Osama Must Be Laughing Himself Silly

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 6:36pm

Instead of concentrating on him, we are now fighting against ourselves. It is sort of like 2 kids in a schoolyard saying "I did this" & the other says " Oh Yeah No You Didn't". It goes on ad nauseum

No need to know who gets the blame. It matters not in the long run. We need to stop pointing fingers & get together on 1 goal re the threat of terrorism worldwide

Updated On: 9/27/06 at 06:36 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 6:48pm

Bush and the Republicans have had 5 years of COMPLETE CONTROL of all 3 branches of the government with little or no opposition from the Democrats.

They've squandered that mandate, greedily grabbing at every lousy penny they could squeeze out of the lobbyists.

It's time for them to get the hell out of my Congress. I'm tired of them F*CKing up and F*CKing over.

Give the Democrats the reins of government. They couldn't POSSIBLY do it worse, and I think they'll do great things.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 6:53pm

You may get your wish. Be careful what you wish for as you may get it

I think the country needs a change as the GOP had control of congress & they proved to be a bunch of sniveling weasels worried about their skin. Even though I disagree with the Dems on many things they at least stood behind Clinton. The GOP was running scare & they do not deserve to keep control

When there is no opposition , as most on the board espouse, all you get is a dictatorship. I do not share your views on many things but I can tell you it is my opinion should the Dems get control things will be worse. If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it

The Dems better pray 2 years into a Dem President we do not get hit again as they will not have GWB to blame. I no longer vote as I cannot trust any politician. The fact that you cannot have a rational political discussion, as is evidenced by this board, is another reason to stay away. Now I see why people leave the board as they are tired of it all

Oh well. Enjoy yourself in Italy

Updated On: 9/27/06 at 06:53 PM

[Yawper]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 7:28pm

Sure they can blame the GWB and the Repubs just like Clinton is getting blamed. Once crap like this gets started there's no turning back - everybody's susceptible to getting rapped.

Honestly it's gotten to the point where I almost don't care if we do get hit just so long as it shuts up the @sshats in D.C.

I've become incredibly pessimistic about American politics and society over this last year thanks to misdirected attention and ludicrous prioritizations. Get the troops AND OUR TAX DOLLARS back home where they're needed.

America first!

[jpwintergreen]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 9:07pm

I'm sure he is laughing.

He is laughing about all the americans on his side.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 9:31pm

The only American on his side is George W. Bush.

[jpwintergreen]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 9:55pm

what about all of the representatives who argued for the rights of al quada terrorists today in congress?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 10:18pm

the rights of al quada terrorists

What an imbecilic way to think about America's commitment to the Geneva Accords.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 10:24pm

Too bad they did not think of the geneva accords when they were slicing heads off their prisoners

[jpwintergreen]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 10:48pm

yeah, and anyone who has read the treaty knows that terrorists are not included. No nation, none, allows rights for al quada the way the congress argued for the US to do today.

maybe someone thought that terrorists signed for the Geneva treaty. terrorists have never been a part of it.
Updated On: 9/27/06 at 10:48 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 11:39pm

Oh brother. There I said it.

NOBODY is "for the terrorists." Could people POSSIBLY drop that Rovian line? Pretty please?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 12:42am

Signing the Geneva Accords is not something you agree to do with each enemy combatant.

It is an issue of integrity--national integrity--like waking up every morning and deciding "Today I will not rape children or murder the elderly BECAUSE I DO NOT DO SUCH THINGS."

You do not wake up in the morning and say "Because there are murderers and rapists in the world, I will rape and kill the first young mother with a stroller I see."

It does not matter how bloodthirsty THEY are. It does not matter WHO they are. WE do not do such things, because we are a civilized people.

George Bush and Dick Cheney decided we didn't have to be civilized. They decided for you and me, that we could be savages.

Thank God. Even the Republicans in Congress decided they were WRONG.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 1:20am

I started to write out the same argument, PJ, but then I decided it wasn't worth the effort. I do not believe that the Conversion of the Imbeciles will ever be achieved in our lifetime.

Now, stop wasting your precious intellectual energy on this thread and go pack. Have a conversation with your clothes. I'm sure it will be far more intelligent than any you are going to get here.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 6:13am

The feeling is mutual

We thank God ( sorry for using the term ) for the way everything turned out

Updated On: 9/28/06 at 06:13 AM

[jpwintergreen]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 6:18am

Obviously, someone is living in total ignorance.

Torture is already illegal.

And, somebody better read the legislation that passed the US Congress. It supports Bush completely. Why else would all the democrats vote against it?

The Geneva convention was written and agreed to at a time when soldiers fought for organized goevrnments. The terrorists do not have the same rights as American citizens.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 7:33am

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 7:59am

Obviously, someone is living in total ignorance.

Torture is already illegal


Someone tell Bush this? Or do you just not believe in all those clandestine CIA prisons overseas?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 1:06pm

[erikaamato]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 1:36pm

In the interest of a balanced presentation...

Self-edited. It's too graphic for the board. Sorry.
Updated On: 9/28/06 at 01:36 PM

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 1:44pm

You know, I agree with Papa in a small principle of the matter. What happened at Abu Ghraib isn't as bad as the sawing off of a neck, or the car bombing of a busy market street.
Still, since when did we as a country decide that the old adage, "but they did it first!" should apply to the way we handle ourself in international affairs? We're better, or so we say, so we damn well HAVE to hold ourselves to higher standards than others.
That makes us better, not our ability to turn their entire country into a nuclear pit.

[jpwintergreen]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 2:01pm

Again there are "mixed metephors" being promoted here.

Abu Ghraib is not under discussion. Abu Ghraib is an abberation. No one supports the foolishness that occurred there.

It is the happenings at Gitmo that WERE in dispute. Now, Senator McCain and his supporters have clarified the standards of behavior for the CIA. There is and there was no torture at Gitmo. Water-Boarding is not, and never was torture. This and other techniques have produced volumes of information that has been used to protect the American people.

Now, the US Congress has clarified the standards. The democrats find themselves in the awkward position of having Al Quada support their position again.

How is is that the terrorits regularly take the same positions as the democrat leadership?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 2:04pm

The New York Times
Editorial

Rushing Off a Cliff

Published: September 28, 2006

Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.

Republicans say Congress must act right now to create procedures for charging and trying terrorists — because the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks are available for trial. That’s pure propaganda. Those men could have been tried and convicted long ago, but President Bush chose not to. He held them in illegal detention, had them questioned in ways that will make real trials very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts to convict them.

It was only after the Supreme Court issued the inevitable ruling striking down Mr. Bush’s shadow penal system that he adopted his tone of urgency. It serves a cynical goal: Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism.

Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.

These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

•There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.

We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Editorial: Rushing Off a Cliff

Updated On: 9/28/06 at 02:04 PM

[FranklinShepard-Inc.]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 2:11pm

@ Mr. Roxy and JPWintergreen: The central point is, if you fight on behalf of moral values, which one must decide whether one wants to do that or not, then you don't fight to be "not quite as bad" as your opponent but actually to be "better" and not just more forceful. You can't split off the values from the means of fighting.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 2:48pm

JPWintergreen, when you find yourself waterboarded, let me know if you agree then that it's not torture.
This ridiculous nonsense about whether or not it causes organ failure or death is just that: ridiculous nonsense.

[lildogs]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 3:45pm

Okay, Mr. Roxy, if you don't sign the Geneva Accords, you don't have to follow them. Al Queda didn't sign anything because it is an organization and not a recognized state.

And if there have been volumes of information gleaned from torture, I'd like to hear it. How many Americans have (in the past) given up valuable information under torture? My guess would be very few. Do you think McCain gave up information while he was a prisoner? I doubt it--and he's hardly an exception. Torture doesn't work.

Perhaps had the military not discharged the homosexuals who also spoke Arabic, we would be able to get information the old-fashioned way: spying.

Osama isn't laughing at all.

Only a partisan fool would think that either party wants "them" to succeed.

The ironic thing about a possible attack on a Dem. admin would be that the Dems would probably be much swifter and effective in defense PRECISELY because they are under so much more scrutiny.