RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy

RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (Full Version)

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

Message

DomKen -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/13/2009 3:44:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: downkitty 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 Carter was slammed for not negotiating as well though, which was the part I thought was shitty. Carter negotiated with the Iranians for release of the hostages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis#Negotiations_for_Release

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/13/2009 3:58:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: downkitty [ Clinton would have never been impeached if he had been treated like every other former president regarding his sex life. I thought that was shitty. That's the whole part of this that irks me. No other President that I can recall was known to have extramarital affairs during their presidency so that part is irrelevant. More importantly, if Clinton hadnt lied about it to Congress and to investigators, it is doubtful he would have been impeached. The coverup is always worse than the crime. If anything irks you it should be that he brought the whole thing down on himself.

downkitty -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/13/2009 3:59:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Carter negotiated with the Iranians for release of the hostages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis#Negotiations_for_Release Thank you for the link. I was going by memory, and it was a long time ago. I stand corrected.

DarkSteven -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/13/2009 8:40:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy No other President that I can recall was known to have extramarital affairs during their presidency so that part is irrelevant. Since you asked...Eisenhower, JFK (with Marilyn Monroe no less), and LBJ come to mind. Bush 41 pointedly refused to answer when asked if he'd ever fooled around. I'm pretty sure that Carter and Nixon were faithful while in the Oval Office, though.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/13/2009 10:50:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy No other President that I can recall was known to have extramarital affairs during their presidency so that part is irrelevant. Since you asked...Eisenhower, JFK (with Marilyn Monroe no less), and LBJ come to mind. Bush 41 pointedly refused to answer when asked if he'd ever fooled around. I'm pretty sure that Carter and Nixon were faithful while in the Oval Office, though. It should have been clear from the context, but when I said "during their presidency" i meant that it was KNOWN during their presidency. None of the above were known at the time.

DomKen -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/13/2009 11:51:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy It should have been clear from the context, but when I said "during their presidency" i meant that it was KNOWN during their presidency. None of the above were known at the time. JFK's philandering was certainly known during his term. So was FDR's. Warren Harding fathered at least one illegitimate child while President.

rulemylife -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/14/2009 3:28:59 AM)
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. What I mean by the bold portion is that we have historically condemned countries who practice torture but now we are trying to claim the methods we use are not torture, even though we have prosecuted their use against our own soldiers. I think your hypothetical is being played out right now if you've been following the news: Alleged Nazi Guard Demjanjuk Charged 27900 Times Over WWII

subrob1967 -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/14/2009 4:29:38 AM)
This is a really fucking brilliant plan for shutting down the CIA. Make the CIA employees so afraid of prosecution, despite legal orders, that they choose not to do their jobs because of the legal jeopardy our asshat of an AG would gladly prosecute them for.

rulemylife -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/14/2009 5:21:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 This is a really fucking brilliant plan for shutting down the CIA. Make the CIA employees so afraid of prosecution, despite legal orders, that they choose not to do their jobs because of the legal jeopardy our asshat of an AG would gladly prosecute them for. I see. We should just absolve them of any responsibility to the law. Because, after all, they're protecting us, right?

DomKen -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/14/2009 6:18:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 This is a really fucking brilliant plan for shutting down the CIA. Make the CIA employees so afraid of prosecution, despite legal orders, that they choose not to do their jobs because of the legal jeopardy our asshat of an AG would gladly prosecute them for. No one could give a CIA officer a legal order to not report to Congress.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/14/2009 8:05:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy It should have been clear from the context, but when I said "during their presidency" i meant that it was KNOWN during their presidency. None of the above were known at the time. JFK's philandering was certainly known during his term. So was FDR's. Warren Harding fathered at least one illegitimate child while President. Im not old enough for FDR and Harding, but JFKs most certainly was not commonly known.

DomKen -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/14/2009 8:12:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy It should have been clear from the context, but when I said "during their presidency" i meant that it was KNOWN during their presidency. None of the above were known at the time. JFK's philandering was certainly known during his term. So was FDR's. Warren Harding fathered at least one illegitimate child while President. Im not old enough for FDR and Harding, but JFKs most certainly was not commonly known. So now you restrict it to 'commonly' known? Harding's mistress published her book while he was still POTUS so that affair was definitely 'commonly' known.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/14/2009 8:20:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy It should have been clear from the context, but when I said "during their presidency" i meant that it was KNOWN during their presidency. None of the above were known at the time. JFK's philandering was certainly known during his term. So was FDR's. Warren Harding fathered at least one illegitimate child while President. Im not old enough for FDR and Harding, but JFKs most certainly was not commonly known. So now you restrict it to 'commonly' known? Harding's mistress published her book while he was still POTUS so that affair was definitely 'commonly' known. Obviously commonly known is the relevant standard. The context was Clinton's impeachment and whether it was hypocritical to prosecute him for "sex" (which was a false premise to begin with) when other PsOTUS weren't similarly treated. If it wasnt commonly known at the time, and just a few insiders (most likely of the same party) knew, then obviously there wouldnt have been any repercussions. And while we are on the topic of deplorable sexual behavior, Robert Kennedy having an affair with his dead brother's wife is about as low as you can go.

DomKen -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/14/2009 11:15:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Obviously commonly known is the relevant standard. The context was Clinton's impeachment and whether it was hypocritical to prosecute him for "sex" (which was a false premise to begin with) when other PsOTUS weren't similarly treated. If it wasnt commonly known at the time, and just a few insiders (most likely of the same party) knew, then obviously there wouldnt have been any repercussions. You fail to take into account that prior to the 70's the personal failing of famous people was by and large not covered by the media. JFK and FDR's affairs were definitely well known inside D.C., including to members of the opposition, but simply not covered by the press.

downkitty -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/14/2009 1:12:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife What I mean by the bold portion is that we have historically condemned countries who practice torture but now we are trying to claim the methods we use are not torture, even though we have prosecuted their use against our own soldiers. I think your hypothetical is being played out right now if you've been following the news: Alleged Nazi Guard Demjanjuk Charged 27900 Times Over WWII I see your point and understand it completely. My point is that it is not just now that we are claiming exemption for ourselves. It is my understanding that we have always viewed it differently when "we" do it to "them." For the record, I acknowledge that this is wrong and we should not condone it when we do it and condemn it when they do it. I am just saying that we have done so ... so I am having a hard time swallowing that suddenly, we have to prosecute this guy (the one we hate) when we have never prosecuted previous guys (who we did not hate, or at least not hated to this degree). It was an unspoken rule that it was OK. It just feels like we are blindsiding the guy, and I feel that a warning shot should have been fired if we are going to switch directions and practice and enforce what we should do rather than what we've been doing all along. It seems to me that a lot of this is related to the coverage available now that was not available then. Probably, most people have not been aware of what's really been going on. Due to the media attention every little thing gets these days, we know a whole lot more than we used to. I am just having an emotional response is all. It feels like a sucker punch to me.

Arpig -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/14/2009 1:44:13 PM)
Perhaps, downkitty, the difference is one of degree. Those who went before did their torturing (if, in fact they did so, which we have only your word for at the moment) quietly in the shadows and this guy did it out in the open. I will not dispute that torture has been applied by American soldiers and CIA operatives in the past, however I do dispute that it was done so systematically as a matter of policy. Bush/Cheney made it US policy to torture people held under the slimest of rationales, and used the information extracted under torture to justify continuing to hold them. The present administration is using that same information (obtained by torture) to justify holding these people indefinately. The difference is that the torture was ordered by the President, not some guy in the field way down the chain of command. The President ordered it, the President is accountable, moreso than the underlings who when they questioned the order were assured by the highest officers of the land (including the Justice Department) that the methods employed were legal. (I hasten to add, before anybody thinks I am absolving the actual torturers themselves, that the guards at Auschwitz were also assured that their actions were legal by the highest authorities in the land, and that was not accepted as a defence then nor should it be now). The President and pretty much his entire administration participated in ordering the torture, and thus should all be held accountable. I know I am something of a hardass on government figures, but they must be held accountable for what they do.

slvemike4u -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/14/2009 3:02:55 PM)
Are you sure your from Canada.....you seem to have a better grasp of what goes on down here....than most of the citizens of this great Country(my self included).

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/14/2009 3:04:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Are you sure your from Canada.....you seem to have a better grasp of what goes on down here....than most of the citizens of this great Country(my self included). Just another case of penis envy on a national scale. (Yes, Arpig, it was a joke. Calm down.)

subrob1967 -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/14/2009 3:15:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No one could give a CIA officer a legal order to not report to Congress. It's called an executive order...Look it up

subrob1967 -> RE: Attorney General May Probe Bush Torture Policy (7/14/2009 3:16:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 This is a really fucking brilliant plan for shutting down the CIA. Make the CIA employees so afraid of prosecution, despite legal orders, that they choose not to do their jobs because of the legal jeopardy our asshat of an AG would gladly prosecute them for. I see. We should just absolve them of any responsibility to the law. Because, after all, they're protecting us, right? Perhaps you should read my post better, or get better glasses...There I used bold font for you.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875