Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditReturning again and again to the theme that allowing torture would "undermine who we are," President Obama used an otherwise tepid press conference marking the 100th day of his presidency to aggressively reject the argument that waterboarding or other "enhanced interrogation techniques" should be used by the United States.
But he avoided questions about holding members of the Bush-Cheney administration to account for sanctioning the use of those techniques.
The dialogue about torture came early in an otherwise easygoing press conference that saw Obama express concern about the swine flu outbreak but reject closing the border with Mexico, celebrate the decision of Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter to switch parties while dismissing the notion that he now has absolute power, espress hope for the renewal of the domestic auto industry and muse on the challenges of managing two wars, a broken economy and all the other demands of the presidency.
Obama's answers to questions about torture were detailed and nuanced when it came to his view that it is wrong to attempt to extract information from prisoners by brutalizing them.
Asked specifically about whether he believes waterboarding is torture, the president replied: "What I said and I will repeat is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture"
The president, who said he was "very comfortable" with his decision to bar the use of torture techniques that had been permitted during the Bush-Cheney years, acknowledged that it was possible that some of those techniques might have succeeded in getting information from prisoners. But he added, "We could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that are consistent with our values, in ways that are consistent with who we are."
Obama recalled an article he read on Britain during the period when German air raids were battering London.
The British held a number of German prisoners, and Prime Minister Winston Churchill was confronted with the question of whether to use torture to gain information from them.
At a time when his country was under attack, when British citizens were being killed, Obama noted, Churchill rejected any brutalization of the prisoners.
"Churchill understood that if you start taking shortcuts, over time that corrodes what's best in a people," Obama said. "It corrodes the character of a country.".
Wrapped in the Churchillian mantle, Obama confidently declared that rejecting torture would might make the U.S. "safer in the long term,"
Specifically, the president argued that it is possible to get needed intelligence without employing waterboarding or other forms of brutality. And he suggested that America will be stronger and safer if it is a "beacon to the world" -- willing to hold true to (our) values."
Rejecting torture takes away a recruitment tool for terrorist groups and makes it easier to work with global allies, added Obama.
While he offered a lengthy response to the part of the question from ABC's Jake Tapper regarding his view on waterboarding, the president avoided answering the part of the question regarding his views on the actions of the Bush-Cheney administration.
Tapper repeated the question, as did a second reporter.
All they got from Obama, who has sent decidedly mixed signals about holding members of the Bush-Cheney administration to account for violations of international and domestic law, was more obfuscation.
"I believe that waterbvoarding is torture," the president said. "I think that whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake."
Characterizing the promotion of torture by the Bush-Cheney administration and its lawyers as a "mistake" is more than just a generous interpretation.
It a deliberately vague response that creates a false impression.
Dick Cheney has made it clear that the decisions made by Bush administration insiders and their pliable lawyers were not mistakes or missteps. They were intentional assaults on the rule of law.
To suggest otherwise is absurd.
While Obama was right to reject torture -- and able and articulate in his expression of the reasons for doing so -- he remained unsettlingly vague and disingenuous on the question of holding the proponents of torture to account.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
obama is always careful with his words and is loath to make snap decisions.
settle down and lets see what transpires. i have the feeling he is thinking about this a lot, about implications and all...
good.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 8:54pm
John Nichols I believe you left out one notable detail, German forces had captured quite a few British and Australian soldiers before we even got into the war. So it was not in Churchill's best interest to extract information, he couldn't afford to do that, lest he would lose a lot more men than the Germans. Besides, he was busy nudging the hell out of FDR to come in and help him.
Believe you-me, he would have extracted as much info as he could, if he was sitting a better position, militarily.
Posted by ACook at 04/29/2009 @ 8:55pm
Hey John, while your at it, how about asking the American people to chime in on this waterboarding? Yes? No? Don't want to go there, just rather continue to spin this with the utmost of politics in mind? Hows this... "Fellow Americans, do you object to the Bush Administrations techniques to garner information from the terrorist master mind of 9/11 Mr. Mohammad?" And while your at your comfortable desk, write up a demand for the new administration to make public the information outcomes of beating the hell out of the man who directed passenger planes into our buildings, forcing our citizens to jump to their deaths or be burned and destroyed, by the thousands in a couple of hours on bright day. Are you brave enough for that? Additionally, are you brave enough (i know how much it means to you folks to get the 'brave' treatment) to call some leading Dems to the mat on their actual stance in all this? hmmmmm......
Posted by hughm8 at 04/29/2009 @ 9:08pm
I don't believe President Obama is going to pursue anything other than an under-the-rug sweeping for all of the abuses of the crazed would-be-tyrant George Bush regime. That would go beyond torture and abuse of foreign nationals in secret "facilities" to include the National Security Agency operations against the American public and everything else George Bush presided over. President Obama does not want to spend his term fighting against the Bush administration and therefore breathing life into the otherwise lifeless Republican corpse, which would thrive on the conflict.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 9:12pm
Posted by hughm8 at 04/29/2009 @ 9:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Equally one can point to the man who was abducted by the CIA, abused and beaten in one of their "facilities", and abandoned on a hilltop in Albania at the end of it, when it turned out that they had the wrong guy. American courts, in recent months ruled he had no right to sue the US government on the grounds that it would expose national security secrets. The injustice in this case is absolutely terrible and unforgivable.
Khalid Mohammed was captured. There was no point in brutalizing him after that, because he was not ever again going to mastermind any plots, nor would brutalizing him have changed the outcome of the 9/11 attack. Finally, famously, brutalizing someone apparently reduces the likelihood of getting sound information out of them. They'll say anything they think you want to hear to make the torture end.
Now, this "debate" has been hashed and rehashed. Unfortunately, it is most politically convenient for President Obama to try let the matter fade from the public view with no further meaningful pursuit of accountability from his administration.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 9:16pm
Posted by hughm8 at 04/29/2009 @ 9:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Here is a link to the case I was referring to. This man, a German national, was kidnapped by the CIA on foreign soil, held without charge secretly in one of their "facilities" for 5 months, while being "harshly interrogated", and then abandoned on a hilltop in Albania. He does not speak Albanian. He has no friends or family in Albania. He has never been to Albania. He was abandoned with no money and no place to go on a hillside in a foreign country not identified for him, with no friends, family or acquaintances of any sort, in a rural place where he did not speak or understand the language. After 5 months in a secret prison being "harshly interrogated". In other words, he was left to die in a country where nobody would know who he was, where he came from, or how he got there. This was the CIA's attempt to erase a problem they created for themselves.
The case is so credible that the German government produced arrest warrants for the 13 CIA operatives believed to be responsible. They can never to return to Germany after what they've done or they will be held accountable. Germany is one of our closest allies and they have arrest warrants for our CIA operatives after what they did with the Bush/Cheney view on what is OK to do to people the CIA suspects of some involvement with jihad.
And a Bush-era court ruled he had no right to sue the USG for his treatment.
This case is what ending the CIA's "practices" of torture, and "rendition" is all about.
http://www.sacc.org.uk/index.php? option=content&task=view&id=355&catid=43
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 9:24pm
Mr Nichols,
George W. Bush will die in Walter Reed Hospital, some decades from now, still considered one of the worst, if not THE worst Presidents of the United States. He will be loved by that small contingent of lvlib/antisoc, SJCHER, etc....themselves a shrinking minority.
He will never be put on trial and never ever seen the inside of a jail or a ankle bracelet monitor or whatever.
Same for Cheney except for a lot less time before Walter Reed...or likely a very expensive Swiss clinic doing "experimental work".
A honest desire for "justice" or what is, as the Bush Years fade into the past, an OBSESSION....you (and others) need to accept that reality.
Posted by Mask at 04/29/2009 @ 9:29pm
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 9:24pm
Seriously Sy, Chancellor Merkel will not tangle with the CIA. Those made up stories from the European newspapers are pure fantasy.
I'm quite sure with unemployment already in the double digits, the German government won't risk losing American investments pulling a stunt like that.
Posted by ACook at 04/29/2009 @ 9:40pm
Right on Mask.
I still think that George Bush was never the president. He was a tool and he perfectly reflected some of the classic, spittle flecked opinions that course through the darker edges of our national mentality.
He was the closest thing to a 'manchurian candidate' our country has ever seen, a gullible, mean spirited fool who could listen to a lot of tough talk and suggestions and, later, be convinced that he had actually thought this things up on his own (not that he didn't have a few nasty revelations all by his little lonesome). Therefore I believe he willingly enacted a lot of the crazed ideas that others implanted into his head through a bizarre type of mental conditioning. He was a cheerleader. He'd do anything for the team.
I'll bet that someone, after one of these 'intelligence' briefings, actually said to him... "but ultimately, Mr. President, you are the one who'll make the call... you'll be the decider!" That remark was a little too creative for him to come up with without inspiration from someone else.
Hopefully he'll get his 'Whack-a-Mole' business up and running and we'll see him on TV in a new reality show.
Posted by ficheye at 04/29/2009 @ 9:58pm
It is highly enjoyable to watch all the Demoncrat Senators and Reps. who were fully aware of the techniques being used to elicit information from suspected and known terrorists twist in the wind hoping the rope stays away from their necks while trying to demonize the Bush administration figures they enabled and supported!
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/29/2009 @ 10:05pm
It will dog Obama as pardoning Nixon did Ford.
Naw ksaM, hsuB/cHeney will go to trail.
Oherwise we STILL do not have a lawful government and Obama will have to hang his head in shame throughout history-- if he makes this MISTAKE...
Obama will forever be dIminished if he takes this SHORTCUT.
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2009 @ 10:09pm
Posted by ACook at 04/29/2009 @ 9:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Those warrants were from the Schroeder government in Germany, which already was "tangling" with the CIA by publicly issuing formal arrest warrants for 13 of its operative. Public warrants do things like identify clandestine operatives by name and photo such that they can no longer function in clandestine operations.
The CIA does not control much of US investment in Germany, I don't believe, investment which assuredly is a bulk sum of many private organizations doing business there, and tourism spending, etc.
I speculate that the US government which includes its intelligence apparatus is much more dependent on the good will of allied nations than any of thinks. I very much doubt that the US wants any German head-of-state to have real reason ("they kidnapped an innocent German national, held him in a torture prison for 5 months, and then left to him to die on a hilltop in Albania!") to want to take on the US in particular its intelligence community.
But all of this is a sidetrack; the point is that the one poster above started ranting about 9/11 and Khalid Mohammed, asking if we wouldn't want him abused (as if this would do anything). I merely wanted to point out to him (and anyone else reading) that what these determinations on torture, "rendition", domestic spying, etc., were all about, was a very dark, dark episode. We'll certainly know most of what went on.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 10:21pm
Two MISTAKES do make a SHORTCUT!
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2009 @ 10:21pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2009 @ 10:09pm
Uh, no, Ford didn't lose solely because he pardoned Nixon (contrary to Liberal belief), he lost because he ran on a very weak platform, like John McCain.
If you look back, just about every President has pardoned his predecessor's wrongdoings and if Obama is smart, he won't mess with the process, because he may need his successor to forgive his misdeeds.
And it goes on an on.
Posted by ACook at 04/29/2009 @ 10:24pm
"Torture is the weapon of cowards and bullies and monsters. Cheney is all three. Prosecute him."
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2009 @ 10:31pm
because he may need his successor to forgive his misdeeds.
And it goes on an on.
Posted by ACook at 04/29/2009 @ 10:24pm
Which then proves my point-- we STILL do not have a lawful government.
Obama can change all that and do nothing requiring a pardon.
Imagine that, an administration that followed the laws of our nation!
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2009 @ 10:36pm
http://tinyurl.com/cy4t7e
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2009 @ 10:39pm
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 10:21pm
And you see why the German people got rid of Schroeder too. I know he did it to piss Bush off, and it backfired on him.
Soon after that, Rummey put Ramstein airbase on the chopping block, and with it goes the jobs for the locals.
Posted by ACook at 04/29/2009 @ 10:42pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2009 @ 10:36pm
And how long have you been on this earth?
Can you tell me how many US Presidents and Vice Presidents have gone to prison for allegedly violating Geneva or UN International treaties over torture tactics?
Answer: NONE!
Posted by ACook at 04/29/2009 @ 10:48pm
To squander the good will of the people of the world, what is that like-- hsuB/cHeney admin?
Obama makes the MISTAKE and SHORTCUTS this justice; he'll be reduced to the same mediocrity he protects.
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2009 @ 10:55pm
Answer: NONE!
Posted by ACook at 04/29/2009 @ 10:48pm
And Obama can then earn being the 'first' in more than one paradigm by showing the world that we're truly a nation of laws.
A leader of nations.
That is where Obama really wants to go.
Pardoning the hsuB/cHeney admin will totally derail that train of thought: make the Obama/Biden admin all fake and dull. Fizzle the rising star.
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2009 @ 11:08pm
"Obama makes the MISTAKE and SHORTCUTS this justice; he'll be reduced to the same mediocrity he protects."
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2009 @ 10:55pm
C'est la vie, mon amie. Bonne nuit
Posted by ACook at 04/29/2009 @ 11:10pm
G'nite. er, Gute nacht!
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2009 @ 11:31pm
"It is highly enjoyable to watch all the Demoncrat Senators and Reps. who were fully aware of the techniques being used to elicit information from suspected and known terrorists twist in the wind hoping the rope stays away from their necks while trying to demonize the Bush administration figures they enabled and supported!"
and that's why they appoint an "independent counsel."
Posted by darladoon at 04/30/2009 @ 12:10am
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2009 @ 10:09pm
An HSUB prediction....best reverse barometer in the business.
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 06:20am
OK Mr. - 'Frido will never be booted out'. HA.
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 07:14am
What about the 'Ruinsfeld is out'a here'?
What about the 'lets have 4-5 presidents instead of one at a time'?
Or the 'we'll end up with 60 in the senate'?
And if hsuB/cHeney get an independent prosecutor on their ass, guess what!?!?!
Bingo!
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 07:24am
Could you repeat the question?
Posted by snowball666 at 04/30/2009 @ 07:23am
Er, Frito.
hsuB's AG nickname.
ksaM predicted hsuB would never let him go/boot him.
Me, vice versa.
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 07:56am
Oh oh, what about the 'Iraq won't be the major issue going into the election'...
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 07:57am
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 07:56am
Actually I said I wouldn't be surpised if Dubya kept Gonzales on, given he had nothing to lose....past 2006 and already tanking in the polls.
However, if you'd like a rundown of a more EXCITABLE series of predictions...here they are-
Comments for "Ford, Cheney, Checks and Balances" by John Nichols
Calm down. I'm sure hsuB won't get impeached for another 2-3 months, at least.--Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/02/2007 @ 2:54pm
Okay...translated.....you're calling for Bills of Impeachment out of the House of Reps by late October 2007?
yes?---Posted by MASK 01/02/2007 @ 4:18pm
Sounds about right. Or is that left to you?--Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/02/2007 @ 4:20pm
BLOG | Posted 01/05/2007 @ 12:36am Will a New Congress Check and Balance Bush? by John Nichols
Right upto Bush's Democratic successor swearing-in on January 20th, 2009???---Posted by MASK 01/05/2007 @ 2:22pm
Would it not be better on Oct. 30, 2007?---Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/05/2007 @ 2:36pm
But then that's why Al Gore will step in.----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/26/2007 @ 2:05pm
The biggest reason Al will step in will be leading candidates spouting rhetoric about continuation of the Iraq war and minimizing global warming or not putting it as a top priority.----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/26/2007 @ 3:12pm
T-minus 57 days and counting.
(Going as a "Gore in '08" placard or a Bill of Impeachment, for Halloween, HSUB?)----Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 3:20pm
Both, I believe I've stated multiple times that both were going to happen.---Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/04/2007 @ 4:03pm
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 08:07am
To: Posted by NOVA 10/12/2007 @ 11:01am
You're somewhat right, so Al will wait some. I'd say around either the 20th or the 30th of this month to announce that he's running. -----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/12/2007 @ 11:19am
WILL GORE INFLUENCE '08?...Posted by Ari Berman at 12/10/2007 @ 3:51pm
Why don't you dig up those posts of mine, you so ardently save, from a couple months back and see if I didn't say about 30 days 'after' he got the Nobel....?---Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/10/2007 @ 5:04pm
THE UNDER-RATED BILL RICHARDSON...Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 10/19/2007 @ 5:33pm
If Al doesn't announce by the 30th of this month then I'm wrong.
How long can Al run without actually annoucing per stirring enough of the great 'melting pot' to want him as the Chef, uuhhmm, good question. What would happen if the vast majority write Al in at election time? And he never announces, now that would be another first, er. except for the first, first...---Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/22/2007 @ 12:53am
BLOG | Posted 10/31/2007 @ 10:49pm Is Hillary the Next Grover Cleveland? by Jon Wiener
"Actually Al Gore will be on the tonight show on either the 2nd or 8th and..."----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/01/2007 @ 1:10pm
hsuB pardons Libby and he's just a few days/weeks closer to getting impeached. hsuB has everything neccessary for being impeached and low poll numbers aren't helping him in any way not to be. I say he doesn't. ----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/05/2007 @ 8:33pm
BLOG | Posted 10/29/2007 @ 3:54pm Al Gore: The Write-In Front-Runner by John Nichols
And if I'm off by a few days?----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/30/2007 @ 09:46am
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 08:11am
I can still see Pelosi being forced into putting impeachment back on the table, just like she did for Frita's AG Frito. And if she does and our troops in Iraq begin coming home in 'large' numbers, 75-100K, will Sheehan still have a strong hand? She definitely will if Pelosi accomplishes neither of those two necessities.---Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/10/2007 @ 1:53pm
"You might want to sit down for this: Al Gore will announce his candidacy for president this week, knowledgeable sources tell Grist."---Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/01/2008 @ 10:09am
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 08:13am
Mask,
One thing you left out, on your chronology of what you believe George W. Bush's ultimate fate will be, is that he will know he did what was necessary to save the country from a future terrorist attack that would have made 9/11 look like child's play in comparison.
You say that he will be loved by me (SJCHER) when he meets his maker.
It seems you have your timelines wrong, Mr. Bush will outlive me.
When I said above that Mr. Bush prevented the future terrorist attack, he did so but now the terrorist attack is back in play as President Obama's policies will set things up for it to happen again.
From disclosing information about rough treatment (not torture, and necessary to get information to protect innocent people), to his planned weaking of the military, terrorists will see they have a green light to proceed again.
And we are not even talking about things like rolling back the Patriot Act. A lot of people on the left would love that, but so far that has not been done or even discussed much by Obama.
But will just about every other leftist initiative been cranked out at full tilt, and if Franken goes to the Senate and the Dems have 60 giving them a filibuster proof majority, then the sky will be the limit on The Agenda, and it is hard for me to imagine that rolling back the Patriot Act will not be pursued.
So there will be another major terrorist attack, and I will die in that attack. It is more of my "vibes" that you enjoy hearing about. I will not make a bet with you because I would not be able to collect anyway.
I can't imagine what Mr. Bush will think (or for that matter Tony Blair either), when they see the resulting calamity and they see their efforts were totally squandered.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/30/2009 @ 08:39am
looks to me like obama saw something that indicated that torture may well have resulted in good info.
like so many other aspects, the arrogant stupidity of the neocons is more responsible than anything...
if ya torture some goddamned violence plotting terrorist and stop a major attack as a result of the info gleaned...
YOU STILL DON'T BRAG ABOUT IT!!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/30/2009 @ 08:44am
Typo,
I said:
"....But will just about every other leftist initiative been cranked out at full tilt,...."
That should read:
"....But with just about every other leftist initiative having been cranked out at full tilt,...."
Posted by sjchermak at 04/30/2009 @ 08:44am
It seems you have your timelines wrong, Mr. Bush will outlive me.---Posted by sjchermak at 04/30/2009 @ 08:39am
I thought you were a rather young man...no older than 40s? You're in your 70s???
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 09:14am
"I think that whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake."
Mistake?
Definition of Mistake:
(1.) an error in action, calculation, opinion or judgement caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.
(2.) a misunderstanding or misconception.
Do any of these definitions even come close to describing a war crime? Or breaking International Law? Or violating treaties we are the signatory of? Or violating the oath of office in protecting and defending the constitution of the United States?
I think not. In fact it is the very Rule of Law that is at stake here. No man (or woman) is above of law. If even one person is considered above the law, the entire idea of the Rule of Law is a sham. It reminds me of "The Island of Dr. Moreau" by H.G. Wells or "The Lord of the Flies" by William Golding as to what happens when the "Law" is ignored and some try to rise above it.
In this case if Obama does not privately or better yet publically induce Eric Holder to prosecute, then he himself will be guilty as an accessory after the fact.
Posted by chaoszen at 04/30/2009 @ 09:29am
Mask,
In between what you project, as far as my age.
....but...when one is killed in a terrorist attack age is irrelevant, is it not.
Dead is dead, no matter how old one is.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/30/2009 @ 09:59am
You certainly don't seem to have nearly that much life experience!
Posted by BlackFrancis at 04/30/2009 @ 10:11am
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 9:24pm
What you leave out is that all lower Federal Courts and SCOTUS refused to hear El-Masri's lawsuit filed by the ACLU.
Not even the liberal members of SCOTUS were willing to consider his complaint.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 10:21am
Posted by snowball666 at 04/30/2009 @ 09:53am
Excellent link. Expresses my point elegantly. I thought Charles Laughton was going to water board that manimal!
"Who makes the rules" "Someone..Else." Great Oingo Boingo song. It shows exactly what happens when someone places themselves above the "LAW".
Posted by chaoszen at 04/30/2009 @ 10:33am
Snowball,
living in the Bay area, you probably heard about the tragic murder of a social worker Tuesday night? He was a something of a friend of ours through his cousin.
He was shot and killed near his house while walking his dog.
http://tinyurl.com/cxr7dc
And to anyone else, please keep his family in your prayers. Thanks
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 10:44am
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 10:44am
Excuse me for being a bit suspect here, but exactly what could be the nefarious purpose of your posting that? Hmmmm.. I wonder...
Posted by chaoszen at 04/30/2009 @ 11:03am
"is that he will know he did what was necessary to save the country from a future terrorist attack that would have made 9/11 look like child's play in comparison."
same excuse given by every person ever accused/convicted of torture: "i was trying to prevent another attack by getting information".
sad part is, sjchermak cannot see the light (or logic) of laws and treaties on which we are a signatory.
for him, america is an exceptional country, which can break whatever rules or treaties it wants.
but wait! sjchermak responds! "we are AMERICA, our lives our more important than any other lives!"
and the delusion goes deeper and deeper with every single person opposed to prosecutions.
Posted by darladoon at 04/30/2009 @ 11:03am
"In this case if Obama does not privately or better yet publically induce Eric Holder to prosecute, then he himself will be guilty as an accessory after the fact."
this is as true as Truth gets. and i think obama said the right thing last night, that "waterboarding is torture", something which condi rice, dick cheney and the entire republican party (and their pals in the media) cannot seem to grasp....
Posted by darladoon at 04/30/2009 @ 11:05am
Excuse me for being a bit suspect here, but exactly what could be the nefarious purpose of your posting that? Hmmmm.. I wonder...
Posted by chaoszen at 04/30/2009 @ 11:03am
Not everything is about politics and arguing Chaozen. All of us have friends and relatives outside of blogging.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 11:06am
"But will just about every other leftist initiative been cranked out at full tilt"
you know you live in a f*cked up country where:
"leftist initiative" = obeying the law
Posted by darladoon at 04/30/2009 @ 11:07am
"But will just about every other leftist initiative been cranked out at full tilt"
you know you live in a f*cked up country where:
"leftist initiative" = obeying the law
Posted by darladoon at 04/30/2009 @ 11:07am
Just curious Darla, what aspect of the quadrupling of our national debt was "obeying the law"?
How is financing the banks and the automakers "obeying the law"?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 11:11am
Posted by sjchermak at 04/30/2009 @ 09:59am
Then I'm not sure where you get your "Bush will outlive me", SJCHER. The man is 63 this year. With the weight of the Presidency and the fact that most of the country and the world dislike him...bound to cut into it.
So unless you're in your mid-70s or in very bad shape physically, no reason you couldn't outlive him.
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 11:15am
and the delusion goes deeper and deeper with every single person opposed to prosecutions. Posted by darladoon at 04/30/2009 @ 11:03am
The reason they do "denial" is that they are unwilling to accept the responsibility for the crimes perpetrated in our name. Their mindset does not allow them to ever conceive that our country could ever do anything wrong. Like Nixon said, "If the President Does It, It is not Illegal".
To accept responsibility and actually "Do Something" to correct some wrongdoing by their glorious and infallible nation would be to admit imperfection. They are incapable of fully realizing the cost and repurcussions of their actions. And are unable to move on with the process of making sure it never happens again.
They are children...
Posted by chaoszen at 04/30/2009 @ 11:16am
I think that Obama still has plenty of open options. he is a reasoning man. that's why I voted for him. he has been impressive, no towering.
Britain has left the field in Iraq, the sniveling cowards.(jes' kiddin')
sends more troops to Afghanistan, along with our increase. nice big empty country there, no one will much notice more soldiers there.
after eight arduous, bloody years, we have successfully driven the Taleban closer towards the nuclear powder keg that is Pakistan. a strategic achievement that will go down in history, pun intended.
Pakistan is verry sympathetic to the Taleban, who have incidentally been reported to control 80% of their country. Waziristan too, is verry sympathetic to the Taleban and Bin Laden. like all wars the Afghanistan debacle threatens to spill across its borders. that's what wars do.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/30/2009 @ 11:17am
The Congress can't remove Gonzales without impeachment proceedings. Once the hearings end and maybe a week of "outrage" from both sides, we move onto other stories (it's practically off the MSM radar now). Gonzales' "effectiveness" is merely a measure of what he can do in office and given he was incompetent (at best) to begin with....that won't change.
Firing Gonzo won't raise Bush's approvals...and not firing him can't get them any lower. The Repubs are in enough trouble with Iraq that "Attorney-gate" isn't going to add another significant millstone to their necks in 2008.
Again, what's the downside for Bush keeping "Fredo"?...nothing important I can see. And if he "rides it out" until Jan. 2009, then he gets to write his memoir and claim "vindication" and say it was all a "partisan witch-hunt".
Posted by Mask at 05/17/2007 @ 4:58pm
GOP Senators to Gonzales: Go Already!posted by JOHN NICHOLS on 05/17/2007 @ 3:25pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 11:25am
Mask,
Are you being the normal Mask, being a pest, or do you not understand what I said?
1. Mr. Bush is 63.
2. There will be another terrorist attack in this country within 10 years.
3. At the max, at the time of the attack Mr. Bush will be 73. He is in good health now, as far as I know, thus he will be alive at that point.
4. Thus, once the terrorist attack is over Mr. Bush will be alive. I will NOT be alive after the terrorist attack.
5. Thus, Mr. Bush will outlive me.
6. Also, Mr. Bush and also Mr. Blair are going to be quite depressed once the attack occurs, because they both worked hard to prevent any future attack, and the Obama administration will have squandered their efforts.
7. Also, once the attack occurs, Mr. Bush will not say a word in anger or criticism of those who squandered his efforts......constast that to how libs and other Democrats would be expected to behave if the situation were to have been reversed.
8. Does this clarify things? You won't comment back if it does, that would not be typical of you.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/30/2009 @ 11:30am
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 11:25am
Apart from Gonzales leaving, seems pretty accurate, HSUB.
And again, I made no statement that "Gonzales definitely will NOT resign", did I?
While you on the other hand predicted an "imminent Bush impeachment" for TWO YEARS (calling it "on trial for torture"...MORE than two years now)...
and claimed that Gore was going to announce his candidacy for the Democratic primaries by a certain date....then said you'd admit you were wrong if he didn't....then claimed he was going to win a Convention fight...then said he was going to run as an independent in April of 2008!
For us to have "equivalency"....I would have had to have claimed that "Bush will RE-HIRE Gonzales any day now!"
LOL
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 11:33am
Not everything is about politics and arguing Chaozen. All of us have friends and relatives outside of blogging.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 11:06am
So why would you bring that up here? This is a political forum. I could see if you sent an Email to close friends and relatives. But I don't understand any relevance to the fact that darladoon just happens to be from San Francisco.
So I suspect that your Insect Brain had some other ulterior motive in presenting this..
Moriarty! Dr. Watson and I are on the case! And Hot on your Trail.. You will not escape this time Professor Moriarty!
Sorry, Snowballs post got me off on a tangent of old movies and some of my favorite characters..
Posted by chaoszen at 04/30/2009 @ 11:33am
8. Does this clarify things? You won't comment back if it does, that would not be typical of you.---Posted by sjchermak at 04/30/2009 @ 11:30am
Ohhhh, yes it does.
You're going crazy.
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 11:35am
To me, it indicates that Bush and the Admin don't give a rat's ass about the rest of the Republicans. After all, if Rummy had left in August of '06, it could have saved them a seat or two.
Same for Gonzales....a knock-down fight where the GOP Senators HAVE to go after "Fredo" would hurt the party, by delaying Gonzales' departure and turning it into "forced out" instead of "left under a cloud". But given the Bush track record...it may come to that.
Now, this would surely please Mr Nichols...he's been itching for ANY impeachment (and the parallel leap in book sales) for years now...but I wonder if the Repubs might figure that out and stop short of joining the Dems in actually removing Gonzales and just let him finish out the next 20 months and bet on it having little impact in '08.
Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 09:17am GOP to Gonzales: Care For Some Hemlock? posted by JOHN NICHOLS on 04/20/2007 @ 09:01am
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 11:35am
And if Gonzales stays put, that eliminates part of the "corruption" charge AND let's the Bush Redeemers claim "Though things were charged at Gonzales, he never resigned and Congress never thought it was worthy of impeachment!"
Now maybe THAT doesn't sound "rational"...but it SURE sounds plausible!
Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 10:19am
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 11:38am
but I wonder if the Repubs might figure that out and stop short of joining the Dems in actually removing Gonzales and just let him finish out the next 20 months and bet on it having little impact in '08.----Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 09:17am
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 11:35am
Interesting that one, HSUB...because substitute DUBYA for Gonzales...and I was right and you were wrong.
The GOP AND the Dems basically "just let him finish out the next 20 months and bet on it having little impact in '08."
However the BET was wrong, since by NOT impeaching Dubya and starting a partisan circus, it probably did more to HELP Obama defeat McCain.
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 11:39am
BTW, HSUB, here's another prediction of mine....
Come 2016...you start talking about how Al Gore is going to run and beat Biden or Hillary or whoever for the nomination....then it'll be the Convention floor....then "Gore in '16" Independent run.
Wanna save this one???....LOL
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 11:43am
Out of all the descriptions used for Obama, I think "tepid' sums up what he truly is.
He's just like a glass of tap water - you know it's not that good coming out of the faucet, but you drink it anyway because there's nothing out there much better.
Posted by ACook at 04/30/2009 @ 11:53am
"Just curious Darla, what aspect of the quadrupling of our national debt was "obeying the law"? How is financing the banks and the automakers "obeying the law"?"
(non-sequiturs)
(hint: see topic)
Posted by darladoon at 04/30/2009 @ 11:53am
In less than 8 months we are NECK DEEP into the Primary Season and it'll be "Look what Hillary said about Obama"..."Look what Obama said about Hillary"..."Look what McCain did THIS time and it's on YouTube!" and "Fredo" will be sitting in his comfy chair at D.O.J. and writing his memoirs on the company computer.
Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 1:54pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 11:54am
4. Thus, once the terrorist attack is over Mr. Bush will be alive. I will NOT be alive after the terrorist attack.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/30/2009 @ 11:30am
i was going to write something "witty" but perhaps a recommendation for psychiatric help is more fitting.
take care,
fz
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2009 @ 12:05pm
He's just like a glass of tap water - you know it's not that good coming out of the faucet, but you drink it anyway because there's nothing out there much better.
Posted by ACook at 04/30/2009 @ 11:53am |
I guess you haven't heard of "Bottled Obama" water yet? It's much more refreshing and cogent than the standard "Out of The Faucet Obama".
Your analogy takes the cake as the "Most Inane Analogy of the Week". You will be receiving a 1 year free subscription to the National Review! Congratulations!
Posted by chaoszen at 04/30/2009 @ 12:11pm
OK ksaM, I was way off with Al Gore needing to enter the presidential race sans an Obama run catching on.
But I also said that Obama was Al's choice long before Obama was a shoe-in. And apart from saying we needed lots of presidents rather than one-- I also said that Al wouldn't step in unless there wasn't any other way a la a brokered convention. The rest is history.
But you were way off about Frito, Ruinsfeld, Wolfie, Rove,... and where hsuB/cHeney admin are eventually going to end up.
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 12:12pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 12:12pm
1. Your last "Gore will enter the race" post was on 4/01/2008...well after Obama was smacking down Hillary.
2. You were still predicting a "Gore Convention floor victory" well after Obama was getting past the magic delegate numbers and the PUMAs were surrendering.
3. Your impeachment predictions were wrong, even down to a "no later than October 2007" prediction you made several times. They continue to TODAY with the idea that Bush will be post-office put on trial for torture, etc.
4. I predicted Gonzales might stay, because it did NO political damage to Bush (nothing to lose) and he wouldn't be an issue in 2008. First part was wrong, second part was not. BUSH was focus of 2008 and McCain trying to distance himself from him.
But HSUB, again, for "equivalency", I'd have to be predicting that "Obama will re-hire Alberto Gonzales as Attorney-General" or "Alberto Gonzales will run for President and WIN in 2012!"
My predictions were based on a cynical view of Dubya and a realistic view of what the 2008 Election would stack up as...and had a modicum of basis in reality.
YOUR predictions were based on a naive view of "cosmic justice" and your cultish devotion to Gore. And thus were doomed to failure.
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 12:34pm
Posted by chaoszen at 04/30/2009 @ 11:33am
Sorry you took it that way. Snowball whom I addressed it to, lives in the Bay area.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 12:36pm
And just as an aside. Has anyone ever checked out a Blog on the National Review?
Try it sometime. It is a very educational experience. There are some real right wing brainiacs there. They even talk about Nietzche and Darwin incessantly. And the rhetoric is astounding. A nonstop assualt of total blabber.
Go to the website and click on "Blog" then click on "Liberal Facism", you should be entertained for about a minute or so, maybe longer depending..
Check it out!
Here is the link to the homepage. I will not assist you in finding your way to the good stuff as that would be too easy. Just refer to my instructions above.
http://www.nationalreview.com/
Posted by chaoszen at 04/30/2009 @ 12:37pm
In less than 8 months we are NECK DEEP into the Primary Season and it'll be "Look what Hillary said about Obama"..."Look what Obama said about Hillary"..."Look what McCain did THIS time and it's on YouTube!" and "Fredo" will be sitting in his comfy chair at D.O.J. and writing his memoirs on the company computer.
Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 1:54pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 11:54am
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 12:57pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 12:57pm
Weighed against
"Bush in the dock as the Senate impeachs him and Cheney and Pelosi becomes President" fantasies?...
and the "Al Gore Inaugural of 2008"?
I'm the weatherman on your local TV station...
and you're Criswell. I can live with that...LOL
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 1:21pm
you said it would be nice today!
i'm switchin' to the channel 6 newsteam.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2009 @ 1:35pm
the justice of reality
or
the reality of justice?
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2009 @ 1:36pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2009 @ 1:35pm
Mind your manners, vassal state serf!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8323
(heheh)
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 1:48pm
and the justice of reality...
that's a hard one to legislate.
go to google street view and take a walk around the near east side:
"3860 elmwood street detroit michigan"
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&tab=wl
(also check out the photos of the "heidelberg project"; unfortunately, the pertinent neighbourhood has not been streetviewized....)
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2009 @ 2:03pm
I will NOT be alive after the terrorist attack. Posted by sjchermak at 04/30/2009 @ 11:30am
Whoa! Got some inside info there, Chermobyl, that you're withholding so you can blame Obama posthumously? Send me some of what you're smokin.'
Posted by kennyboy at 04/30/2009 @ 2:09pm
that's not funny, mask.....
(thanks, though. i wasn't aware -- not that a "law" would matter if things were really icky...)
but hey, at least i won't have to pay for it.
(heheh)
but wait!
it's a bilateral agreement!
HEHEH
(we've got more OTTERS!)
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2009 @ 2:12pm
No JOHN NICHOLS, Obama does not miss the mark, just as Ford did not when he pardoned Nixon or Carter when he pardoned the draft dodgers.
Its moving ahead, or as you Bleeding Hearts like to call it, "healing."
If Dems were on the Hot Seat you'd want that "healing", wouldn't you John?
John?
Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 04/30/2009 @ 2:22pm
Another example of "change you can believe in." This guy ought to be starting to grate on your nerves.....
'Senate votes down foreclosure bill Senate defeats bid that would have let homeowners seek foreclosure relief in bankruptcy court On Thursday April 30, 2009, 3:15 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate has defeated legislation that would have let hundreds of thousands of debt-ridden homeowners seek mortgage relief in bankruptcy court.
President Barack Obama had said the bill was important to saving the economy and promised to push for its passage. But facing stiff opposition from banks, Obama did little to lean on lawmakers who worried it might spike interest rates.
The bill would have allowed bankruptcy judges to rewrite a person's mortgage terms, if a bank refused to offer better terms based on income and home value. Only 45 senators voted in favor of the bill, with 51 senators opposed.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- With President Barack Obama largely on the sidelines, Senate Republicans are poised to defeat his promise of a bankruptcy court refuge for hundreds of thousands of families about to lose their homes to foreclosure.....'
Posted by OneVote at 04/30/2009 @ 2:26pm
Posted by OneVote at 04/30/2009 @ 2:26pm
Since there are only 40 Republican Senators, how did they defeat this bill?
At least 10 Democrats had to have voted against it.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 2:36pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 2:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes...you are right. Not just the Repubs - kind of senate bi-partisan vote. Don't have the voting roll as yet - I am guessing blue dogs will be in the mix.
Just goes to show you the bi-partisan sway of the banking lobby over our senate.
So corporations get a new deal and homeowners do not. Tnanks BO for the tough fight!
Posted by OneVote at 04/30/2009 @ 2:56pm
The flyover New York is just more evidence showing how out of touch and insensitive this administration is. To bring up what ever methods that were used to get more information out of these evil killers of 3,000 people and information that saved more attacks on our nation is the height of irresponsibility. I believe that if you asked the families of the victims they would think that water boarding was far too easy. Our own military have to go through this for training.Obama was wrong on quoting Churchill. He was referring to military people in uniform at war. We are dealing with terrorists. Wrong also about how the British treat terrorists, much harsher than we have done. He had a lot of nerve to even mention Churchill after he sent his Bust a gift to a past president back to Britian. There is a storage area in the WH for all the gifts given in the past. Churchill is a great hero there. A big insult to that country.I don't remember a start this disorganized or so full of blame and blunders. Rhetoric and "cool"style is not enough to cover naked ambition at the expense of the poor taxpayer far into the future. He only cares about himself, his image and his vision for what he wants the U S to be. Congress is going along like sheep.
Posted by Katie10 at 04/30/2009 @ 3:24pm
Maybe SJ's really into extreme sports, unstable methods of making meth, and plays lots of ruski roulette.
Posted by snowball666 at 04/30/2009 @ 09:50am
IOW, sort of like a Republican version of "Breaking Bad".
LOL
Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/30/2009 @ 3:38pm
Don't feel bad, John, since the only web site pursuing the prosecution of torture (and the use of torture to launch a preemptive 'aggressive war' -- the ultimate war crime) is WSWS.
WSWS continues to be the only site on the internet which carries the argument to its sad conclusion, that BOTH parties are entirely culpable of continuing war crimes:
"Among those informed of such crimes were the Democratic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and other top congressional Democrats.
The result is the spectacle of a US political establishment--where the White House and both houses of Congress are controlled by the Democratic Party--that is incapable of enforcing its own laws, despite ample public evidence of violations that were sanctioned by the highest levels of the state.
The use of torture is itself inseparable from the central criminal act that was sanctioned by the entire US political establishment--the launching of illegal and aggressive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This decision had far-reaching and tragic consequences, of which torture was only one. These wars of aggression caused the death, maiming and displacement of millions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the death and physical and mental scarring of thousands of American soldiers."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/apr2009/pers-a27.shtml
John, you quote Obama's suggestion that America will be stronger and safer if it is a "beacon to the world" -- willing to hold true to (our) values."
But America will categorically not be a 'beacon to the world' nor even considered a democracy (rather than the Empire that it is) unless America overtly and publicly prosecutes ALL its own ruling-elite leadership of war criminals.
Even post-Nazi Germany did better than Obama is suggesting.
Alan MacDonald Sanford, Me
Posted by amacd at 04/30/2009 @ 3:49pm
And just as an aside. Has anyone ever checked out a Blog on the National Review?
Posted by chaoszen at 04/30/2009 @ 12:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yup. They've even got one entitled "Phi Beta Con" (no, really). They're arguing about SAT scores.
As to their discussing Nietsche et al., well, wouldn't you be depressed, too?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/30/2009 @ 4:06pm
I bet they really HATED the cool kids, too.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/30/2009 @ 4:07pm
Posted by chaoszen at 04/30/2009 @ 12:11pm
Didn't you know all "bottled water" comes from tap water? ;-)
Posted by ACook at 04/30/2009 @ 4:15pm
1. Your last "Gore will enter the race" post was on 4/01/2008...well after Obama was smacking down Hillary.
(Er, if I remember correctly there was still a possibility of brokered convention so you memory is slightly screwed.)
2. You were still predicting a "Gore Convention floor victory" well after Obama was getting past the magic delegate numbers and the PUMAs were surrendering.
(Again, your memory is about as accurate as new cons is normally... there were plenty of articles about a possible brokered convention you're selectively forgetting.)
3. Your impeachment predictions were wrong, even down to a "no later than October 2007" prediction you made several times. They continue to TODAY with the idea that Bush will be post-office put on trial for torture, etc.
(I stated lots of times my timing was off. But see we're still talking about hsuB/cHeney arriving at justice's door-- are we not? And BTW that was sans a Gestapo DoJ. Since we were under a petty dic'tatorslip, congress was powerless. )
4. I predicted Gonzales might stay...
(Try WOULD stay.)
My predictions were based on a cynical view of Dubya and a realistic view ...
(Of what didn't happen.)
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 12:34pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 4:23pm
obama's stance on torture is, of course, significant, but his stance on prosecutions is irrelevant. eric holder's responsibility is to uphold the rule of law. as the evidence pours in, he will move forward with prosecutions.
anyone who advocates against prosecutions has only one argument: it wouldn't be politically expedient.
"political expedience" is one of the arguments that the Convention Against Torture specifically mentions State Parties (to the Convention) cannot use in self-defense.
i'm not kidding. look it up.
so, if the obama justice department ducks the matter, then other state parties have a responibility to prosecute for them.
Posted by darladoon at 04/30/2009 @ 4:33pm
for very frank discussion on this matter, i highly recommend everyone check out jonathan turley. who, by the way, is not really a liberal.
Posted by darladoon at 04/30/2009 @ 4:34pm
Wrong also about how the British treat terrorists, much harsher than we have done.
Posted by Katie10 at 04/30/2009 @ 3:24pm
In what sense is this so?
Really, I'm not being sarcastic. If we're waterboarding people, what are the Brits doing with theirs, to sort of "step things up", as it were.
Tossing them out of helicopters, etc.?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/30/2009 @ 4:44pm
Posted by Katie10 at 04/30/2009 @ 3:24pm
BTW, in reference to your revered Churchill. He was quite cool to our President Roosevelt once FDR made it clear that the British Empire would be the next to go.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/30/2009 @ 4:50pm
Our own military have to go through this for training.
Posted by Katie10 at 04/30/2009 @ 3:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I'm sorry, Katie, but things are different in training. There you KNOW going in your own guys aren't really trying to kill you.
Apples and oranges.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/30/2009 @ 4:52pm
Our own military have to go through this for training.
Posted by Katie10 at 04/30/2009 @ 3:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
And, by the way, they're not drafting nowadays.
Nobody "has to" go through anything.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/30/2009 @ 4:54pm
While hsuB/cHeney admin were calling our troops a few bad apples for following the executive orders stating how to commit all the disgusting violations of what the hsuB/cHeney admin knew they had already signed-off for them to do, the hsuB/cHeney admin were confident in the knowledge that no one could speak about it and that their gestapo DoJ would bury any investigation, ignore subpoenas, squashing any possibility of prosecution.
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 5:18pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEEvTvgG0Yo&feature=related
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 5:26pm
http://tinyurl.com/crywjc
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 5:47pm
for very frank discussion on this matter, i highly recommend everyone check out jonathan turley. who, by the way, is not really a liberal.
Posted by darladoon at 04/30/2009 @ 4:34pm
that post was meant as a joke right?
Turley is so liberal, he wears red underwear (just joking).
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 5:54pm
God Sj. You are such a..... You are making statements about massive terrorists attacks yet YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY 100% ZERO EVIDENCE. Maybe you should learn to think for yourself instead of automatically going into "There will be a terrorist attack if Obama is in office mode." God I though the people who liked Obama were supposed to be the Kool-Aid drinkers. Weren't you saying not long ago that liberals had an automatic hatred of George Bush for no good reason. Listen to you now. You sound EXACTLY like them.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2009 @ 5:55pm
Turley is so liberal, he wears red underwear (just joking).
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 5:54p
Probably does. With little hammer and sickles inside hearts printed all over it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2009 @ 5:59pm
SJ, You need to get psychiatric care IMMEDIATELY. I used to think you were a semi-rational somewhat free thinking person. Now I see you are either a man with a brain specially crafted by the right wing noise machine OR you are crazy. Either way, get help.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2009 @ 6:00pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 4:23pm
There were "plenty of articles" about RESE and PLUNGER's "Halliburton-built concentration camps" and "Bush declaring martial law before 2008" too, HSUB....
didn't make them relevant.
BTW, care to make another prediction on when Dubya will be taken to the dock for his "Post-Presidential Impeachment Trial"?....still have plenty of space in My Documents/HSUB_predictions.txt Notepad file.
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 7:27pm
Cccomfo1,
I have noticed a recurring pattern in your posts that you tell me I need to think for myself.
My political views are not the same as yours, but why the automatic assumption that I am not thinking for myself?
Is it because you think that if one thinks for themself they would naturally come to conclusions favoring the left?
If that is the case, then that displays some arrogance on your part - not necessarily personal arrogance, but ideological arrogance.
You say I have zero evidence. Of course, I would not be in the know about a planned attack that would give me "evidence". I say what I do because I believe the policies of President Bush kept us from an attack since Sept. 11 (Phil McCrevice/John_Shaft will be posting in again foaming at the mouth about the 7/7 attack in London).
Our country had a greater awareness of terrorist activities once the policies were put in place, there likely were attacks that never even got into the planning or idea stage because of greater pressure on possible terrorists, and these groups knew there would be a price to pay for attacking us.
In one form or another those things are being undone. It seems logical that at some point this could leave us more vulnerable, and open to an attack again.
The Obama administration has shown a cavalier attitude towards this already - flying Air Force One over Lower Manhattan as was done, with no apparent thought what emotion it would bring on people who haven't forgot and lived through 9/11.
I am discouraged that President Bush's and Tony Blair's efforts are being squandered and this leads to a personal "vibe" that I will be a victim the next time.
There is no need to go get a mental exam on my part.
You need to explain how this is not thinking for myself.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/30/2009 @ 7:32pm
Hoo-boy!! Is CNN Liberal or conservative? Who knows? I'm sure i'll hear about it though. Consider the following...
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey. More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified -- more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did. The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small.
Posted by ficheye at 04/30/2009 @ 8:04pm
It has been established, at least to my satisfaction, that the "torture" used sparingly recently by the US is so benign it took 183 (?) doses of waterboarding to get KSM to squeal. I mean really. That's torture?
However let's assume "torture" really is torture.
It should be obvious that Obama, who is quite enthusiastic about torturing ( the real stuff now) insurgents where ever they may be found whether it's in Iraq, Afghanistan or the back blocks of Pakistan, doesn't see that the devastation that war causes to all sides, ours, theirs and the innocents is the ultimate mental and physical torture. So unless you are a pacifist you, like Obama, are an absolute hypocrite.
American values? What a joke. Same of course for the hypocrites who pontificate about how terrible torture is at the UN and also officially engage, from time to time, in the same thing under a different name. Oh forgot. That sort of torture is justified by the circumstances. That's semantics for you.
Posted by lrjones4 at 04/30/2009 @ 8:12pm
Is it because you think that if one thinks for themself they would naturally come to conclusions favoring the left? "
No it's because if one thinks for themselves it generally means you won't sound EXACTLY like every other right wing noise maker. I have never heard
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2009 @ 9:38pm
ANY separation from the party line from you. None at all. The "facts" you post are the ones I hear all the time from the right wing noise machine. I have never heard an opinion from you that is outside the party line. THAT is why I say you don't think for yourself.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2009 @ 9:39pm
Posted by sjchermak at 04/30/2009 @ 7:32pm
Because if you think for youself you couldn't possibly make the statements you have made. You have bought into the right wing hysteria that terrorists are GOING to attack yet you have absolutely 100% ZERO evidence to go on. You are just saying it because Rush says it. Every thing you have said has no evidence to actually back it up. Not one thing. You are speaking from nothing more than opinion and stating it as if it were fact. You don't know if there were attacks that were stopped because of any of those plans. From what I have seen the attacks that were stopped were because of awareness of citizens not because of the government.
I would say that if there was an attack that was stopped that the government would have told us about it in order to legitimize the moves they have been making. But that is just opinion.
"The Obama administration has shown a cavalier attitude towards this already - flying Air Force One over Lower Manhattan as was done, with no apparent thought what emotion it would bring on people who haven't forgot and lived through 9/11. "
OBAMA didn't authorize it and you have no evidence to say that he did. Someone in the White House did and Obama was supposedly furious. So why are you blaiming him? You know what it is? It's the same irrational hatred you claimed all liberals have. It doesn't matter what the problem is whether it is actually Obama's fault or not you are going to blame him for it. Which is why your opinion is useless because no matter what Obama doesn't you are going to find a way to paint him in the negative, because you don't think for yourself you are letting your partisanship think for you.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2009 @ 9:46pm
Nah...he's got the constitution printed on em: LEGAL BRIEFS!! <rimshot>
Posted by snowball666 at 04/30/2009 @ 7:39pm
I have to admit I chuckled at that one.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2009 @ 9:47pm
What a hoot! Obama uses Churchill's name to justify his position while at the same time he banishes Churchill's statue from the oval office and sends it back to the British embassy. What a hypocrite.
The reason this so-called "truth commission" is going nowhere is because many of the liberal democrats are just as deep into the enhanced interrogation decisions and authorizations as the republicans and it's all documented. :)
Politicians do serve a purpose - they serve as a bad example.
Posted by pyeatte at 04/30/2009 @ 10:00pm
Frickin David Souter is going to retire! He's only 69. Ruth is 76 and sickern a dog and she's toughing it out. Wuss.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/30/2009 @ 10:05pm
Posted by sjchermak at 04/30/2009 @ 7:32pm
Because if you think for youself you couldn't possibly make the statements you have made. You have bought into the right wing hysteria that terrorists are GOING to attack yet you have absolutely 100% ZERO evidence to go on........
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2009 @ 9:46pm
Ahemmmmm......if I may....
I am absolutely positive that sometime this weekend, there will be multiple murders in LA.....and Detroit!
Now, if Mayor Villagarosa was to rule that beginning May 1st, all of LAPD will have one of their balls removed (let's say all are male) and can carry only BB Guns while on duty.....something tells me LA will become even more `murderous'!
I know, you've got me........I can't think for myself as I "have absolutely 100% ZERO evidence to go on".
Posted by Happy at 04/30/2009 @ 10:08pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2009 @ 9:46pm: "It doesn't matter what the problem is whether it is actually Obama's fault or not you are going to blame him for it."
Well, why not? You blamed Bush for everything... and still do. duh!
Posted by pyeatte at 04/30/2009 @ 10:09pm
"and can carry only BB Guns while on duty.."
Posted by Happy at 04/30/2009 @ 10:08pm
They carry Glocks. Not much difference.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/30/2009 @ 10:12pm
Well, why not? You blamed Bush for everything... and still do. duh!
Posted by pyeatte at 04/30/2009 @ 10:09pm
No I didn't and don't I blame him for the things he did and everyone else who helped, including Democrats. I don't blame him for things he had no control of or no part in. That is part of thinking for yourself.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2009 @ 10:20pm
They carry Glocks. Not much difference.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/30/2009 @ 10:12pm
No wonder Dirty Harry retired.....guess they made .44 Magnums politically incorrect in all of Cali.....after San Fran got fed up with hearing Harry say, day after day after day: "Somebody made my day when he felt lucky!"....LOL!
Posted by Happy at 04/30/2009 @ 10:23pm
Lord, this thread should come with warning label.
Between the right-wing Australians (hey, don't they have websites where you can pipe up about your support for the Fourth Reich, in Australia?), our happy-go-lucky businessman dropping bad stock tips and devising silly scenarios like a hypothetical police force of BB gun armed eunuchs (Isn't that England? Perhaps you'd like that country better.), people that think any figure to the left of Burke is "red", that Churchill really would have tortured people if he had more guns, and whatever silly nonsense sjchermak manages to type in between sermons about how Christians are persecuted in the U.S., it's hard to even think straight in this comedy of errors.
Suggestion: Less is more. Save your typographical barf for your diary, so other people don't have to read it.
Posted by srjenkins at 04/30/2009 @ 10:43pm
"sjchermak manages to type in between sermons about how Christians are persecuted in the U.S., it's hard to even think straight in this comedy of errors. "
How about telling us that the US is GOING to be destroyed in a terrorist attack because of Obama in the next 10 years? That's a laugher right there.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2009 @ 10:55pm
....it's hard to even think straight......
Posted by srjenkins at 04/30/2009 @ 10:43pm
In your case SR that statement doesn't need any qualification but why don't you try. You never know. "Practice makes perfect", or "if you don't at first succeed try, try and try again".
Posted by lrjones4 at 04/30/2009 @ 11:31pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 4:23pm
There were "plenty of articles" about RESE and PLUNGER's "Halliburton-built concentration camps" and "Bush declaring martial law before 2008" too, HSUB....
didn't make them relevant.
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 7:27pm
Wrong again ksaM.
U.S. NEWS Washington Whispers By Paul Bedard A Brokered Democratic Convention Seen January 31, 2008 02:03 PM ETFriday
Obama, Clinton Head Toward Contested Convention A fight to the finish By Kent Garber, Posted February 8, 2008
'80s Flashback: A Brokered Democratic Convention? By Sean J. Miller, National Journal © National Journal Group Inc. Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008
DNC chair: We may have to broker Clinton-Obama deal Posted: 03:02 PM ET February 6, 2008 (CNN) -- As predictions of a convention floor fight from the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to mount, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said the party would likely intervene to prevent that scenario.
"Conventions which were close to being brokered- Since 1952, there have been many years when brokered conventions were projected... The Democratic Party's 1968 convention might have been brokered... In 1976, the Republican primaries gave President Gerald Ford a slight lead... In 1984, as a result of the Democratic primaries, former Vice President Walter Mondale was... 40 delegates short... For the 2008 election there had been speculation that the Democratic Party's national convention might be brokered, ..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention
The Gore Factor, Hooman Majd, Posted May 2, 2008 | 06:05 PM (EST) Let us assume for a moment that the Democratic convention commences in August without a presumptive nominee...
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 11:43pm
The real question then is what does Obama really have to lose by letting the DoJ investigate and prosecute crimes of torture? So it leads to other things... perhaps outing a covert agent, obstruction of justice at the DoJ, lying us to war, war for profit, illegal wiretaps, negligent malfeasance... etc.
So then Obama's popularity would go down because hsuB/cHeney are so gaining in like popularity?
NOT.
Perhaps too much backbone for the jellyfish new cons?
Sounds about right.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/01/2009 @ 12:14am
Favorability Ratings
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll 4/23-26/09
VeryPos_SomePos_Neutr_SomeNeg_VeryNeg_Uns
Dick Cheney
__8______10_____23____15______39____5
George W. Bush
__9______17_____ 15____ 16______41____2
Barack Obama
_45______19_____ 12____ 10______13 ___ 1
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/01/2009 @ 12:36am
Back to Obama and Churchill, Obama should have done more than read Andrew Sullivan.
<He may well have read such an article, and Churchill may well have made such a statement. But Britain did torture. Says who? Says the Guardian. I refer you, friends, to The Cage.
The other day I was sitting in the Washington office and my Guardian colleague Chris McGreal came up to me to talk about the subject of torture and the debate over its effectiveness. Chris pointed out to me that in Kensington during the second war, there was a facility known as The Cage inside which Nazi prisoners -- chiefly U-boat captains, but others -- were routinely tortured.>
http://tinyurl.com/cspe8g
The secrets of the London Cage· Beatings, sleep deprivation and starvation used on SS and Gestapo men
POW camp in Kensington kept secret and hidden from Red Cross
The London Cage was used partly as a torture centre, inside which large numbers of German officers and soldiers were subjected to systematic ill-treatment. In total 3,573 men passed through the Cage, and more than 1,000 were persuaded to give statements about war crimes. The brutality did not end with the war, moreover: a number of German civilians joined the servicemen who were interrogated there up to 1948.
http://tinyurl.com/d9zlax
Posted by antisocialist at 05/01/2009 @ 01:43am
...right-wing Australians (hey, don't they have websites where you can pipe up about your support for the Fourth Reich, in Australia. Posted by srjenkins at 04/30/2009 @ 10:43pm
Good news SR. You can sleep easy:
Fourth Reich raided
August 29, 2007
IN excess of 60 police officers have raided the Fourth Reich Motorcycle Club in Albion Park as part of a major operation conducted across NSW.
Police officers entered the Illawarra premises by cutting through a fence after a search warrant was executed just before 10am last Wednesday.
Money and documents seized suggested that the purchase and sale of alcohol was conducted in an unlicensed premises.
Police allege they also located a small quantity of illicit drugs as well as a prohibited firearm.
The search warrant was conducted with assistance from the State Crime Command, local command and with support from the Southern Region Operational Support Group.
Chief Inspector Michael McLean took part in the inspection and said the raid was part of an ongoing investigation.
"We're also investigating the possibility that it has been operating as a place of public entertainment," Mr McLean said.
A total of six outlaw motorcycle gang clubhouses were raided across the State.
Gangs Squad Commander Detective Superintendent Scott Whyte said: "Today's raids are part of an ongoing Statewide commitment to target outlaw motorcycle gangs engaged in all levels of crime, including the operation of unlicensed premises.
"We have strong intelligence indicating that outlaw motorcycle gangs invite members of the public to their clubhouses as a means to recruit new members and sell illicit drugs.
"We have intelligence which indicates members of the public are attending these clubhouses after local licensed premises have closed.
Posted by lrjones4 at 05/01/2009 @ 02:34am
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2009 @ 11:43pm
HSUB, I was wrong about Gonzales.
But you were wrong about Gore...HE never made any mention of a desire for being the nominee and he had PLENTY of opportunity. The "brokered convention" talk is just Internet blab...again, like RESE and the Paranoid's "satellite photo of a Halliburton-built concentration camp in Wyoming" (that turned out to be in NORTH KOREA!).
And you were wrong about impeachment...in 5 months it'll be the TWO YEAR anniversary of your predicted date.
Again, given Gonzales resignation versus those TWO monumentally flawed predictions...one of which you STILL cling to (as does John Nichols and others)....and the fact that I was RIGHT about both of those....I'll let my record stand at 2-1...
while yours is 0-3.
Posted by Mask at 05/01/2009 @ 08:38am
while yours is 0-3.
Posted by Mask at 05/01/2009 @ 08:38am
Correction...."1-2".
(see I'm fair!...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 05/01/2009 @ 08:39am
Well done Mr. Ness; nothing says "tough on Nazis" like shutting down their unlicensed titty-bar!
That's the best a former penal colony can muster in lieu of real bikers?! If we rounded up 60 cops and had nothing to show for it but a small quantity of drugs, someone would lose a pension.
Has Oz convicted those arsons yet?
Posted by snowball666 at 05/01/2009 @ 07:08am
Amen bruvver.
Apart from tiity (titty?) bars the brothers also run brothels, do armed extortion, indulge themselves in bashings (to sort of keep an eye in), steal fellow members Harleys and are probably the largest producers of amphetamines in the country.
Lose their pension? Come off it mate, this is Australia. The police union wouldn't allow it.
That was NSW in 2007.
NSW has just introduced laws banning outlaw bikie gangs (2 years for consorting etc) after a fracas at Sydney airport earlier this year. That because a group of Comancheros bashed a Hell's Angel to death in the airport lounge in front of hundreds of passengers.
No but we have been hearing for weeks now that the many detectives (hundreds and all with secure pensions) are about to pounce. Every politician including our PM Rudd has been milking this for all it's worth. You know, kissing babies and crying with the natives, who were too bloody lazy to cut the undergrowth from around their houses, ad nauseam.
Pretty sure the detectives are not going to find the arsonist(s) but their presence tells us how much our state Premier cares. It's enough to make one cry. And many still do. On telly too.
Posted by lrjones4 at 05/01/2009 @ 09:36am
Posted by Mask at 05/01/2009 @ 08:38am
Correction...."1-2".
(see I'm fair!...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 05/01/2009 @ 08:39am
Look Mask, my predictions are more like 55-34, but whose counting... If I was better at it I'd figure out how to make money off of it.
I'd suspect that yours are more like 1254-1989, as much as you prattle on and on.
Bottom line, when you say something will not happen and it does-- you're always wrong every which way about it.
When I say something will happen and I'm off date-wise, but it does eventually happen, my timing is off, and I've admitted that several times. But I'm still right; when it happens.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/01/2009 @ 10:46am
When I say something will happen and I'm off date-wise, but it does eventually happen, my timing is off, and I've admitted that several times. But I'm still right; when it happens.---Posted by hsuBfools at 05/01/2009 @ 10:46am
So when you say "Impeachment will happen in late October 2007"....and it's May 2009...that's "timing is off".
And I guess you'll be "off date-wise" until Al Gore's Inauguration in January 2017....right?
LOL
Posted by Mask at 05/01/2009 @ 10:59am
Hey, if it never happens, I'm wrong every which way about it-- just like you are when it does happen.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/01/2009 @ 11:27am
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/01/2009 @ 11:27am
Of course...and as I've stated MANY, MANY times...I'd be happy to see Bush tried for something, Cheney too.
It's just not going to happen. In point of fact, there's MORE of a chance that Gore could come back in 2016 and defeat Biden or whoever for the nom...he'll only be 68, which is younger than McCain was in 2008.
But at some point, 1-2-5-TEN years from now, HSUB, if no Dubya in the Dock....you're going to need to come to terms with an uncaring and often un-just Universe. If on purely existentialist grounds.
Posted by Mask at 05/01/2009 @ 12:44pm
Yeah Mask, someday I too will return to the jungle with loincloth on, yodeling and swinging from the trees.
But 'til then, be my guest...
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/01/2009 @ 12:51pm