RE: Poor Dick

RE: Poor Dick (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Sanity -> RE: Poor Dick (4/23/2009 6:26:02 AM)
Poor Dick??? Try, poor Barack!!! quote: Obama muddles torture message President Barack Obama’s attempt to project legal and moral clarity on coercive CIA interrogation methods has instead done the opposite — creating confusion and political vulnerability over an issue that has inflamed both the left and right. In the most recent instance, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged in a memo to the intelligence community that Bush-era interrogation practices yielded had "high-value information,” then omitted that admission from a public version of his assessment. That leaves a top Obama administration official appearing to validate claims by former Vice President Dick Cheney that waterboarding and other techniques the White House regards as torture were effective in preventing terrorist attacks. And the press release created the impression the administration was trying to suppress this conclusion. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21569.html In his defense, perhaps his teleprompter is on the fritz?

Owner59 -> RE: Poor Dick (4/23/2009 10:24:02 AM)
It`s pretty clear. The rank and file don`t have to worry about legal exposure or charges if they were involved. The leadership and their legal council however,do.They will be refereed to the DOJ.The white house won`t give them a pass. Pretty clear and a win-win in my mind. The President in one speech won back the loyalty and admiration of our agents(they were cheering the man) left the perps on the hot seat. Dick going on the TV to lie, bully and threaten isn`t helping him at all.He isn`t helping the GOP at all either. In a way I want him to leave Washington( I hear he`s still living there) but in another,I want him there as a stone necklace around the Grand Old Party`s neck.

Sanity -> RE: Poor Dick (4/23/2009 11:11:38 AM)
Prosecuting lawyers for giving legal opinions... while letting the people who actually got their hands wet go... would absolutely reek of political persecution. Especially when combined with the Homeland Security memo that essentially labels all Conservatives terrorists... These proposed thought crime "prosecutions" would be pure witch hunts, and one of the most reckless things I could imagine team Obama trying to do. If he's smart, which I'm not convinced he is, he'll call those dogs off before they spark the next civil war.

slvemike4u -> RE: Poor Dick (4/23/2009 11:38:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Prosecuting lawyers for giving legal opinions... while letting the people who actually got their hands wet go... would absolutely reek of political persecution. Especially when combined with the Homeland Security memo that essentially labels all Conservatives terrorists... These proposed thought crime "prosecutions" would be pure witch hunts, and one of the most reckless things I could imagine team Obama trying to do. If he's smart, which I'm not convinced he is, he'll call those dogs off before they spark the next civil war. Okay sanity,how does this work for you...There are two seperate grounds under which these Lawyers might be prosecuted .1) internal memos that show they knew this wasn't legal....and than at the prodding of the Administation fashioned opinions that contradicted their own provable prior opinion. 2)Introduction of any internal work product that indicates in any way shape or form that what they were doing was fashioning a legal justification for what they knew was an illegal policy.In other words twisting the Constitution to come up with their conclusion of legality. The question of whether or not the prisoners were entitled to Constitutional protection is therefore removed from the equation,after all whether or not you beleive these men were entitled to protection under that Constitution these Lawyers were certainly accountable to that Constitutionl

slvemike4u -> RE: Poor Dick (4/23/2009 11:39:40 AM)
By the way ,who the fuck would enter into a civil war over this particular collection of pond scum?...you?

UncleNasty -> RE: Poor Dick (4/23/2009 11:41:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark Ever notice the we see and hear more from Cheney now than when he was actually in office?....He sure wasn't as open when he was held accountable... If he hasn't been brought up on a variety of charges and tried then he hasn't been held accountable. Note that I didn't say convicted. I don't KNOW that he is guilty. Determining that would be the purpose of a trial. I do think there is enough evidence and information to support grand jury indictments. Uncle Nasty

Sanity -> RE: Poor Dick (4/23/2009 12:08:00 PM)
All pure fantasy, mike. Beside that, none of this was done in a vacuum. In other words, Congressional Democrats who nodded their heads in approval to these enhanced interrogation techniques would have to be tried right along with the scholars you're so eager to try to have persecuted... That is, so long as all this wasn't merely the foreshadowing of a massive show trial, to be held purely for political purposes. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4uOkay sanity,how does this work for you...There are two seperate grounds under which these Lawyers might be prosecuted .1) internal memos that show they knew this wasn't legal....and than at the prodding of the Administation fashioned opinions that contradicted their own provable prior opinion. 2)Introduction of any internal work product that indicates in any way shape or form that what they were doing was fashioning a legal justification for what they knew was an illegal policy.In other words twisting the Constitution to come up with their conclusion of legality. The question of whether or not the prisoners were entitled to Constitutional protection is therefore removed from the equation,after all whether or not you beleive these men were entitled to protection under that Constitution these Lawyers were certainly accountable to that Constitutionl

slvemike4u -> RE: Poor Dick (4/23/2009 12:15:41 PM)
Scholars.....what fucking scholars,they couldn't even interpet the fucking Constitution correctly...and that was their job.They gave your favorite President flawed legal advice...and you call them "scholars".At what point do you need to get to before you can admit any errors done during the Bush Presidency?Just how restrictive are your blinders?

Sanity -> RE: Poor Dick (4/23/2009 2:56:09 PM)
The WSJ Online has a thought provoking opinion piece on the subject right here. Something else to keep in mind is, Bill Clinton authorized a covert rendition program back in 1995 that he knew would lead to the kidnap and torture of various terrorist suspects. What is the possibility that this will lead to the prosecution of him and his cabinet (including Clinton's chief of staff Leon Panetta... who is now Obama's CIA director). This could get interesting!

Sanity -> RE: Poor Dick (4/23/2009 2:59:17 PM)
Let me ask you this, mike. Who do you think these guys are exactly, and what do you think they did. Why would they be prosecuted? quote: Scholars.....what fucking scholars,they couldn't even interpet the fucking Constitution correctly...

SilverMark -> RE: Poor Dick (4/23/2009 3:35:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The WSJ Online has a thought provoking opinion piece on the subject right here. Something else to keep in mind is, Bill Clinton authorized a covert rendition program back in 1995 that he knew would lead to the kidnap and torture of various terrorist suspects. What is the possibility that this will lead to the prosecution of him and his cabinet (including Clinton's chief of staff Leon Panetta... who is now Obama's CIA director). This could get interesting! Who was tortured? When?....In the present we know when and whom....there is indeed a difference....and I had no idea that amongst his various qualities Clinton was a clairvoyant.....learn new things everyday!...but interesting!

Sanity -> RE: Poor Dick (4/24/2009 6:06:11 AM)
The reason Clinton initiated his rendition program was to have people tortured. Clairvoyance wasn't involved, torture was a part of the Clinton plan. Actual torture, not a bug in a box or water poured over a towel on someone's face. Google it. Google Clinton rendition... What are the odds that Obama is going to prosecute Bill Clinton any time soon... that we'll be seeing Clinton frog marched or see his mug shot, or see his ass in prison any time soon. This whole thing, all this false outrage, is about partisan politics. There are two standards, there are always two standards. One for the left, and one for the right. quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark Who was tortured? When?....In the present we know when and whom....there is indeed a difference....and I had no idea that amongst his various qualities Clinton was a clairvoyant.....learn new things everyday!...but interesting!

rulemylife -> RE: Poor Dick (4/24/2009 6:32:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Beside that, none of this was done in a vacuum. In other words, Congressional Democrats who nodded their heads in approval to these enhanced interrogation techniques would have to be tried right along with the scholars you're so eager to try to have persecuted... Good. Time to clear the air on all this. If a case can be made against those Democrats who supported this, so be it. I saw Pelosi on the news last night claiming she was briefed on the techniques but didn't think they would be used, and she was absolutely shocked that they were. Kind of like when Clinton smoked weed but never inhaled.

rulemylife -> RE: Poor Dick (4/24/2009 6:43:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The reason Clinton initiated his rendition program was to have people tortured. Clairvoyance wasn't involved, torture was a part of the Clinton plan. Actual torture, not a bug in a box or water poured over a towel on someone's face. Google it. Google Clinton rendition... What are the odds that Obama is going to prosecute Bill Clinton any time soon... that we'll be seeing Clinton frog marched or see his mug shot, or see his ass in prison any time soon. This whole thing, all this false outrage, is about partisan politics. There are two standards, there are always two standards. One for the left, and one for the right. No the whole thing is about what we want to be as a country and if we are going to hold ourselves to our own standards and laws. You are trying to make it partisan by claiming Clinton's rendition program was "actual torture" while the Bush administration just allowed "a bug in a box". And the "water poured over a towel on someone's face" was something we prosecuted foreign interrogators for as a war crime. And yes, if Clinton or anyone in his administration violated the law they should be prosecuted as well.

Sanity -> RE: Poor Dick (4/24/2009 7:42:19 AM)
How long do you think it will be until there are Obama people talking about investigating Clinton's (and Al Gore's) extraordinary rendition program? quote: And yes, if Clinton or anyone in his administration violated the law they should be prosecuted as well.

kittinSol -> RE: Poor Dick (4/24/2009 7:52:06 AM)
How can you claim a moral imperative when you lie about your own human rights abuse?

rulemylife -> RE: Poor Dick (4/24/2009 8:14:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity How long do you think it will be until there are Obama people talking about investigating Clinton's (and Al Gore's) extraordinary rendition program? That's why we have an opposition party. If actions are taken against the Bush administration then I'm sure the Republicans will bring this into it, as well they should. I'm tired of this crap being done in my name, supposedly for my safety, whether it is done by Democrats or Republicans. I'm tired of listening to people brag how we are "the greatest country in the world" while not being willing to live up to the ideal that statement represents.

servantforuse -> RE: Poor Dick (4/24/2009 8:32:29 AM)
The republicans have no say what so ever in any hearing. The democrats set the agenda until the pendulum swings back the other way. That might be sooner than you might think. I say 2010..

Owner59 -> RE: Poor Dick (4/24/2009 8:46:48 AM)
These weren`t lawyers.The WH legal council`s job is to prevent the president from breaking the law. Not help him break it. These were "consigliere ",like the lawyers who help mobsters break the law and they should face charges just like any other criminal(as in commits crimes,ie lawyer who is a criminal) lawyer.

rulemylife -> RE: Poor Dick (4/24/2009 8:50:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse The republicans have no say what so ever in any hearing. The democrats set the agenda until the pendulum swings back the other way. That might be sooner than you might think. I say 2010.. Yes, I've heard you say this before. So, based on that logic, the Democrats in Congress had absolutely no say in anything that happened between 2001 and 2007 when Republicans were in control. So then we can safely blame the Republicans for the failures in Afghanistan, the Iraq War, the banking crisis, the national debt that doubled under Bush, the general collapse of the economy, and all the other ills that occurred while they held power.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875