- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Killing everyone in the world but Americans would make America safer.
You don't know many Americans
Killing everyone in the world but Americans would make America safer.
I think that those who have broken the law should be prosecuted. Cheney is one of those people. The memos that were released make this apparent. I'm curious why justice is not something people want on both sides. I know, you conservatives will tar and feather me, but it seems disingenuous after the whole Clinton thing to cry foul against people who have obviously broken the law.
Prof, please learn to post in paragraphs.
I guess if you take the side of the terrorists you can claim that our people broke these imaginary laws;
I guess my argument (favoring an investigation) boils down to two points:
1. For those who believe that an investigation was already performed & no charges were brought, I'd remind you that said "Investigation" was performed by the very same administration that is accused of committing the crimes & is therefore meaningless. (we don't trust the accused defendant to perform the criminal investigation, of his own crimes... in this country)
2. For those who think it unpatriotic/wrong to investigate employees who may have committed heinous crimes, in our country's name.....Doesn't the same thinking excuse the worst criminal regimes of all time, for the very same reason? (ie Nazi's, North Koreans, Japanese atrocities in WWII, etc)
That's the last bit of bile that i care to read from you.:2wave:
I can't believe we are even debating over whether or not the issue at hand is debatable. Let them investigate. Unless, your scared of something.
The thing that always amazes me is that the proponents of torture always say that if we stop torturing people that terrorists are going to kill tens of thousands of people and also win the war on terrorism.
Fear-mongering much?
The real reason Al-Queda hasn't attacked us since 9-11 is simple, thanks to the Bush Administration fear-mongering, we are still afraid of them, and we are willing to throw our morals out the window to not die at their hands. They know that attacking us won't be worth it. They won't try to attack us till we aren't afraid of them. So thank you Bush, not for torture, or Iraq, but for the true thing that made us safer, us being **** scared of Osama.
Not at all. The fact that he has been fighting the release of the transcriptions of those secret meetings shows he is trying to hide something, & yes....indicates guilt.
(if these were legitimate national energy meetings....& classified info was discussed....Why won't Cheney even let REPUBLICAN Senators (with security clearance) read the minutes of those meetings?)
I disagree.
Many Americans care about GW Bush.
We want him to be prosecuted for the many crimes he committed in office, some directly leading to the near collapse of our economy, some war crimes (which would call for Capital Punishment) & many other crimes against both the United States & humanity in general.
No sir........we care about GW (& D. Cheney) alright.
Carville & Obama are political beings I've spent my life enforcing criminal laws. Once the facts come out about Bush's crimes, public outrage will force the politicians to deal with them.
I think when Senator Feinstein's committee releases its info on Bush admin crimes, the real outrage will start & some people will be going to prison.
BULL****!!!
A patriot honors and respects the constitution. He expanded the powers and responsibilities of the VP way beyond the scope of the constitution. He broke the law. We know that just like we know OJ murdered his wife.
He was the de facto president in the first term. And he rolled our energy and environment policy back 50 years in back room meetings with industry cronies.
Then, when Bush decided he was the 'decider' in the second term--Cheney went rogue with a friggin walk-in safe in his office. WTF??!! Are you kidding me Dickie boy? Your job is be ready. You job is to be the president of the senate and break a tie vote. Your job is to travel abroad and help get the message out about the President's policies. What were you hiding in that safe, Dick? Evidence of numerous overt acts. Violations of federal law that make Nixon look like a *****.
The night before Obama's inauguration, the very unpatriotic asshole Cheney broke his back carrying boxes of incriminating papers out the back door.
Going by history terrorists do not stop terrorizing just because their opponents are already afraid of them. They continue the attacks every single chance they get. You don 't have to believe me. Just take a look at all the bombs that went off in civilian areas due to terrorists ever since we went to Iraq.
All these wingnuts that complain about "illegal alliens" and Presidential elections laws pertaining to who is "a natural born citizen" and unconstitutional power grabs by Obama.
Most are just fine with ignoring serious lawbreaking by Cheney.
Are there any true Conservatives in this forum?
We aren't talking about the Constitutional political remedy of impeachment here. We are talking about the criminal charge of War Crimes which is a very different matter & can mean death to the convicted.
Any wonder why Cheney wants that investigation stopped?
(his neck is quite literally on the line)
In this case it does.Gotcha winning a legal battle indicates guilt, it's all clear to me.
I believe the decision was based on a technicality & is under appeal but I compliment your argument here. It is a good one that would require some research on my part to refute your point, which was a good one.:applaudIf Cheney was wrong about the right for the Executive branch to keep internal workings within the administration private then why did the appeals court agree with him?
Do any Cheney appologists ever think that maybe just maybe that Cheney does just two things in his life: 1- try to deflect any acivitythat wouldpoint to his criminal behavior while he ws VEEP; 2- Expell bird shot into his friends faces while he is"hunting"
None of this changes the fact that he was prosecuted for waterboarding and torturing the prisoner.
US Law: 113c § 2340
Now waterboarding is torture. The threat of being drowned to death is very real. It tricks the body into the effects of drowning by building up carbon dioxide in the lungs. The person feels the effects of drowning. So yes that would fit the definition of C and D. Also we have prosecuted waterboarding in the US and abroad.
To give you an example in 83 a texas sheriff, James Parker and his deputies were prosecuted for waterboaring suspects to get false confessions. US Assistant Attorney Scott Woodward stated: the prisoners who were subjected to waterboarding were not "model citizens," but they were still "victims" of torture.
The sheriff and his deputies were convicted and sent to prison.
Waterboarding is torture plain and simple. There's nothing subjective about it we've prosecuted it and have considered it to be torture. We prosecuted one of our own soldiers for doing it to a vietcong during the war and we prosecuted the japanese for doing it.
Again you seem to miss the other parts of the definition including threats to one's life.
The other conditions are met making it torture.
Not just extortion but civil rights violations.
All this stemmed from his use of waterboarding.
You also forget that in 1898 Maj Edwin Glenn was court martialed and convicted of the crime of torture for waterboarding people in the phillippines.
None of this changes the fact that he was prosecuted for waterboarding and torturing the prisoner.
We're talking US Law now again I posted what the US law definition of torture is and waterboarding falls into torture under our laws.
And yet it was a component of it. Beatings have occured at Baghram and Gitmo along with Abu Ghraib.
There have been 100 homicides that we know of with around 20 being investigated. Again just the facts.
Cheney is an intolerable liar and a pirate.
I guess if you take the side of the terrorists you can claim that our people broke these imaginary laws
This doesn't tell me anything. How exactly did the CIA reveal her name where's the context. Anoynymous sources with no information regarding it. Have anything more concrete?
Fact of the matter is is that Cheney had absolutely 0 to do with her being outed,
For some one who mentions the "TRUTH" so often, you do not hesitate to keep repeating this lie.
It still hasn't technically been 8 years yet, you should have said, "almost 8 years."