quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAyla7053

Personally I think it's about time. I happen to like Obama, although he wasn't my first choice in my opinion he was the lessor of two evils. I feel that if Holder is able to do an investigation President Obama should support him wholeheartedly. But it is highly unlikely and as for the promises that Obama made in his campaign while he did do a lot of pomp during it he hasn't been in office for a year yet and people are not seeing the changes he has promised. Something that some people forget Obama still has to deal with Congress and there are still conservatives in power. They simply didn't disappear when he was elected. So the changes that Obama promised will take some time. In all honesty I think that the soonest we may see actual changes taking place would be at least a year into his term. Besides he still has to fix relations with other countries that the Bush administration(both of them) destroyed when they wefre in office. But at least he is getting our men and women home as fast as possible. To me it's about time.

Bright Blessings
Lady Ayla

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Panda you're right. Holder seems to be "grandstanding." I don't think many people really care about this issue.
It's never comes up in conversation with people that I've talked with at the bank, market etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Getting men and women home as fast as possible? His Iraq time-table is the same or slower than Bush's and he's deployed in Afghanistan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Well popeye, that's pretty sad if true, because then it means we have started a process in which it is accepted that the laws that "we the people" have to abide by do not apply to a certain distinct ruling class of government officials who are not held accountable to those same laws.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Getting men and women home as fast as possible? His Iraq time-table is the same or slower than Bush's and he's deployed in Afghanistan.

Ah yes, more revisionism at work.

How soon we forget that until Obama announced a withdrawal timetable during his campaign Bush had none, and stubbornly refused to set one.

It wasn't until Maliki publicly endorsed Obama's plan that Bush was pressured into adopting a withdrawal timetable.

As far as Afghanistan, that was where our war was to begin with.  Until Bush foolishly expanded it into a second theater of operations while ignoring the primary threat, as it continued, and still continues to grow. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Bush's timetable for withdrawal was always very clear: if and when the Generals in charge said it was time, and when Iraqi security was capable of maintaining order. Obama campaigned on "I will give the Generals a timetable and its up to them to find a way to get it done". He then backpedalled to Bush's policy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

For the record popeye and I rarely agree on any matter....but I would hazard he has a much better reputation around here than you willbur will ever have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

For the record popeye and I rarely agree on any matter....but I would hazard he has a much better reputation around here than you willbur will ever have.

Woo hoo, here is my big chance to agree with slvmike4u.


I agree

Oh and I don't always agree with popeye either but then again I don't always agree with anyone on here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: downkitty

Since the dawn of intelligence agencies, they have been able to do things "we the people" are not allowed to do. I'm just wondering what the statute of limitations is for torture.  Are we going back to previous administrations?  Every living US President today could be tried.  The outrage that under GWB we (the US) tortured people is suspiciously narrow to me.  The US tortured people under Sr, too, and under Clinton and under Reagan and under Carter and under Kennedy and so on.  I think we would save a lot of money if we just tried them all together at the same time. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Not really, Mike. The problem is, it seems pretty clear Obama does not want Holder pursuing this matter. If Holder goes ahead, it's going to be on his own, in spite of Obama.

         Right.  Because in politics, everything is always exactly as it appears on the suface, and in the press release...  

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

A more fine, pure and classic example of an argumentum ad hominem I have not seen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Suspiciously narrow?

Assuming your claims are true, despite the notable lack of you offering any proof, is this now an acceptable standard for our country?

quote:

ORIGINAL: downkitty

~FR~

I must admit to feeling a bit uneasy after reading this thread.  AFAIK, EIT has always been the default method, although the term "EIT" is new.  We (mankind in general) have usually treated them (anyone not of our community, culture, race, religion, whatever) as less than ourselves, particularly when that group of "we" feels threatened.  It's not something the evil GWB or the evil GOP or the evil whoever recently came up with, enacted and hid from the rest of us.  Of course Congress was aware of it, as was the previous Congress and the one before that and the one before that and so on.  It has been standard in intelligence agencies worldwide, probably since the very first intelligence agency.  The trend of "humane treatment" of our enemies is the newer concept, not torture during interrogations. 

If we (mankind in general) want to move away from EIT type methods and towards humane treatment of all, including our enemies, fine ... great ... yay us (mankind in general).  I just wish there was an honest presentation.  I just wish someone would say, "Hey, I think we are better than that.  I think we need to better ourselves and our approach.  So, I think its time we examine some of our methods and come up with better alternatives." It makes me want a shower to hear everyone saying, "OMG. I had no idea those evil people were mistreating anyone!  What a bad bad man, or bad bad country!" like mankind was some innocent thing until so-and-so took office and changed all that then lied to us. 

It's not a GWB thing, or a GOP thing, or a conservative thing, or a USA thing, or a Western Civilization thing.  It's a HUMAN thing, and has been always.  Unless we address it as such, I don't think we are going to accomplish anything at all except making some people feel better by having a tangible person to blame. 

Respectfully,

amy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

And how do you suggest we do move toward humane treatment for all if we allow the abuse of our own standards in that regard?

quote:

ORIGINAL: downkitty

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

And how do you suggest we do move toward humane treatment for all if we allow the abuse of our own standards in that regard?

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded portion.  I am not advocating abusing our standards.  If we want to move towards humane treatment for all, we draw a line in the sand.  We say, "This is how it has been done before, but it changes now."  We acknowledge that we as a society are going from point A to point B and will rigidly enforce our new policy.  Then, we do enforce our new policy across the board, both sides, all the time, even when it hurts.

Hypothetical:  Despite what the rule book says, if it has been practiced policy as far back as we can remember that the US takes no prisoners in war, so shoots all enemies (even those trying to surrender), and we want to change that, do we arrest and imprison the last soldier who shot a surrenderring enemy?  That's the part that feels wrong to me. 

I thought it was shitty that Carter was demonized for not negotiating with terrorists to get our people back when it had been standard policy across the board that the US does not negotiate with terrorists, ever.  I thought it was shitty when Clinton was impeached for a blowjob in office when marital infidelity wasn't any big deal for many of his predecessors.  I think its shitty to want to try and hopefully convict GW because he tortured (presumed) enemies with no mention of trying any other presidents who did the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Carter was criticized more for the botched rescue attempt than not negotiating, and Clinton was impeached for lying and obstructing justice not for a blowjob