Sir Thumpsalot
Member
- Dec 11, 2014
- 135
- 0
- 0
Your getting very annoying real fast with your offhand bullshit.
Annoying is having your very straight-forward question diverted numerous times over a two-hour period.
Your getting very annoying real fast with your offhand bullshit.
Once again, another jackass that can't answer a simple question. Color me surprised
What's the most important thing here, I think, is that the perps suffer the judgment of history so that the rest of America learns a lesson in the process, a lesson about the shame of having cheered it on at the time.
Go ahead, tell me that didn't happen. Tell me that we weren't vicitimized by one of the most monstrous propaganda campaigns ever mounted. Tell me that every guy susceptible to right wing idiocy didn't get a little chubby & puff up their chest at the prospect of breaking terrarist balls at Gitmo. Tell me that public reaction at the time didn't pave the way for the Iraq war resolution & victory in the elections. Tell me that such sentiments don't linger strongly.
I'll tell you that you're an idiot in return.
So how do we face ourselves to achieve any semblance of healing the wounds to this country & others that their malfeasance has caused?
I like the Jerry Ford answer. Go ahead- lay it out, condemn it, issue a blanket pardon. The shame of receiving it will stain their legacy forever. A presidential pardon isn't something that can be hand-waved away, ever. It'll accomplish what no prosecution ever could because it can't be represented as partisan.
It's the only kind of Justice we'll ever get because there are still too many Americans unwilling to face the truth of what happened & how they played a part in it.
He gave you a quite effective answer, certainly better than your blatant duhversion deserved. If you aren't happy with it, you are free to get off your lazy butt and read more structured definitions elsewhere in this thread. Of course your real goal is disrupting discussion, not promoting it. Typical of a long line of interchangeable, belligerent noobs who pop up, trash the place for a while, and ultimately crawl back under their bridges.Once again, another jackass that can't answer a simple question. Color me surprised
Interesting idea. While I'd rather see those involved put away for a good long time, I can see that the convict and pardon approach would be somewhat effective. I don't think it would give us the moral high ground, but it would at least formally acknowledge we did evil, illegal things.What's the most important thing here, I think, is that the perps suffer the judgment of history so that the rest of America learns a lesson in the process, a lesson about the shame of having cheered it on at the time.
Go ahead, tell me that didn't happen. Tell me that we weren't vicitimized by one of the most monstrous propaganda campaigns ever mounted. Tell me that every guy susceptible to right wing idiocy didn't get a little chubby & puff up their chest at the prospect of breaking terrarist balls at Gitmo. Tell me that public reaction at the time didn't pave the way for the Iraq war resolution & victory in the elections. Tell me that such sentiments don't linger strongly.
I'll tell you that you're an idiot in return.
So how do we face ourselves to achieve any semblance of healing the wounds to this country & others that their malfeasance has caused?
I like the Jerry Ford answer. Go ahead- lay it out, condemn it, issue a blanket pardon. The shame of receiving it will stain their legacy forever. A presidential pardon isn't something that can be hand-waved away, ever. It'll accomplish what no prosecution ever could because it can't be represented as partisan.
It's the only kind of Justice we'll ever get because there are still too many Americans unwilling to face the truth of what happened & how they played a part in it.
Which are, specifically? I don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth.
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;<---------------------
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;<---------------
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Post #95, try to follow along.
Please go Cheney yourself. I'm not interested in indulging your duhversions, and you're not interested in useful discussion.Nope. Please re-read the original question.
Interesting idea. While I'd rather see those involved put away for a good long time, I can see that the convict and pardon approach would be somewhat effective. I don't think it would give us the moral high ground, but it would at least formally acknowledge we did evil, illegal things.
You will have to forgive me, I came late into this conversation.
Exactly what methods are we calling torture? Just so I have the story straight.
Oh, I see what you're saying now: issue pardons without filing charges against anyone. I see less value in that. I think those who participated need to be identified and charged, at a very minimum.Nixon was never convicted of anything.
Sadly, I agree. We lost the moral high ground a long time ago. I wonder if we really ever had it, or whether it's wishful thinking from the fog of history.We don't deserve the moral high ground. Putting the perps' heads on pikes on the White House lawn wouldn't change that.
Ah, now your talking. Actions authorized by FDR and Harry Truman. Both Democratic Presidents.
And don't forget the firebombing of Tokyo. Or enhanced interrogations performed on Germans.
How about we look at look at something like the Phoenix Program, which was authorized under Johnson. Another Democratic president.
And the Extraordinary Rendition program that Bush and Cheney used? Authorized and used first by William Jefferson Clinton. Another Democratic president. A President that also approved of and endorsed the Afghanistan war and invasion of Iraq,a s well as the torture methods you are all talking about.
In fact, most of these Democratic presidents make Bush and Cheney look like Boy scouts by comparison, considering the circumstances.
I will argue the ramifications of your torture methods (which you refuse to specify, but never mind. I shouldn't expect a straight answer from most of the crowd here.
But my point will stand at this. When you are ready to condemn most of the Democratic presidents since FDR himself, then maybe I can take your arguments somewhat seriously. Until then, this is nothing but partisan hackery.
I'm no fan of Cheney, never was. But the hypocrisy by liberals/Democrats is nothing short of sickening.
Ah, now your talking. Actions authorized by FDR and Harry Truman. Both Democratic Presidents.
And don't forget the firebombing of Tokyo. Or enhanced interrogations performed on Germans.
How about we look at look at something like the Phoenix Program, which was authorized under Johnson. Another Democratic president.
And the Extraordinary Rendition program that Bush and Cheney used? Authorized and used first by William Jefferson Clinton. Another Democratic president. A President that also approved of and endorsed the Afghanistan war and invasion of Iraq,a s well as the torture methods you are all talking about.
In fact, most of these Democratic presidents make Bush and Cheney look like Boy scouts by comparison, considering the circumstances.
I will argue the ramifications of your torture methods (which you refuse to specify, but never mind. I shouldn't expect a straight answer from most of the crowd here.
But my point will stand at this. When you are ready to condemn most of the Democratic presidents since FDR himself, then maybe I can take your arguments somewhat seriously. Until then, this is nothing but partisan hackery.
I'm no fan of Cheney, never was. But the hypocrisy by liberals/Democrats is nothing short of sickening.
That was a Russian bomb, and meant for you.
There is little actual disagreement on what the definition of torture is as related to this program. It easily falls into the legal definition previously used. Generally I am EXTREMELY reluctant to go after previous leadership over differences in policy as it sets a horrible precedent, but the abuses here were so blindingly obvious and so egregious in nature a line has to be drawn somewhere. If we can literally torture people to death without accountability, then what can't we do?
So should we prosecute them? Absolutely. Will we? Absolutely not. By the way, I approve of using this standard against Obama and litigating his decision to unilaterally execute an American citizen by drone strike.
Defending Cheney and other torturers on this is an abrogation of morality. By the way, want to see some 'morality' in action?
I imagine this has a lot more to do with partisan ID than religion, but that should put to rest the idea of religion as being a necessary basis for morality.
Sure condemn them all!
Now what?
Did you have a position on this or did you come into this thread to 'bbbb but but other presidents did it too!' As if that changes anything.
And yet, you inadvertently provided more information than most of your liberal compatriots bothered to. Accidentally or not doesn't really matter.