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:13 am



Quoting LHStarAlliance (Thread starter):
Is Bush still a democrat with an understanding of a constitutional State , respecting the Human Rights ?

I don't think so .. The fathers of the American Constitution would turn over in their grave if they knew what going on.



Constantin



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 1):
Not all of us know what you are referring to here.

A link might help...

Here is a link.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336068,00.html

There is nothing in the US Constitution that addresses this subject.

Water-boarding is not "torture". Neither is any of the other 16 techniques in the US Army manual. Without being able to use these techniques, how can President Bush be able to avoid future terror attacks in the US, or EU.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15079
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:39 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Without being able to use these techniques, how can President Bush be able to avoid future terror attacks in the US, or EU.

Errrmm, by addressing the root causes of terrorism, rather than torturing people who will in all probability never have their day in court, thanks to his bypassing completely the judicial system. Just an idle thought. Terrorism is above all things, a crime. It is against the law. The purpose of the law is to protect the innocent. By cutting a swathe through the protection of the law in a futile attempt to root out terrorism, he leaves less protection for any of us. Obviously that thought doesn't even occur to you.
 
Rara
Posts: 2310
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:41 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:23 am



Quoting LHStarAlliance (Thread starter):
Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Good for Clinton.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:42 am

The way I see it, this is just another treasonous crime.

Waterboarding is torture according to John McCain. And everybody else who has half a brain.

I just wish real Americans would start taking our country back from these scoundrels. Where is our law enforcement?

I hope that after Bush is finished in office, his record can be undone in record time. Whether McCain or Hillary or Obama wins. I get the feeling the crimes, the ethnic cleansing of Iraq, etc are going to stop. In time, although Bush is not liable under US law for anything, I do hope we fully link up with the Hague War Crimes Tribunal. Although sadly there is no death penalty available there, Bush would be fully liable for his actions against humanity.

With any luck, Osama Bin Laden and Bush will have cells right next to each other in the bowels of the Hague. They are the same scum in my book.

Just because a man wears a suit, has a Harvard MBA and a rich daddy doesn't mean he's not a war criminal. He still is.
 
flynavy
Posts: 2179
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:21 am

Cue the verbal flatulence of the resident xenophobic right-wingers in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. I suppose they will denounce and question General Maples' patriotism as well.



A note to the moderators: this thread has the potential to be a little too controversial. Perhaps we should delete it before anyone gets offended?  stirthepot 
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:37 am



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 3):
Errrmm, by addressing the root causes of terrorism, rather than torturing people who will in all probability never have their day in court, thanks to his bypassing completely the judicial system.

Since the 1960s, what has the US not done to address terrorist? We have sent millions to build mosks (sp.), feed people, give them water, teach farming in the desert, address the "Palistinaian issue" (which the Arabs ignor).

Now we decide to just kill them. It is easier and cheaper.
 
flynavy
Posts: 2179
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:44 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Now we decide to just kill them. It is easier and cheaper.

And where are the weapons of mass destruction, again?

Oh wait, nevermind them. I forgot that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.  Yeah sure
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15079
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:45 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Now we decide to just kill them. It is easier and cheaper.

When you make statements like that, are you at all surprised that they "hate your freedoms" ?  Yeah sure (Not American freedoms, just yours).

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
mosks (sp.),

Yersss. Says it all, really.

Fortunately I'm reasonably sure you're not representative of mainstream American thought. Heck, I'm not even sure you're representative of any kind of thought beyond "Beer. Good."
 
flynavy
Posts: 2179
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:48 am



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 9):
Fortunately I'm reasonably sure you're not representative of mainstream American thought.

Certainly not. And not representative of every U.S. Armed Forces veteran, either (at least, not this one).
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:13 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 3):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Without being able to use these techniques, how can President Bush be able to avoid future terror attacks in the US, or EU.

Errrmm, by addressing the root causes of terrorism, rather than torturing people who will in all probability never have their day in court, thanks to his bypassing completely the judicial system. Just an idle thought. Terrorism is above all things, a crime. It is against the law. The purpose of the law is to protect the innocent. By cutting a swathe through the protection of the law in a futile attempt to root out terrorism, he leaves less protection for any of us. Obviously that thought doesn't even occur to you.

 checkmark  That pretty much sorts it out JGPH, the link provided by KC135 also covers some of those points, and if FOX knows about corrupting the evidence, you would think news might have filtered through to Bush.

Where did this obsession with torture arrive from? In my lifetime, first it was railing against the Nazi torturers, then against those from N Korea, bouts of grumbles about the Russians, then the N Vietnamese, forgotten who would have come after them and then in the bright new century it is the US wanting to make the running.

Why? I don't know about the others, but the papers from the Gestapo showed they realised they got very little useful information from torture, but no, you cannot believe a bunch of Nazis can you?
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5917
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:38 pm

What happened to good old intelligence? And not the torturing kind...

The cheap and easy way usually ends up being more expensive and ineffective than anything else. Works for fixing cars as well as fighting terrorism.

A political veto always sounds to me like not being able to justify something, thus admitting being wrong, and pushing it through anyway. Bush sure has used it a lot. All for the 'greater' good, I'm sure...
 
gosimeon
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:45 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:06 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
There is nothing in the US Constitution that addresses this subject.

Water-boarding is not "torture". Neither is any of the other 16 techniques in the US Army manual. Without being able to use these techniques, how can President Bush be able to avoid future terror attacks in the US, or EU.

I thought the US was fighting the guys who use torture (lets face it, making somebody feel like they're drowning constantly IS torture), and have military courts sentencing people to death. Instead, America are doing these things, and it sucks.

Using these techniques does not do an awful lot to help avoid future terror attacks. If anything, it will re-energise the enemy and provide them with more evidence of the "evils of the US" to feed potential recruits.

I hope that a Democrat gets in to the White House, then we will start to see the America the world learned to love again, not the imposing Government Bush has created (or at least, let those around him create).
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:26 pm

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 3):
Errrmm, by addressing the root causes of terrorism,

Tell me, at what point do we stop trying to be so understanding (and you cannot deny that western society has bent over backwards to understand them - far more than they have tried to understand us)? Should we have tried to understand Nazism and reach some understanding?



[Edited 2008-03-08 06:43:55]
 
Queso
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:30 pm



Quoting Flynavy (Reply 6):
A note to the moderators: this thread has the potential to be a little too controversial. Perhaps we should delete it before anyone gets offended?

Too late, I am already offended.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 13):
This is a personal message from the forum moderator

Violation of Forum Rule 5(h):
"All correspondence between members and the Forum Moderators is confidential. Regardless of the method of delivery (email, deletion notice, PM, etc.) the communication on either side is not to be shared or distributed without the express written consent of the involved member and Moderator(s)."
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:39 pm

Quoting Queso (Reply 15):
All correspondence between members and the Forum Moderators is confidential. Regardless of the method of delivery (email, deletion notice, PM, etc.) the communication on either side is not to be shared or distributed without the express written consent of the involved member and Moderator(s)."


Then they really must ban me for bringing my personal communication with an ex-mod into the open. It's obvious, I hope, from his decision that the moderator was trying to repress a political point he himself disliked to be discussed.

[Edited 2008-03-08 06:48:23]
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:47 pm



Quoting LHStarAlliance (Thread starter):
The fathers of the American Constitution would turn over in their grave if they knew what going on.

The same fathers that were ok with buying and selling people? The same fathers that were ok with duels? The same fathers that thought nothing of forcibly removing native americans from their lands? Are those the fathers you are talking about?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 3):
Errrmm, by addressing the root causes of terrorism, rather than torturing people who will in all probability never have their day in court, thanks to his bypassing completely the judicial system.

So you are saying that military courts are not legal?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 3):
Terrorism is above all things, a crime. It is against the law.

And we tried through the 90's to address it as a violation of civil law and that tack did not work. If the terrorists were confined to one country it might, but that is not the case.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
Where did this obsession with torture arrive from?

Where did this notion that it is the first interrogation technique used on a prisoner begin?

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 12):
What happened to good old intelligence? And not the torturing kind...

Still in use.

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 12):
The cheap and easy way usually ends up being more expensive and ineffective than anything else. Works for fixing cars as well as fighting terrorism.

Why do those that are against having water boarding available for use, as well as the other types of interrogation techniques that were going to be outlawed by the bill, describe it as the though they are the only techniques used? Why do those that are against this method make it sound as if the first thing that a prisoner is subjected to is water boarding, or that we have prisoners lined up around the block waiting their turn to be water boarded?

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 12):
A political veto always sounds to me like not being able to justify something, thus admitting being wrong, and pushing it through anyway.

Perhaps in this case the Presidents sense of National Security, which he is directly responsible for, overrides an attempt by the Congress to usurp the Executive branches authority.

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 12):
Bush sure has used it a lot.

 laughing   laughing  You need to do some reading friend. Up until the 2006 elections he was accused of not vetoing anything!

Quoting Gosimeon (Reply 15):
I thought the US was fighting the guys who use torture

We are.

Quoting Gosimeon (Reply 15):
and have military courts sentencing people to death.

Terrorists have military courts? Is that like the ones where the terrorists stand in front of a video camera with hood over their heads, read some charges, pronounce the victim guilty without a word from him or her, and then saw their head off on camera?

Quoting Gosimeon (Reply 15):
If anything, it will re-energise the enemy and provide them with more evidence of the "evils of the US" to feed potential recruits.

Short of giving them all a million dollars and a home in Beverly Hills it seems that everything "provides them with evidence of the evils of the U.S. and encourages recruits to sign up. Yet strangely the left claims they do not hate our freedoms?

Quoting Gosimeon (Reply 15):
I hope that a Democrat gets in to the White House, then we will start to see the America the world learned to love again

 laughing   laughing  Now there is a descriptive effort. Care to further that statement with some detail?
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:47 pm

I'm with novellist Steven King on the topic of waterboarding: if it's as harmless as Bush and his sycophants routinely assert, then waterboard Jenna Bush and get her take on it.
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:52 pm



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 18):
if it's as harmless as Bush and his sycophants routinely assert, then waterboard Jenna Bush and get her take on it.

And why not introduce the faked firing squad -- after all, nobody will get hurt!
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:53 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15):
Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 3):
Errrmm, by addressing the root causes of terrorism,

Tell me, at what point do we stop trying to be so understanding (and you cannot deny that western society has bent over backwards to understand them - far more than they have tried to understand us)? Should we have tried to understand Nazism and reach some understanding?

Understanding terrorism and being understanding to terrorists is a distinction that you appear not to be making. Quite an error. You show a lack of understanding by following the proposition of trying to understand Nazism (to which the answer is yes) to reaching an understanding (to which the answer is was tried and was unsuccessful so on balance no). While on that topic, it might be worth wondering how many European lives were lost because Roosevelt to Churchill's considerable annoyance suddenly insisted on Unconditional Surrender. Greatest gift to Hitler's lunacy for many a year. And the irony was that when push came to shove, Truman did not insist on unconditional surrender with Japan, and probably a very good thing for the health of a large number of allied prisoners and not a few servicemen too.

Reading Blood and Rage: A Cultural History of Terrorism by Michael Burleigh
Harper Collins would be a good start. As Harper Collins has "gone down" as it were, you will have to put up with this review.
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/...,,2259415,00.html#article_continue

In which, you find inter alia,
"And for this, Burleigh's evident ability to assimilate and communicate incisively is perfect. Knotty problems are elegantly reduced to pithy phrases. Ideology, he tells us, 'is like the detonator that allows a pre-existing chemical mix to explode'. Al-Qaeda, he rightly says, is ideologically vulnerable. Myths such as the idea that Osama bin Laden was a creation of the CIA or responsible for the failed 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre are debunked. For several years, these errors have been almost impossible to contradict, however much field research you might have done that proves otherwise.

In one of the best passages of the book, Burleigh explains why he rejects the term 'Islamofascism', which is useful coming from a respected writer on Nazi Germany. In another, he distinguishes carefully between 'Islamism', the attempt through political means and proselytising to 'Islamicise' the state, and the 'Jihadi-Salafism', the specific ideology lying behind the current violence.

His accounts of the social problems lying behind the explosion of Islamism in Egypt in the 1970s, General Zia ul-Haq's regime in Pakistan and of the vicious 'War of Liberation' in Algeria are even-handed and sensitive. The pages on suicide bombing are a useful summary of the literature on the subject. Despite telling us that the 'entirely conventional approach of unthreading jihadists' ideological and religious genealogies ... does not really explain their state of mind', Burleigh nicely explains the role of key thinkers such as Sayed Qutb and Abdullah Azzam in the evolution of modern Islamic militancy."

Not that the book is perfect, the reviewer add:
"Burleigh is right to scythe through the tedious cant about the West bearing the primary responsibility for Islamic militancy, but his tirades about all that is wrong in the UK would be more at home in an editorial in a right-wing newspaper or, at a push, in a work of contemporary British social or cultural history. As his book amply demonstrates, Islamic militancy is a phenomenon with roots lying deep in complex cultural, social, political and religious factors that go back decades, if not centuries. Some are to be found in the Islamic world (if such a discrete entity actually exists), some no doubt in the West and a significant number in the interaction of the two over a millennium or more of co-existence."

But it is the sort of book, there are others that you should read if you think that trying to understand terrorism is pointless.

And the closing para of the review is:

"Strangely, Burleigh's practical suggestions for ending or at least curbing Islamic terrorism include many of those promoted by the liberals he apparently so dislikes: refusing to deal with repressive Arab governments that spend billions on disseminating ultra-conservative Islam, promoting democracy where possible but not always and everywhere, using military force only as part of a broad strategy, favouring legal means where possible, encouraging Western curiosity about Islamic and Arab culture, avoiding egregious human rights abuses, reaching out to moderate Muslims, hearts-and-minds based counterinsurgency tactics, and so forth. All useful stuff. After all, a sensible, reasonable, balanced approach is what is needed."

You can also hear the author at :
http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common...&t=8%20March%202008&p=2&player=wmp
Click "listen to next hour". The clip is about 20 mins long.
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:08 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
The same fathers that were ok with buying and selling people? The same fathers that were ok with duels? The same fathers that thought nothing of forcibly removing native americans from their lands?

fine, but does any of the above still take place by people on the U.S. payroll?
 
Farcry
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:39 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:26 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Water-boarding is not "torture". Neither is any of the other 16 techniques in the US Army manual. Without being able to use these techniques, how can President Bush be able to avoid future terror attacks in the US, or EU.

Well KC135. You seem to know your stuff. Would you care to elaborate on the other 16 'techniques' of gathering information that is in the US Army manual? Then could you please enlighten me on this part of the above quote...

'how can President Bush be able to avoid future terror attacks in the US, or EU'.

Are you seriously saying the POTUS is worried about us in Europe? Do you or the majority of Americans really give a stuff about our security above yours? The UK has known terrorism for many years. Remember the IRA? Do you also remember where a lot of their funding came from? Yep! The good old US of A. Thanks for your support.
America also wants to establish a missile defence system in Europe. Obviously to protect us. Do you think we're all blind?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Now we decide to just kill them. It is easier and cheaper.

Now you sound just like another fanatic who decided to go for 'A Final Solution'.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15079
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:34 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
So you are saying that military courts are not legal?

For military crimes, possibly, under the Code of Military Justice. Since none of those being held are charged with any breaches of military law, they should be tried in civil courts. They are (or should be) charged with civil crimes. Terrorism is after all a civil crime, the military has no place in charging them (or even holding them without trial - that little fact is peculiarly shameful - the so-called defenders of our freedoms detaining people without trial - the irony is just chilling).

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
(and you cannot deny that western society has bent over backwards to understand them - far more than they have tried to understand us)?

How so ? By pandering the undemocratic and viciously repressive governments in the Middle East because of economic interests and the fear of Communism ? By overthrowing democratically elected governments (or close to) and replacing them with compliant client regimes ? By an astonishingly one-sided policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ? Aid is one thing (and it's a good thing) but by interfering with the inevitable development of a truly indigenous democratic process we have sowed deep-seated resentment it will take generations to overcome. Thanks for that.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
And we tried through the 90's to address it as a violation of civil law and that tack did not work. If the terrorists were confined to one country it might, but that is not the case.

Yes, the whole "War on Tourism" thing has worked out SO well - more terrorists than ever, and not a single real terrorist actually brought to trial (OK, Mussawi, but he didn't actually DO anything - he just helped). You got rid of Saddam, but what have you replaced him with ? Errmmm - not a lot, really.

It has been possible to in other countries to end terrorism by judicial and other means (Northern Ireland springs to mind) - true there was strong military involvement and cost, but the process once the perpetrators were caught was always (or almost always) based on civil law. The dearest wish of convicted IRA prisoners was to be considered "Prisoners of War" - they never were, and that was right. They were prisoners because they were convicted of crimes. By declaring "war" on terrorism, you are giving it and it's perpetrators a status they don't deserve.
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6327
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:02 pm



Quoting AverageUser (Reply 16):
the moderator was trying to repress a political point he himself disliked to be discussed.

Welcome to a.net!!!
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:09 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 23):
For military crimes, possibly, under the Code of Military Justice

The military code of justice allows for military tribunals which is where certain terrorists are receiving their trials. It is not the first time, nor the first time in a long time, nor are we the only country that allows for such, that such a method has been used to find a judgement.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 23):
Terrorism is after all a civil crime

If it is committed within a countries borders, such as Terry McVieigh or Eric Rudolph. OBL and his henchmen never stepped foot on our soil so you can't charge them in a civil court since you can't get them there to do it by using civilian law enforcement.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 23):
Since none of those being held are charged with any breaches of military law,

What? What is "armed resistance against U.S. military forces"?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 23):
the military has no place in charging them

As described above they do, and they have. If they couldn't how would they charge spies and saboteurs during wartime since they rarely wear the uniform of their country?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 23):
Yes, the whole "War on Tourism" thing has worked out SO well - more terrorists than ever, and not a single real terrorist actually brought to trial (OK, Mussawi, but he didn't actually DO anything - he just helped). You got rid of Saddam, but what have you replaced him with ? Errmmm - not a lot, really.

Not one attack on our soil or against a U.S. interest outside of the combat zones compared to one attack roughly every two to three years during the 90's when we treated international terrorism as a "civilian" problem. We got rid of Saddam, and you are saying a free and fairly elected government with a Constitution is not a suitable replacement?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 23):
It has been possible to in other countries to end terrorism by judicial and other means (Northern Ireland springs to mind) - true there was strong military involvement and cost, but the process once the perpetrators were caught was always (or almost always) based on civil law.

Because, on the whole, they committed their crimes in Northern Ireland. They weren't sitting in a cave in Afghanistan, protected by an illegal government, planning and directing their attacks.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 23):
The dearest wish of convicted IRA prisoners was to be considered "Prisoners of War" - they never were, and that was right.

Because as McVeigh and Rudolph weren't soldiers in a foreign army, neither were the IRA.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 23):
By declaring "war" on terrorism, you are giving it and it's perpetrators a status they don't deserve.

Unless that terrorism is being committed by international terrorists who are sponsored or harbored by sovereign states. In that case you are left with little choice since the sovereign state refuses to or is unable to turn them over.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15810
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:15 pm

As I have often said on this subject - if waterboarding was or were to be be used on an American or partner country soldier or a civilian hostage we would consider it torture and wrong. I believe like many that if Pres. Bush were allow this bill to pass, then he would be admitting 'waterboarding' to be a form of torture and put him, many in his administration as well as some in the CIA at risk for international criminal tribunals.
There are plenty of very effective ways to interrogate people and get good info rather than lowering ourselves to use methods that if others use them we would see as barbaric.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15079
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:23 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25):
What? What is "armed resistance against U.S. military forces"?

I don't know what it is, but what it isn't is terrorism. And if it's carried out in a foreign country, it's called "resisting". Resisting a foreign invasion force isn't illegal. Normally you get medals for that.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25):
nor are we the only country that allows for such

But do you want to drag your justice system down to the level of China's, or Iran's, or Libya's ? Really ? The smart and conscientious choice is to be better than the terrorists.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25):
If it is committed within a countries borders, such as Terry McVieigh or Eric Rudolph. OBL and his henchmen never stepped foot on our soil so you can't charge them in a civil court since you can't get them there to do it by using civilian law enforcement.

So what would you call those who orchestrated IRA terrorism from the comfort of homes and pubs in Massachussetts and New York ? Would a bombing raid on South Boston have been an acceptible reaction by the UK government ?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25):
Unless that terrorism is being committed by international terrorists who are sponsored or harbored by sovereign states. In that case you are left with little choice since the sovereign state refuses to or is unable to turn them over.

See above. Yes, Afghanistan had it coming, and yes the invasion was fully justified (and more importantly, legal). But it still hasn't worked, because the root causes still haven't been addressed. The root causes lie in the militancy generated by undemocratic governments in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and fostered by ignorance and prejudice in Iran and Afghanistan. State sponsorship of terrorism does need more than civil law, but the aim must always be to bring the perpetrators to trial. In public, with due process of law. To show the perpetrators what they are really fighting against, which is democracy and the rule of law.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:33 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
Where did this obsession with torture arrive from?

Simple: 24

Some members of this forum actually believe that it is an accurate documentary on how and why torture is an excellent - no, the only! - tool to save the world.  hypnotized 
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:40 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 27):
Resisting a foreign invasion force isn't illegal. Normally you get medals for that.

If you are a citizen of that country, which most of those fighting in Afghanistan weren't. Their common denominator was the same splinter belief of a religion

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 27):
But do you want to drag your justice system down to the level of China's, or Iran's, or Libya's ?

Nations far more democratic than those have provisions for military tribunals, and have you forgotten Nuremberg and Tokyo?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 27):
So what would you call those who orchestrated IRA terrorism from the comfort of homes and pubs in Massachussetts and New York ?

Financiers and if evidence was strong enough to charge them with aiding and abetting I would have no problem seeing them charged.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 27):
Yes, Afghanistan had it coming, and yes the invasion was fully justified (and more importantly, legal).

Then you contradict what you said above. If the invasion was legal, then the people ruling Afghanistan were doing so illegally and their soldiers were acting illegally in resisting the United States.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 27):
To show the perpetrators what they are really fighting against, which is democracy and the rule of law.

But when the perpetrators are not interested in our form of democracy and our rule of law you are not showing them anything.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15079
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:46 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 29):
Then you contradict what you said above. If the invasion was legal, then the people ruling Afghanistan were doing so illegally and their soldiers were acting illegally in resisting the United States.

But you said these weren't soldiers. And resistance in any invasion is inevitable and shouldn't come as a surprise. Or be treated as a crime.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 29):
But when the perpetrators are not interested in our form of democracy and our rule of law you are not showing them anything.

Yes you are. You are showing them that your system is better than theirs, and that you carry the conviction of your beliefs. Descend to their level and no matter what happens, they win.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 29):
Nations far more democratic than those have provisions for military tribunals, and have you forgotten Nuremberg and Tokyo?

If we'd had an International Criminal Court back then, the Nuremberg and Tokyo war-crimes trials would have been held there. War crimes are a civil crime too.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 29):
Financiers and if evidence was strong enough to charge them with aiding and abetting I would have no problem seeing them charged.

How is that different to OBL ? He's the mastermind and financier too. But I don't hear you calling for his speedy trial.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:03 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 30):
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 29):
Then you contradict what you said above. If the invasion was legal, then the people ruling Afghanistan were doing so illegally and their soldiers were acting illegally in resisting the United States.

But you said these weren't soldiers. And resistance in any invasion is inevitable and shouldn't come as a surprise. Or be treated as a crime.

I wonder if Rjdxer is going to provide us a list of the inhabitants of Gitmo and the actions in which they were captured by US troops. Don't worry Rjdxer, it will be a short list AFAIK.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 28):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
Where did this obsession with torture arrive from?

Simple: 24

Some members of this forum actually believe that it is an accurate documentary on how and why torture is an excellent - no, the only! - tool to save the world.

I suppose you could be right. But there was such a rich pre-existing literature to tell anyone with an interest it was rubbish, but oh dear, that was in books. Best wait for the film to come - but actually in many cases the film DID come. Oh well back to the so-successful tiger cages of Vietnam.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:24 pm



Quoting Klaus (Reply 28):
Some members of this forum actually believe that it is an accurate documentary on how and why torture is an excellent - no, the only! - tool to save the world.

Anyone who believes that anything on that show is in any way associated with reality is deluding themselves. That goes not only for the torture involved, but as to how easily criminals can break out of holding cells, and agents drive in record time from one point in LA to another.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 30):
But you said these weren't soldiers.

AQ fighting alongside the Taliban were not soldiers. Even the Taliban could not be considered true soldiers since the government they were representing was not recognized save by one other country.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 30):
You are showing them that your system is better than theirs, and that you carry the conviction of your beliefs.

Since they already do not believe in the system, it is hardly likely that they will consider any trial as "proof" that our system is better than theirs.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 30):
Descend to their level and no matter what happens, they win.

Again, if we were using torture on a regular basis or on every prisoner than that idea might have merit. But the fact is that it is not used on every prisoner nor as a first option unlike the terrorist who have a common habit of holding a show trial and then cutting the victims head off on camera.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 30):
If we'd had an International Criminal Court back then, the Nuremberg and Tokyo war-crimes trials would have been held there.

But we didn't and that does not change the fact that military tribunals existed and serve a purpose. Not everyone believes in submitting to "International Courts" since a huge question of sovereignty comes in to play. I must be honest and admit I am not one in favor of one world government or rule.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 30):
War crimes are a civil crime too.

As was proved by trying Saddam in Iraq and many people had a problem with that.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 30):
How is that different to OBL ?

The people in Boston who gave money to help the IRA did not direct attacks against British soldiers. First charge of that I've ever heard.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 30):
But I don't hear you calling for his speedy trial.

Speedy as possible once he is caught. Trying someone in abstentia has always seemed rather unjustified to me. A person should be there to defend himself.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15079
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:35 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 32):
Even the Taliban could not be considered true soldiers since the government they were representing was not recognized save by one other country.

What's recognition got to do with anything ? There was no other government-in-waiting or government-in-exile. The Taliban were the de-facto and de-iure government of Afghanistan. The US seemed perfectly happy to do business with them for the oil pipeline.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 32):
Since they already do not believe in the system, it is hardly likely that they will consider any trial as "proof" that our system is better than theirs.

The point is not what the terrorist believes, it's what you believe. If you don't believe that civil law will deal with these people effectively, then what is the point of fighting so hard to defend a system you don't trust or believe in ? If it's worth defending, you have to live with the results.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 32):
Again, if we were using torture on a regular basis or on every prisoner than that idea might have merit. But the fact is that it is not used on every prisoner nor as a first option unlike the terrorist who have a common habit of holding a show trial and then cutting the victims head off on camera.

It shouldn't be used as any option at all. That is not how it works. Torture is barbaric, it is not used by civilised states - ever. That is how we define our civilised-ness.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 32):
But we didn't and that does not change the fact that military tribunals existed and serve a purpose. Not everyone believes in submitting to "International Courts" since a huge question of sovereignty comes in to play. I must be honest and admit I am not one in favor of one world government or rule.

The whole point of international courts is that they are able to overcome the barriers of sovereignty and so-called "sovereign immunity" when dealing with people who commit crimes on an international or global scale, where national justice systems either don't exist or cannot agree on how best to deal with a given case. In the case of Saddam his crime was predominantly domestic and so to try him domestically was appropriate. An international criminal court has to be the ultimate deterrent for those who hold their own national justice systems in contempt. It is not a question of "one world government" - merely a multilateral defence mechanism, like NATO.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 32):
As was proved by trying Saddam in Iraq and many people had a problem with that.



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 32):
As was proved by trying Saddam in Iraq and many people had a problem with that.



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 32):
The people in Boston who gave money to help the IRA did not direct attacks against British soldiers. First charge of that I've ever heard.



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 32):
Speedy as possible once he is caught. Trying someone in abstentia has always seemed rather unjustified to me. A person should be there to defend himself.

 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:38 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 32):
Anyone who believes that anything on that show is in any way associated with reality is deluding themselves.

Then why does that knowledge not show up in your argumentation in any way?
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:48 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 32):
Even the Taliban could not be considered true soldiers since the government they were representing was not recognized save by one other country.

Lets try three countries; Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates and of course the state of Texas, whose Governor at the time was photograph with members of the Taliban on a visit to Texas, encouraging them to invest in the Lone Star State.

So you're saying that a X number of countries must recognize your government before your soldiers are considered soldiers? What would that number be? Since the Taliban controls 2/3 of Afghanistan who is really the legitimate army of Afghanistan now?
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:22 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 31):
I wonder if Rjdxer is going to provide us a list of the inhabitants of Gitmo and the actions in which they were captured by US troops. Don't worry Rjdxer, it will be a short list AFAIK.

Why should I? I trust that they are there because they are deemed a threat and when they are not they are sent back to their home countries, or do you deny that we are sending them home? Of course feel free to post links to leftist newspapers and reporters blogs that claim that we just kidnapped a bunch of peaceful goat herders off the side of a mountain.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 33):
What's recognition got to do with anything ? There was no other government-in-waiting or government-in-exile.

The northern alliance? Even the UN, as much as I despise that organization they got this right, did not recognize the Taliban.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 33):
The point is not what the terrorist believes, it's what you believe.

Then you are arguing both sides of the coin for you also say that the reason we should do things your way is to show the terrorist how wrong their system is compared to ours. My argument is that they already don't believe that so how are you going to change them?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 33):
If you don't believe that civil law will deal with these people effectively, then what is the point of fighting so hard to defend a system you don't trust or believe in ? If it's worth defending, you have to live with the results.

We fight hard to defend the system that we believe in. If a terrorist wants to have a change of heart and believe as we do then fine, if not, are we to just sit there and let them pick us off at will?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 33):
It shouldn't be used as any option at all. That is not how it works. Torture is barbaric, it is not used by civilised states - ever. That is how we define our civilised-ness.

Then you have to define torture. I don't see water boarding, sleep deprivation, or any of the other techniques that would have been outlawed as "torture". That the Army manual does not prescribe there use does not mean they are not effective. The Army has a different set of rules to follow than the CIA.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 33):
The whole point of international courts is that they are able to overcome the barriers of sovereignty and so-called "sovereign immunity"

Which I think is wrong, sorry. I flat out do not believe in one world government or court and before you start it has nothing to do with religion.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 33):
In the case of Saddam his crime was predominantly domestic and so to try him domestically was appropriate.

I'll tell that to the Iranians.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34):
Then why does that knowledge not show up in your argumentation in any way?

Because you hugged a tree to hard and hurt yourself I guess.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 35):
Lets try three countries; Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates and of course the state of Texas, whose Governor at the time was photograph with members of the Taliban on a visit to Texas, encouraging them to invest in the Lone Star State.

Correct, I had thought it only Pakistan. But even so, they were not recognised by even the UN and if the UN won't recognize your sorry ass, then you really are on the fringe. Yep, we'll take money where we can legally get it, but to be accurate, the State of Texas has been unable to recognize any country since we became a part of the Union in 1845.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 35):
So you're saying that a X number of countries must recognize your government before your soldiers are considered soldiers?

Yes and there is plenty of precedent for that.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 35):
Since the Taliban controls 2/3 of Afghanistan

Source.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15079
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:31 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 36):
Then you have to define torture. I don't see water boarding, sleep deprivation, or any of the other techniques that would have been outlawed as "torture"..

Presumably because you have never had them done to you like that. Causing harm or even the threat of harm in order to obtain information qualifies as torture. End of story.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 36):
I flat out do not believe in one world government or court and before you start it has nothing to do with religion.

Why would I think it has anything to do with religion ? That never even crossed my mind. Religion and justice have nothing to do with one another. The last 2000 years make that perfectly plain. I assume your objection to an international court comes from the obvious brake it would put on the US as the world's only super power.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 36):
I'll tell that to the Iranians.

War is not, of itself, a crime (would that it were). And in any case, it is obvious that the people of Iraq had a prior claim to Saddam's hide.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:38 pm

When we stoop to such practices, we denigrate our own way of life; it flies in the face of everything we are as a country, and it shames us before the world.

For a President of the United States to openly support torture-and, I'm sorry, I don't care who the torture is aimed at, is a dark, black day in American history, and will further sully the reputation of this President and this administration.

And what's funny, is that many of those on here who are always crowing that "America is better than the rest of the world", are some of the same ones who support stooping to the level of the very terrorists we are fighting.
 
JRadier
Posts: 3968
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:57 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25):
What? What is "armed resistance against U.S. military forces"?

Wow, good stuff! Resisting against the US military is illegal now..... Regardless of AQ being citizens of Afghanistan, why is resisting against an invasion cause for being tried by the laws of the invading country?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 29):
If you are a citizen of that country, which most of those fighting in Afghanistan weren't. Their common denominator was the same splinter belief of a religion

Regardless of AQ being citizens of Afghanistan, why is resisting against an invasion cause for being tried by the laws of the invading country? I have always learned that if you are in country X you are subject to the laws of said country. If their presence in Afghanistan was in fact illegal shouldn't they be tried by an Afghan court? I fail to see how the US military has any jurisdiction during an invasion.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:58 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 36):
Quoting Klaus (Reply 34):
Then why does that knowledge not show up in your argumentation in any way?

Because you hugged a tree to hard and hurt yourself I guess.

It would have been too much to ask for you to have an actually decent response, I guess.  Yeah sure
 
A346Dude
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:23 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:23 pm

From Wikipedia:

"Water-boarding or mock drowning, where a prisoner is bound to an inclined board and water is poured over their face, inducing a terrifying fear of drowning clearly can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia (rapid heart beat) and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD. I remind you of the patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp for breath whenever it rained even years after his abuse."
-Dr. Allen S. Keller, Director, Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture

Anyone who does not think that waterboarding is torture is sick IMO. It's pretty clear to me.

[Edited 2008-03-08 13:25:44]
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:48 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 23):
The dearest wish of convicted IRA prisoners was to be considered "Prisoners of War" - they never were, and that was right. They were prisoners because they were convicted of crimes. By declaring "war" on terrorism, you are giving it and it's perpetrators a status they don't deserve.

Thank you. I continue to believe Al Qaeda (whatever that is) is, AMAZINGLY, winning the war for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world.

The minute we associate Al Qaeda with such meritorious and easily understandable matters as defending Iraq versus an illegal invasion, suddenly we have elevated Al Qaeda to a high moral ground beyond their wildest dreams. We cannot admit that some of our "enemies" in Iraq are good and virtuous soldiers fighting for their country. We killed so many thousands of them. The braver ones fought us and died. I have no question that if I were an Iraqi boy, I would want to fight the foreign invaders. To die fighting the Americans in Iraq is not terrorism. It is honorable battle.

Heck, we even consider the Confederate States of America to be quite honorable. In time, we will realize we killed many good people in Iraq. We were terrorists and they were not. It is that simple.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38):
When we stoop to such practices, we denigrate our own way of life; it flies in the face of everything we are as a country, and it shames us before the world.

Thank you. That already happened. We have negative world status. It will have economic consequences. The sooner Bush is out (McCain, Obama, or Clinton) the sooner we can begin to repair it. But honestly, it will take over 10 years. And the shame of the Bush Years will never completely be erased.

Just as the American Civil War and Vietnam have not been completely erased. These are complex moral times with heroes where we expected villains. And villains at the very top, shaming America (I am talking about pro-slavery forces, not Lincoln).

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38):
For a President of the United States to openly support torture-and, I'm sorry, I don't care who the torture is aimed at, is a dark, black day in American history, and will further sully the reputation of this President and this administration.

This President has no reputation. It's so far beneath Vladimir Putin's for example, that it is no contest. Putin is at least protecting his country's interests. Bush is actively trying to destroy our economy, our lands (by favoring mountain-top removal mining among 1,000 other things), and our spirit.

Above all, I want to emphasize that Bush could win me to the dark side if he only showed 1 clever attribute. But everything has been botched, and continues to be. We are still destroying the environment. And effectively poorer than we were when he took office in 2001. And, we have lost all moral respect in the world. What else is there? And what have we gained?
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:40 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
Tell me, at what point do we stop trying to be so understanding (and you cannot deny that western society has bent over backwards to understand them - far more than they have tried to understand us)?

 checkmark  checkmark  checkmark 

Quoting Flighty (Reply 42):
This President has no reputation

...oh, he has one--- one a drafthorse wouldn't want, but he most certainly has one.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 42):
We are still destroying the environment.

Despite whatever sense of self-importance we may behold ourselves unto; neither humans nor any other living being, past or present, has the power inherent to "destroy" the environment..... only alter it.

Hell, if photosynthetic organisms turning early Earth's atmosphere into a more-than-20% composition of (what was initially a) metabolic poison, couldn't do it--- then by what arrogance do we really believe we'd have what it'd take Big grin

Quoting Flighty (Reply 42):
And effectively poorer than we were when he took office in 2001

..."we"?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 42):
And, we have lost all moral respect in the world.

Any proof that we ever really possessed it in the first place?
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:52 pm



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 26):
I believe like many that if Pres. Bush were allow this bill to pass, then he would be admitting 'waterboarding' to be a form of torture and put him, many in his administration as well as some in the CIA at risk for international criminal tribunals.

All depends on how the bill is worded, since you can't pass a bill and then retroactively prosecute those who committed the act before it was deemed illegal.

Quoting Gosimeon (Reply 13):
I hope that a Democrat gets in to the White House, then we will start to see the America the world learned to love again, not the imposing Government Bush has created (or at least, let those around him create).

Really?
Was Bush President back in 1979, when our embassy in Iran was stormed and hostages held for 444 days?
Was Bush President back in 1983, when our Marines were killed in Lebannon?
Was Bush President back in 1985 when TWA 847 was hijacked?
Was Bush President back in 1988 when Pan Am 103 was bombed?
Was Bush President back in 1993 when the Twin Towers were first bombed?
Was Bush President back in 1995 when the Khubar Towers were bombed?
Was Bush President back in 1998 when our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed?
Was Bush President back in 2000 when the USS Cole was bombed?

No? So it seems like the world had some hatred for us well before then Bush took office on January 20th, 2001. Now 9/11 comes along and we finally have a President who says "Alright, we've had enough of this shit." and decides we're no longer going to bury our heads in the sand and we're going to take the fight to them.

My overall point to your post: the America that the world "loved" was attacked successfully over and over and over. The America the world now "hates" hasn't been successfully attacked since Sept. 11th and is waging an overall successful war on terrorism. Does that mean we won't be attacked again? You'd be stupid to think the answer to that question was yes, but we have done a better job confronting terrorism worldwide.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 42):
Just as the American Civil War and Vietnam have not been completely erased. These are complex moral times with heroes where we expected villains. And villains at the very top, shaming America (I am talking about pro-slavery forces, not Lincoln).

 rotfl 
You obviously don't know your history, because if you did, you'd know that Bush's actions today pale in comparison to those taken by Lincoln (within his own country no less) during the Civil War, and here you are hailing Lincoln while criticizing Bush. Oh well. Back when Lincoln was the President, there were those who looked at him as a villian. Today we and history look back at Lincoln for the hero he is. Perhaps history will do the same with Bush. You'll laugh now, but history has a funny way of repeating itself.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 42):
We were terrorists and they were not. It is that simple.

We appreciate the support. *sarcasm*

Signed,
The US Armed Forces
(yea, that includes me)

But then again I wouldn't expect much from someone who obviously doesn't know basic US History, or even worse if he does, will intentionally leave it out of his posts to try to prove a point.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15079
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:58 pm



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 44):
is waging an overall successful war on terrorism.

Successful ? Not so much. How many US military have died ? How many real, actual terrorists (not Iraqi's) have been brought to justice ? A lot fewer.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:00 pm



Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 43):
..."we"?

Sure, I think you could make some strong arguments that America was more financially healthy in 2001 than in 2008. Certainly the lower 80% of population was better off in 2001.

The stock market was pretty high in 2001, don't forget. Adjusted for inflation and currency shifts, I think we were richer as a whole in 2001. Especially the lower 80% of people etc.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:12 pm

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 44):
You obviously don't know your history, because if you did, you'd know that Bush's actions today pale in comparison to those taken by Lincoln (within his own country no less) during the Civil War, and here you are hailing Lincoln while criticizing Bush.

You're right. Lincoln was an absolute bad-ass and bent a few rules along the way (a few? a lot).

But he didn't invade Iraq, Afghanistan, or Poland or France.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 44):
but we have done a better job confronting terrorism worldwide.

Partly. We have brought some terrorists to justice. But we also invaded Iraq for no reason. That has nothing to do with terrorism. In doing so, we un-did all of the progress we had made. Suddenly, we became a villain even in the eyes of our closest allies including Spain and France, and Kofi Annan at the UN. Who is not a bad guy.

It would be pathetic if we couldn't find a few bandits in the world with our $500 billion annual military budget, plus another $500 billion. Is this the "better way to confront terrorism?"

No. We can't afford to stay militarily active for 30-40 years.

On the other hand, "Muslim extremists" are perfectly happy to sit back, wait a generation and then attack us in 2031. We have done nothing to prevent that. And much to cause it. I am expecting a lifetime of difficulty because of George "Jesus is my favorite historical figure," "I don't read the newspaper" W. Bush.

America could become a Muslim fundamentalist state before 2100. You just need a long range view. How much would O.B.L. laugh if his grandson becomes President of the Islamic Republic of the USA. Impossible? ... over long time periods, you need long-term strategies. I hope the USA can win for freedom and prosperity. But with cleverness over time, the enemy can beat us. We can lose, if we are so arrogant to think we are always right.

[Edited 2008-03-08 15:14:10]
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:34 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 47):
You're right. Lincoln was an absolute bad-ass and bent a few rules along the way (a few? a lot).

But he didn't invade Iraq, Afghanistan, or Poland or France

But he did invade the Confederate States of America. Now I'm not disagreeing with you on Lincoln. What I want to know is how you can defend Lincoln and criticise Bush for the same things. All you did there was confirm my point; not respond to your hypocrisy.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 47):
But we also invaded Iraq for no reason. That has nothing to do with terrorism.

But whether you like it or not, it does now. Our reasons for being in Iraq initially and our reasons for staying there now are two different reasons. The reason we're there now is why we need to stay there and finish the job.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 47):
, we became a villain even in the eyes of our closest allies including Spain

Spain was with us in Iraq until the Madrid Train Bombing. Following the bombing they pulled their support for Iraq, but as far as I know, have agreed to continue support in other aspects of the War on Terrorism.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 47):
and France

Was Bush President when France withdrew from NATO in 1966?
Was Bush President in 1986 during Operation El Dorado Canyon, when France denied us airspace rights from the UK to Libya?
No, he wasn't? Okay, so don't make it seem like the French were one of our best allies and we could always depend on them up until Bush started his war on terrorism. Regardless of how you feel about the French, our difficulties with them go well beyond March 2003 when OIF began.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 47):
and Kofi Annan at the UN. Who is not a bad guy.

The same UN that can't (or rather, won't) do shit about genocide in Africa and the same Kofi Annan who made quite a bit of money off of the "Oil for Food" program? That UN?
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Bush To Veto Waterboarding Bill

Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:23 am



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 37):
Presumably because you have never had them done to you like that. Causing harm or even the threat of harm in order to obtain information qualifies as torture. End of story.

Then we will have to agree to disagree over what is torture.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 37):
Why would I think it has anything to do with religion ?

The age old conservative Christian belief in the Book of Revelation.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 37):
I assume your objection to an international court comes from the obvious brake it would put on the US as the world's only super power.

No my objection comes from its obvious infringement upon any nations sovereignty. I don't believe that a world as diverse and complex as ours can or wants to be ruled by one government.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 37):
War is not, of itself, a crime

The prosecution of that war can be considered a crime. Using gas against your enemies flies in the face of several treaties.

Quoting JRadier (Reply 39):
Wow, good stuff! Resisting against the US military is illegal now..... Regardless of AQ being citizens of Afghanistan, why is resisting against an invasion cause for being tried by the laws of the invading country?

If you are not in a uniform that can be defined then you are charged as would any spy or saboteur, with resistance against the armed forces of the nation you are attacking. It's been that way for centuries.

Quoting JRadier (Reply 39):
I fail to see how the US military has any jurisdiction during an invasion.

Since the government of the Taliban had never been officially recognized by the United States, we along with the northern alliance claimed jurisdiction and that was recognized.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 40):
It would have been too much to ask for you to have an actually decent response, I guess.

And as usual it would have been too much for you to actually ask a decent question.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38):
and will further sully the reputation of this President and this administration.



Quoting Flighty (Reply 42):
And the shame of the Bush Years will never completely be erased.

Do either of you really believe that water boarding or any of the 16 other interrogation methods described in the bill actually started under this administration? That no other administration ever sanctioned these practices?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 42):
(I am talking about pro-slavery forces, not Lincoln).

Then you have woeful lack of information on how and why the civil war started. I grew up in the North and don't believe it was entirely about slavery.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: art, FGITD, GalaxyFlyer, Noris, sabenapilot, zakuivcustom and 23 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos