Obama: "I'm ready to negotiate with you, Iran." Iran: "Fuck you."

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

You're the man!

But your personal attacks wont change the facts or my opinions.

Back at ya!

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Yes, I did extensive reading. There has been much confusion due to Bush Derangement Syndrome. But all of the three waterboardings happened elsewhere. They did not transport KSM to Gitmo for example.

The torture that happened at Gitmo was "B" level stuff: sleep deprivation, holding people in awkward positions, controlling the temperature of their cells, that sort of thing. We know this because of FOIA'd memos from the FBI. None of those memos reference waterboarding.

And all of that stuff is also considered torture.

This thread is about that now, and has been for some time. A partisan fishing expedition would seriously hurt Obama's ability to get things done.

You think they have seriously abused their power because you have paid attention to people who have been fishing all along. They have allowed the facts to get flimsy, because they're not critical thinkers and because it's more fun that way. I know you're a victim of this, because my attempts to get you to think in a straight line have failed. When we examine just the verifiable facts, which is no fun at all, things generally fall apart.

Excuse me? You KNOW I'm a victim because I haven't followed YOUR LOGIC? Are you kidding me? I would hardly say John Dean is not a critical thinker, nor many of the other people who have written books about Bush (Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Kevin Phillips, etc.), or spoken out against him, many of them fellow republicans.

Why do you defend him so much? I believe he was a terrible president, and I believe he broke laws in order to serve himself. I just hope he is one day held accountable for what he's done.

[classicman]

There is only one logic /Spock

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I was snarky to sugarpop, and I apologize for that. Any snark you read in my comments to you is strictly your reading of it.

My question is on the table: does the AUMF authorize the bypassing of FISA? I don't know; my guess is that it does, based on some of the Wiki entry on the controversy. But the length of the entry, and its 156 citations, tell us it's a very complex question, at least. The signing of memos taking a position on it (or cover for it) does not alter the question.

My instinctive take on it is from a letter in that article:

Quote:
The president’s power as military commander in chief, in time of constitutionally authorized war, of course includes the power to intercept enemy communications, including enemy communications with persons here in the United States who may be in league with the enemy, and to follow the chain of such communications where it leads, in order to wage the war against the enemy and, of vital importance, to protect the nation against further attacks.

That sounds reasonable.

So how does that justify spying on ordinary Americans who are not thought to be "in league" with the enemy? Because according to a lot of information out there, they didn't just intercept enemy communications, or communications of suspicious people. Don't you want to know how far bush et. al. went in their spy games? I know I do. When we just allow our government to do whatever they want, because they say they are keeping us safe, we give up our freedom, in when we do that, we no longer deserve it. I do not think we should ever just take a politician at his word, especially when they have proven to be untrustworthy, which Bush has, over and over and over again my friend.

As far as the "circumvention" of Geneva and the USCoT, my position is that Geneva doesn't apply, and the USCoT seems to lack the specific language needed to make a legal case. It doesn't mention waterboarding and doesn't give concrete examples in its definition of torture. It's weak, as is the entire notion of international law in the first place.

Well that may be YOUR position, but is that the lawful position? It bears investigation. Again, when we allow our government to do whatever they want, because they say it is in our best interest, and they are just keeping us safe, we lose our freedom. That is MY opinion. :p

Oh, and thanks for the apology.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Why do you defend him so much? I believe he was a terrible president, and I believe he broke laws in order to serve himself. I just hope he is one day held accountable for what he's done.

One day I woke up to find that nearly everybody decides what they believe by picking a side or a group or a clique and sticking to it relentlessly. In this view of the world, sides are "defended", where each side trots out its narrative of the world and we are urged to pick one size to fit all.

I don't care about any of that nonsense, I just try to figure out the truth. I'm as scientific as I can be, trying to recall and research actual facts and real, direct information, and trying to understand context as much as is possible for any one simpleton like myself. I find picking sides means you are dragged away from truth as you consume your favorite version of reality.

FWIW I didn't vote for Bush and for the last two elections I have voted straight D.

Quote:
The president’s power as military commander in chief, in time of constitutionally authorized war, of course includes the power to intercept enemy communications, including enemy communications with persons here in the United States who may be in league with the enemy, and to follow the chain of such communications where it leads, in order to wage the war against the enemy and, of vital importance, to protect the nation against further attacks.

That sounds reasonable.

Congress did not declare war in the constitutional sense of issuing a war powers resolution or declaration of war.

They took a lesser step...an Authorization for Use of Military Force

Does an AUMF = a Constitutional (Authorized) Declaration of War?

It certainly doesnt look to me like that an AUMF has the same broad authority...but I'm not a constitutional lawyer.

IMO, the precedent is dangerous.

And it screams for the judiciary to make a judgement...not the past, present or future presidents.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Congress did not declare war in the constitutional sense of issuing a war powers resolution or declaration of war.

What a frigging apologist.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

One day I woke up to find that nearly everybody decides what they believe by picking a side or a group or a clique and sticking to it relentlessly. In this view of the world, sides are "defended", where each side trots out its narrative of the world and we are urged to pick one size to fit all.

I don't care about any of that nonsense, I just try to figure out the truth. I'm as scientific as I can be, trying to recall and research actual facts and real, direct information, and trying to understand context as much as is possible for any one simpleton like myself. I find picking sides means you are dragged away from truth as you consume your favorite version of reality.

FWIW I didn't vote for Bush and for the last two elections I have voted straight D.

OK. Thanks for clarifying that. But since so many serious allegations have surfaced over the past 6 years, don't you think we should investigate and find out what the truth really is? and IF any laws have been broken, do you not think people should be held accountable and tried for their crimes? (notice I did say IF they were guilty...)

and ftr, I almost always vote independent. I HATE the 2 party system.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

What a frigging apologist.

huh? Why would you say that?

[TheMercenary]

Because he acts as if the Demoncrats had no part in it. Fuck that. Dress up your pig.

As far as the "circumvention" of Geneva and the USCoT, my position is that Geneva doesn't apply, and the USCoT seems to lack the specific language needed to make a legal case. It doesn't mention waterboarding and doesn't give concrete examples in its definition of torture. It's weak, as is the entire notion of international law in the first place.

Undertoad...your position appears to be pretty much in line with the DoJ attorneys who wrote the "torture" memos, but not in line with the DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility who suggest that they may have been politically motivated.

I have no argument with those holding your position..other than, IMO, it should be resolved by an independent third party before it is codified into law or a precedent as an acceptable practice.

Why should the benefit of doubt be given to one side or the other?

An internal Justice Department report on the conduct of senior lawyers who approved waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics is causing anxiety among former Bush administration officials. H. Marshall Jarrett, chief of the department's ethics watchdog unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), confirmed last year he was investigating whether the legal advice in crucial interrogation memos "was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys."

...the OPR probe began after Jack Goldsmith, a Bush appointee who took over OLC in 2003, protested the legal arguments made in the memos. Goldsmith resigned the following year after withdrawing the memos, and later wrote that he was "astonished" by the "deeply flawed" and "sloppily reasoned" legal analysis in the memos by Yoo and Bybee, including their assertion (challenged by many scholars) that the president could unilaterally disregard a law passed by Congress banning torture.

OPR investigators focused on whether the memo's authors deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted, according to three former Bush lawyers who asked not to be identified discussing an ongoing probe. One of the lawyers said he was stunned to discover how much material the investigators had gathered, including internal e-mails and multiple drafts that allowed OPR to reconstruct how the memos were crafted.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/184801

The DoJ attorneys in question should absolutely have the right to include their side in the report.

But, IMO, again, the issue should ultimately be resolved by the judiciary so that clear legal standards are in place for the future.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

OK. Thanks for clarifying that. But since so many serious allegations have surfaced over the past 6 years, don't you think we should investigate and find out what the truth really is? and IF any laws have been broken, do you not think people should be held accountable and tried for their crimes?

As soon as the Vince Foster case is closed, and we know for certain that Bill Clinton wasn't running cocaine deals as Governor, and that Obama is a US citizen legal to be President, sure.

Allegations are easy -- just throw shit until it sticks. People love throwing shit -- people love to be in the game, getting attention, running plays for their side and feeling important. You got an unpopular Pres, more shit will be thrown and more will stick. Pretty soon you believe a lot of shit, and are calling for a Whitewater investigation, and when you don't find any real shit, you turn to prosecuting blowjobs.

[Undertoad]

Former Sen. Fritz Hollings at HuffPost: Why Are We in Afghanistan? Right in the middle of his piece...

Yesterday I read an article that it won't be long before charging President George W. Bush with war crimes for killing civilians in Pakistan with drones. Now the same charge could be made against President Obama.

Wheeeeeeeeee

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Allegations are easy -- just throw shit until it sticks. People love throwing shit -- people love to be in the game, getting attention, running plays for their side and feeling important. You got an unpopular Pres, more shit will be thrown and more will stick. Pretty soon you believe a lot of shit, and are calling for a Whitewater investigation, and when you don't find any real shit, you turn to prosecuting blowjobs.

I'm not sure how a DoJ internal investigation of the Bush DoJ questionable "torture" memos by the Bush DoJ is "throwing shit" rather than the DoJ OPR and IG carrying out their legislatively mandated responsibilities.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Former Sen. Fritz Hollings at HuffPost: Why Are We in Afghanistan? Right in the middle of his piece...

Wheeeeeeeeee

Rut row. Obama may want to rethink sending those 17,000 toops.