Hello:

Well, it's working. In response, Obama is acting more and more like the dufus. It should give you righty's wood.

He caved on the release of more torture photos. Obama sounded positively Rumsfeldian in his insistence that releasing the photos could hurt the troops. That's exactly what Rumsfeld's Pentagon said when the last batch of Abu Ghraib photos ran in 2006. To my knowledge, there was no backlash against American soldiers.

For the first time in his presidency, I had the feeling that Obama was lying in his remarks on the photos - once when he said the new images "are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib, and again when he insisted "the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken." That is a flat-out lie.

Maybe he is Carter.

excon

I am interested in seeing the photos of the insensitive NY fly over.

It is also interesting that Obama changed his website on supporting gay marriage over how the beauty pagent girl and Trump handled things.

As far as the torture photos, Pelosi and others knew all along AND approved so that is the bottom line on why they are backing down.

Obama on the surface would appear to be reading scripture.
1 Corinthians 13:11When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways.

But from a political calculation he has already done the damage he intended just by being public about there being more photos .

Now he can appear to be above it all .

When the ACLU wins in court and some lefty judge orders the release of the photos ; he can do a Pontius Pilot act and wash his hands of it.

Hello again, Saph:

Here it is. But, it's not as good as the torture ones.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/excon-albums-excon%27s+private+stash-picture313-fly.jpg

Obama sucks. Cheney has successfully coopted his successor... From extending and deepening the war in Afghanistan, to suppressing evidence of rampant and widespread abuse and torture of prisoners under Bush, to thuggishly threatening the British with intelligence cut-off if they reveal the brutal torture inflicted on Binyam Mohamed, Obama now has new cheer-leaders: Bill Kristol, Michael Goldfarb and Max Boot...

As the Wolverine would say, Sickening...

excon

That pic was just to appease.
I can't believe they spent $35,000 in fuel alone for the lame pictures. They are not telling us the real story.

More people are starting to see Obamas true colors.
What happened to NOT even ONE American solider should die in war? Now the war is kept quiet compared to when Bush was President.
I don't even hear them talking much on ending it completely like they were crying about before.

Let me come to Obama's defense (sorta) over the photos.

The stunt was irresponsible in the fact that the reaction by NYers was not calculated.

However ,the money issue is a bit of a canard. There are about 3 Airforce One jets in use and their pilots ,like all pilots ,need the flying time to stay sharp. Regardless of where they go ;they still fly ,and it costs us $$ every time they do.

It has been common practice for these photo-ops to occure. They print them for people who fly in Air Force One as souvenirs ,sometimes signed by the President . The problem was in the miscommunication ;not the flyover.

That pic was just to appease.
I can't believe they spent $35,000 in fuel alone for the lame pictures. They are not telling us the real story.

More people are starting to see Obamas true colors.
What happened to NOT even ONE American solider should die in war? Now the war is kept quiet compared to when Bush was President.
I don't even hear them talking much on ending it completely like they were crying about before.


NH you have to realize that the media is in bed with the Dems so it behooves them be keep quiet. While on the other hand they were the attack dogs of the Dem party when the Repubs were in orifice. So again it behoove them to make as much about nothing to get their person elected. So that they could again enjoy the prestige and power that they wheeled 50 years ago. Sadly they do not realize that it is their political views that are driving them to extinction.

Yeah they do need the air time but with 911 and all I would say it was irresponsible and insensitive BUT I say for that there should be some awesome photos rather than what they have come up with so far.

Yes that is true . Anyone doing photo work for the tourism industry and a decent digital camera could've done a much better job. They had some top gun in a fighter jet taking these shots.

Regarding the "torture " photos . I still maintain the President hedged his bets. He did not make an executive order to not release them .

I expect some OBOT will leak them in a few weeks AFTER the President returns safely from Egypt.

Can't a judge rule and make them release the pictures? Seems to me Obama is afraid of catching some backlash for it. If a judge rules to release the pictures Obama can just say Hey wasn't me.

I am studying the time line now . I think a judge did order them released under FOIA .Obama was not going to fight the release but is now listening to the recommendations of his military to not release them.(not Cheney as is being alleged here)

They were due to be released by May 28.Obama is due to speak in Egypt on June 4 in what is intended to be a landmark address to the Muslim world.
I think the timing of this is the real factor in his decision.

Hello again:

Obama decided NOT to appeal the initial FOIA ruling that ordered him to release the photos in the first place. Now, he changed his mind, and IS going to file an appeal.

He'll LOSE the appeal because he's bringing up stuff in his appeal that wasn't brought up before the trial court, and you can't do that. It's a lot of legal mumbo jumbo, but suffice to say, he'll LOSE. I don't know if he KNEW this and is trying to look good, or what?

I just don't like the flip flopping. But, YES, you will see the photos.

excon

I think he is just trying to look good.

Also in the flip flop category is the decision to move "the worse of the worse " in GITMO like KSM to locations inside the US

BUT they will be held indefinitely without trial, tribunal, hearing or resolution.

Hello:

Well, it's working. In response, Obama is acting more and more like the dufus. It should give you righty's wood.

He caved on the release of more torture photos. Obama sounded positively Rumsfeldian in his insistence that releasing the photos could hurt the troops. That's exactly what Rumsfeld's Pentagon said when the last batch of Abu Ghraib photos ran in 2006. To my knowledge, there was no backlash against American soldiers.

For the first time in his presidency, I had the feeling that Obama was lying in his remarks on the photos - once when he said the new images "are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib, and again when he insisted "the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken." That is a flat-out lie.

Maybe he is Carter.

Excon


THIS is the first time you think he was lying?

Where have you been?



We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project. We can no longer accept an earmarks process that has become so complicated to navigate that a municipality or non-profit group has to hire high-priced D.C. lobbyists to do it. And we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country.
--------- Barack Obama, March 2008


Uh... yeah. And then he passes a bill with 9,000 earmarks.


"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."
Obama on January 9, 2009

Just one problem... there's a petition that says otherwise:
http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

There are 250+ people on that page that disagreed with Obama.

I could go on, but I think you get my point.

One thing for sure we will see the photos before we ever see a real Obama birth certificate

One thing for sure we will see the photos before we ever see a real Obama birth certificate

Sad but true.

I think that it is an absolute shame, I'm sorry if I offend anyone, that the people were so eager for an African American president that they were unable to look past the skin. I have a feeling that in the end this president will only serve to disgrace his people instead of elevating them. I'm sure there are many other decent African American men out there who actually have a brain between their ears (I can see how Obama's fell out now that I think about it. ;)), who could have done the nation proud as the first black president had America only had the patience for him to step forward. Now what should be a proud moment is going to be glossed over in shame by the man they gave the prestigious title of "First African American President" to.

I hear African Americans complaining that it is a racial thing against Obama but I know many people, even conservatives, are fine with an African American---Just not Obama.
It isn't a racial thing with the average American. In fact many of the Republican Christian's that are against Obama DID vote for Obama.

Exactly, I hear you nohelp. I'm not against an African American president, I'm against Obama as a person. Obama is seeming to be more grey the black with all of these hidden and shady issues wrapped around him.

Well we have a little over 3 more years, lets hope the people see him for what he's worth as a person and not just what race he is before the next election. I know for a fact that in these parts the majority of people only voted for him for his race. When asked why do you support Obama you either got blank stares, "Cause we need a black man in the white house", "I gotta represent you know.", or "Cuz Mcain is stupid." okay I agree with the last one. We got a terrible choice of idiots this time around. I'm not trying to be racist, these are genuine answers. What can you expect though, when the media was doing noting but spitting out Obama pictures on the cover of every magazine. I bet everything I have that if he had been a white man then he wouldn't have received even a third of the attention and he probably would have not been elected.

"Cuz Mcain is stupid." okay I agree with the last one. We got a terrible choice of idiots this time around.

I know that that was one excuse used by many people who voted for Obama. But I fail to see how voting for McCain could possibly have created a WORSE situation than we have now. I know that Dems would love to blame the current $1.8 trillion budget deficit or the $10 trillion increase in national debt on Bush, but it was Obama who pushed these things. He quadrupled the deficit, doubled the national debt, and is already talking about additional spending... and he accomplished it in less than 4 months in office.

Elliot

I know that that was one excuse used by many people who voted for Obama. But I fail to see how voting for McCain could possibly have created a WORSE situation than we have now. I know that Dems would love to blame the current $1.8 trillion budget deficit or the $10 trillion increase in national debt on Bush, but it was Obama who pushed these things. He quadrupled the deficit, doubled the national debt, and is already talking about additional spending... and he accomplished it in less than 4 months in office.

Elliot

Bingo
Everybody was so caught up with CHANGE
They thought switching sides was the only chance for change.
NOW we have change
At our expense.

Well we have a little over 3 more years, lets hope the people see him for what he's worth as a person and not just what race he is before the next election. I

In truth Silverfoxkit is that we have less than two years to get rid of the real problems in Washington. If congress was to have a radical face change we could make Nobama a lame duck for his last two years.

Or we can start hurling rocks with a catapult.

One thing for sure we will see the photos before we ever see a real Obama birth certificate

Any other conspiracy theory you would like to share with us.

I don't think it is relevant but I'd like Obama to release it since he has nothing to hide :

Back to the subject . I alluded to his "on the job training in my first reply to this posting . Today in American Spectator Andrew Cline makes a similar point :



President Obama's decision not to release photos of detainees abused while in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan is potentially representative of an important change in the way this administration handles politically sensitive subjects.
Until very recently, the president has displayed a tendency to make decisions on weighty matters by instinct. For all of his hyped "thoughtfulness," as president, Obama has been less than intellectual in his approach.
When it came to crafting a stimulus bill, the White House could hardly be bothered to check the details. That was left to the Democratic leadership in the House. The president was Billy Mays, out there selling the thing with a huge smile and a glimmer in his eye. But unlike Mays, he hadn't even tested the product he was pitching. In fact, he pitched it before he even saw it.
The president announced major decisions on stem cell research and abortion funding as if he were announcing that he'd decided to have soup for lunch instead of a sandwich. There was not even an attempt to show that serious thought had gone into the matters. The stated reasoning behind the stem cell decision was so convoluted that clearly no serious thought had gone into it, other than to pick the right political jargon.
The president's knee-jerk reaction on AIG bonuses was so ridiculous that he had to take it back almost immediately.
But lately, it seems that we've begun to see a shift away from the instantaneous application of reactionary liberal positions and toward a more pragmatic approach.
The General Motors bailout, which started as shoot-from-the-hip leftism, was the second instance of Obama's, shall we say, more nuanced governing.. .

On the issue of detainee treatment, the president released CIA memos that described particular interrogation techniques. It was a knee-jerk liberal reaction, and a costly one. It was costly to the United States and costly to the president politically. It was joined by another knee-jerk decision: to release photos of abused detainees.
Tellingly, Obama decided to release the detainee photos before he had even seen them, according to news reports. That's not the sign of a thoughtful executive. But after the scolding he got on the CIA memos, he seems to have given the issue some actual consideration. As a result, he reversed course and decided to keep the photos sealed.

"The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals," he said. "In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."

The exact same thing could have been said of the CIA memos. In that case, the president doesn't seem to have given his decision a great deal of consideration. Perhaps he did. He supposedly listened to a lot of advice on the matter. But his decision was the same as it would have been had he listened to no one.

The start of this pragmatic trend probably was the rescue of ship captain Richard Phillips. Clearly, Obama's instinct was not to use deadly force. He waited two days after the kidnapping before he authorized the Navy to kill the pirates. His decision was a pragmatic one reached via deliberation, not gut reaction. It not only worked, it was politically beneficial as well.

Perhaps these decisions signal the beginning of Obama's slow transition from candidate to president. As a candidate, Obama was free to indulge in all sorts of moral posturing. Shipping jobs overseas is bad! Government secrecy, even on national security matters, is bad! Shooting our enemies instead of talking to them is bad! As president, he is finding that reality is not so black and white. If it helps save a company, outsourcing is beneficial. If it will protect our national security, keeping secrets is a good idea. If our enemies are pointing guns at us and refusing to listen, shooting them hardly makes us barbaric.
Maybe these are just isolated incidents that don't signify a trend. But let's hope they do. A pragmatic Obama engages that much-touted brain more than an ideological Obama does. Which means that he makes much better decisions.

The American Spectator : Obama Gets Pragmatic (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/14/obama-gets-pragmatic)

or we can start hurling rocks with a catapult.

All right, all right I just have to ask. Was that random joke or a reference to my sig?

Lol I was an altar boy in the old days .

N0, I can't believe your still clinging to the birth certificate issue or the NY flyover for that matter. Granted I'm a yank, and the NY thing was a little silly but is it really worth fretting over still?

I find it ridiculous and trivial in comparison to the real issues you guys have at hand. But for you that sensationalised news still clutters your head.

Time to realign the thought processes I think.

N0, I can't believe your still clinging to the birth certificate issue or the NY flyover for that matter. Granted im a yank, and the NY thing was a little silly but is it really worth fretting over still?

I find it ridiculous and trivial in comparison to the real issues you guys have at hand. But for you that sensationalised news still clutters your head.

Time to realign the thought processes i think.

When you don't have real issues to talk about, I guess you hang on to grabage like the birth certificate, I bet if obama was white a southern accent you would not been asking him about his birth certificate

Hahahaha... I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you, just to clarify. That kind of immature thinking is what created the problem to begin with by putting this man into office.

The big picture here isn't race or accent, as previously stated if you had bothered to actually read previous posts, but Obama himself, as a person and his actions.
Truth is if Obama was a white southern guy as you said then he would very likely have not been elected at all.

I'd be just as happy with a black president if that president was competent.

[QUOTE=Silverfoxkit;1736216].
Truth is if Obama was a white southern guy as you said then he would very likely have not been elected at all.
QUOTE]

So you are saying that his race had something to do with him winning the election?? HAHAHHAHA. The one who laugh's last laugh's...

Yes, sadly his race did have something to do with his winning the election, very much so. That fact is undeniable. It certainly wasn't because of his past experience or other qualifications.

Him being black may have played largely in his favor for winning but it isn't what makes him a bad president, it is him as a person.

Yes, sadly his race did have something to do with his winning the election, very much so. That fact is undeniable. It certainly wasn't becuase of his past experience or other qualifications.

Him being black may have played largely in his favor for winning but it isn't what makes him a bad president, it is him as a person.

Most people voted for him because he was a better canditate than mc cain, if you think the only reason he won was because he was black then you need to get off that rush limba cool aid.

Here is some more . Polls showed that during the democratic primary Obama significantly trailed Hillary Clinton among black voters.WHAT BLACK PEOPLE WON'T VOTE FOR A BLACK CANDIDATE, this is going to be a real surprise to you.LOL.hahah

Perhaps in some areas that may be true but the large majority of black people in my area did vote for him, when asked why most of them had no logical reason other then his race.

Would you be supporting him so much yourself if he was not black? If he really was a southern white guy? Answer truly. Considering all of the facts, would you still support him and why?

Perhaps in some areas that may be true but the large majority of black people in my area did vote for him, when asked why most of them had no logical reason other then his race.

Would you be supporting him so much yourself if he was not black? If he really was a southern white guy? Answer truly. Considering all of the facts, would you still support him and why?

Err yes, I voted for bush the first time round and would have voted for ron paul this time around.Race is not an issue for me, by the looks of it it seems like it is a huge issue for you.The majority of black people in your area, really . What you are doing here is called generalization , look it up.

I'm not generalizing. I asked a large number of people personally. The fact is that out of the people I asked most African Americans supported Obama. Some of them did not but the majority did.

I am personally not much of a fan of either choices, however due to my own personally beliefs I am more inclined towards Mcain. I wish there had been better candidates for both parties.

I am getting quite tired of you accusing me of being racist. Anytime anybody has a problem with Obama too many people instantly try and throw that card out there.

I'm not generalizing. I asked a large number of people personally. The fact is that out of the people I asked most African Americans supported Obama. Some of them did not but the majority did.

I am personally not much of a fan of either choices, however due to my own personally beliefs I am more inclined towards Mcain. I wish there had been better candidates for both parties.

I am getting quite tired of you accusing me of being racist. Anytime anybody has a problem with Obama too many people instantly try and throw that card out there.

I asked a lot of people when I went to kkk meeting if they were racist and they all said they hated black people hence I believe that all white people hate black people.

Now do you see the absurdity of your logic

What does the kkk have to do with anything exactly?

I simply struck up conversation with people who came into the store I worked at about who they wanted for president and why. I will even admit perhaps some areas were more influenced by race then others.

If you truly believe that race was absolutely no factor in this election then you are a fool.

We debated this issue extensively during the election cycle.

Dare; do you think a backbencher from the Ill. State Senate would've been given the opportunity for a rapid rise in the ranks by the Dems if he had been a white pol.

2004 ,Obama serving in the Ill. Senate makes an address to the Dem convention... 2006 ;he runs and wins a seat in the US Senate... he stays long enough to find the men's room before he announces his candidacy for the Presidency. The rest is history .

Many of us here suspected and predicted there would be a learning curve the President would have to go through once he was da man . Hillary Clintoon said the Presidency was not the place for on the job training .The American people I guess felt different.

As I stated in my original response to this posting ;it appears that he is beginning to learn the realities of being a leader. Sometimes in retrospect;your campaign rhetoric sounds quaint.

We debated this issue extensively during the election cycle.

Dare; do you think a backbencher from the Ill. State Senate would've been given the opportunity for a rapid rise in the ranks by the Dems if he had been a white pol. ?
.

Yes, I would hope so. Him being black would be a disadvantage not an advantage.Which world are you living in.As I said before the common notion that blacks would vote for him because he was black is a joke,Polls showed he was trailing hillary in the primaries amongts black voters




Many of us here suspected and predicted there would be a learning curve the President would have to go through once he was da man . Hillary Clintoon said the Presidency was not the place for on the job training .The American people I guess felt different.


You think any job in the world would prepare you to be the president of the united states.There is always a learning curve no matter who it is.Hillary clinton said a lot of other things which you donot quote, I guess you pick, if hillary was the president I guess you would come up with, her being female helped her win the election.

Again if you think president obama won because he was black, you need to get off that rush limba cool aid

What does the kkk have to do with anything exactly?

I simply struck up conversation with people who came into the store I worked at about who they wanted for president and why. I will even admit perhaps some areas were more influenced by race then others.

If you truly believe that race was absolutely no factor in this election then you are a fool.

Your arguments are asinine and make no sense.

And you need to take off the rose colored glasses. Obama would still be laboring in the Ill. Senate if he was a white pol.

And yes ;I think there are jobs that prepare you for the Presidency. It is no coincidence that many of our Presidents were former Governors and had real executive experience. It is no surprise that so many of the candidates had REAL US Senate experience(not just a cup of coffee) . It is no surprise that members of the House of Representatives rarely are considered . But rarest of all is a backbench State representative being propelled to the highest office in the land .
Explain to me if it wasn't his race ;how else did he get national prominence so quickly .

Hello Dare:

Some of these people believe Obama could never have been elected if he wasn't black... They're NEVER going to change their minds. They also believe torture is cool, too. That should tell you something.

excon

I can't wait until Pelosi is exposed with her real knowledge on this. I hear the beloved media is even going after this one.
I hope when they release the pictures that they release what each Democrat knew as well.
Quinn & Rose said that Obama isn't releasing the pictures because he doesn't want to get involved but he is most likely going to be leaving it open for the courts to order it. Then he can say, "It wasn't me''.

Sapph,

BINGO !

It is standard operating procedure for him going back to his days as a State Senator... vote "PRESENT" whenever possible.

When you dont have real issues to talk about, i guess you hang on to grabage like the birth certificate, i bet if obama was white a southern accent you would not been asking him about his birth certificate



"Take your garbage somewhere else"
To quote your exact words. Race bating is not necessary to any discussions

Hello Dare:

Some of these people believe Obama could never have been elected if he wasn't black.... They're NEVER going to change their minds. They also believe torture is cool, too. That should tell you something.

excon


Not cool, just necessary.

450 Donn. I am quoting you here
"So since you do not believe in God/Jesus/ Holy spirit as the trinity from our book, the Bible that you will likely not make it to heaven. I am not making a judgment here, Rather you have set yourself up for judgment because of your unbelief."

I don't think I need to waste my time on you

I can't wait til Pelosi is exposed with her real knowledge on this. I hear the beloved media is even going after this one.
I hope when they release the pictures that they release what each Democrat knew as well.
Quinn & Rose said that Obama isn't releasing the pictures because he doesn't want to get involved but he is most likely going to be leaving it open for the courts to order it. Then he can say, "It wasn't me''.

I agree with you here. I think pelosi and a lot of other democrats knew about this for quiet some time and choose to do nothing about this

I agree with you here. I think pelosi and a lot of other democrats knew about this for quiet some time and choose to do nothing about this

If the media will do their job Pelosi is toast on this. Her friends can't seem to get far enough away from her right now.

Any other conspiracy theory you would like to share with us.

I'v heard that Obama has spent about $800,000 in legal fees to keep from having to provide his legal birth certificate. That would seem to provide fuel for the conspiracy theory.

I'v heard that Obama has spent about $800,000 in legal fees to keep from having to provide his legal birth certificate. That would seem to provide fuel for the conspiricy theory.

Any proof of this?

Any proof of this??

I'm like Will Rogers. I only know what I read in the papers. I DO know he has been fighting this in the courts, because there have been suits filed for that very purpose. How much he has spent, I have no personal knowledge of.

The question remains, if he has a valid birth certificate, why fight in the courts to keep from producing it? That makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine.

I stated my position during the campaign that his birth certificate and where he was born was irrelevant to his qualifications since he was born to a US citizen .

But the question does remain ; what is he trying to hide ? Given his claims about transparency he is perhaps the most opaque person vis-a-vie his backround we have elected in my lifetime .

Hello again:

Boy, you guys will believe ANYTHING:

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

excon

Hello again:

Boy, you guys will believe ANYTHING:

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

excon

Just who is Snopes, and how do we know its always right?

There HAVE been cases, and they HAVE been fought. Why?

There HAVE been cases, and they HAVE been fought. Why??Hello gal:

Instead of me looking to find that there AREN'T these cases, why don't you, the guy who said there ARE, go on the internet and show us.

Clearly, if they're there, you can find 'em. If you can't, I'll take that as a, he's a legit pres.

excon

Hello gal:

Instead of me looking to find that there AREN'T these cases, why don't you, the guy who said there ARE, go on the internet and show us.

Clearly, if they're there, you can find 'em. If you can't, I'll take that as a, he's a legit pres.

excon

excon

All I have to work with is dial-up and an antique that is slow as molassas in January. I think one article was from Newsmax.

Why don't you do some looking for me?

Why don't you do some looking for me?Hello gal:

M,kay. What I found was lots of lawsuits from the "birthers", and Keye's, like the one below. All they prove is that people are filing lawsuits and getting them dismissed.

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A lawsuit filed by Democratic attorney Philip Berg alleging that Sen. Barack Obama is ineligible to be president was dismissed by a federal judge yesterday on grounds that Berg lacks standing to bring the lawsuit.

In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.

excon

There were others where I pointed out this was an irrelevant point but this posting is the 1st I answered it directly

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/ineligible-candidate-275470.html

#3


Regarding Obama's birth certificate ;


Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. CodeSec 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth":
Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S. as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
So even if the evidence shows that he was born outside the US and his Hawaii birth certificate was a fraud ;he would still be qualified .

I cannot lay the case ot any any better .It is of course suspicious that he resists attempts to clarify the issue. But it is ultimately irrelevant to the issue of his eligibilty .

There were others where I pointed out this was an irrelevent point but this posting is the 1st I answered it directly

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/ineligible-candidate-275470.html

#3


I cannot lay the case ot any any better .It is of course suspicious that he resists attempts to clarify the issue. But it is ultimately irrelevent to the issue of his eligibilty .

Even though you say its irrelevant you keep briniging it up.Hmmm

I never bring it up . I only respond to others who do. Again... your only contribution is cat calls from the cheap seats.

I never bring it up . I only respond to others who do. Again ....your only contribution is cat calls from the cheap seats.

AWWW.Am I making you angry .

Not really but it is difficult to have a discussion /debate when the response is some kind of personal attack.

Ex proves my point.

It is expensive to fight a case in court, even if you win.

The question remains, WHY is Obama fighting disclosure when it would be far simpler to simply provide the document?

I have to provide mine if I only want a passport.

Something smells like a fish market.

Ex proves my point.

It is expensive to fight a case in court, even if you win.

The question remains, WHY is Obama fighting disclosure when it would be far simpler to simply provide the document?

I have to provide mine if I only want a passport.

Something smells like a fish market.

I am sure he had to provide his to get a passport too.

I am sure he had to provide his to get a passport too.

Cute! But it doesn't answer the "why".

I would like to pose a question, I am not sure in what month of 2008 that it became apparent that Obama was going to win the election but in my recollection it was just about the same month that the economy went south. Does anyone think that might have been part of the cause.

I also think it is strange that doing a spell check with Obama in the post the spell checker ask you for a change to substitution.

I would like to pose a question, I am not sure in what month of 2008 that it became apparent that Obama was going to win the election but in my recollection it was just about the same month that the economy went south. Does anyone think that might have been part of the cause.

I also think it is strange that doing a spell check with Obama in the post the spell checker ask you for a change to substitution.

First of all, correlation is NOT causation. I'm no supporter of Obama, but I don't believe that it can be argued that Obama somehow caused the collapse of the economy either as a result of his election or in order to cause his election.

Obama's election seems to have been inevitable about halfway through September. This is about a month after the collapse of the markets, but about the same time that TARP 1 was approved.

However, the economic problems actually predate 2008. The problems can actually be traced all the way back to 1927, with the creation of Fannie Mae... and unnecessary pseudo-government agency who's purpose was to make it easier for individuals to buy homes by having the government guarantee those loans to the banks. With these guarantees, ostensibly by the Federal government, banks were able to make riskier loans than they had in the past, and the risk would be mitigated by the government guarantee. Note that at the time, Fannie Mae's only purpose was to GUARANTEE loans, not purchase them or create a market for the selling and buying of loans. It was only over time that their mandate changed to purchase loans rather than to guarantee them. That is what created the derivatives markets that are being blamed (perhaps unfairly) for the entire mess. Before this, there was no bundling of mortgages and selling them wholesale to other banks or to Fannie Mae. And Banks didn't make risky loans based on the government's promise to pay or buy the loan.

The government compunded this mistake by creating Freddie Mac in 1970. The purpose of Freddie Mac was to create a body that would compete with Fannie Mae. The only problem is that both entities were owned by the same group... Congress. So there was no competition in any real sense. Furthermore, the concept of competition only exists where all parties are acting logically and in their own best interests. Fannie and Freddie were never created to act logically or in their own best interests. They were created to make it easier for people who would otherwise not be able to buy a home. From a logical standpoint, they were not operating in their own best interests because they were charging particularly low rates on their own loans and buying high risk loans at standard risk interest rates. They were not acting logically and they were not acting in their own best interests. So the rules of competition no longer apply to these entities. Profitability was not their goal. Social engineering was their goal.

The problem became MUCH worse in 1977, when Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) into law. You see, before CRA, banks were permitted to turn down loans that they considered to be too risky. If they felt that the risks were too high, even with the government guarantee behind them, they could just say no. However, after the CRA law was passed, banks were REQUIRED to make a certain percentage of their loans in areas that were financially riskier and to businesses and individuals who were of greater than average financial risk. The banks were not allowed to say no. If they refused to obey the CRA regulations, they could be fined, shut down, prevented from opening new branches, or have their operating licenses pulled.

What this meant was that not only were banks being encouraged to make high-risk loans because of a government guarantee, they were being FORCED to do so, even when they knew that the loans were going to fail. There was no way to escape the problem.

And then, in 1995 and 1996, Congress increased the problem caused by CRA by increasing the percentage of loans required to be CRA loans. Banks had to make as much as 51% of their loans within their CRA census tract and they need to track the income census tract of their loans (low income, moderate income or high income areas). That is how the law is currently written.

They made it even worse when Freddie and Fannie's regulations changed, allowing them (and thus the banks that sold loans to them) to offer high-risk products to borrowers, including the now-infamous ARM loans that had a 5-year low-interest-rate grace period, but then became high-rate mortgages after than period was over. They also loaned 100% or even 110% of the appraised values of the homes, during a time when home values were extremely high due to a "real estate bubble". The purpose was to make Fannie and Freddie more able to make loans to first-time homeowners at low introductory rates. It also, incidentally, made Fannie and Freddie more profitable, and the executives at Fannie and Freddie made HUGE multi-million-dollar bonuses during this period.

Then came the period of 2006 and 2007. Many of the grace periods of the ARM loans started ending during these two years, and interest rates on those mortgages jumped. The borrowers were unable to pay the new mortgage rates, and many of them went into bankruptcy. At that point, bankers and financial analysts started warning the public about the growing delinquency rates and foreclosure rates among banks and lenders. At the same time, the real estate bubble burst. Home values dropped, and suddenly the banks that had been relying on the appraised values of the homes to protect them found their protection lacking. The market values of the homes weren't high enough to cover the loans they had made, and even after foreclosure and sale of a "distressed property", banks ended up taking massive losses that they weren't properly reserved against.

An additional problem sprung up. Because Fannie and Freddie had created a market for it, banks were bundling bunches of mortgages together and selling them as investment instruments (Real Estate Investment Trusts or REITs) on the open market, and investors were investing huge amounts of money in them. Now the underlying loans that were the basis of the REITs were failing, and the investors (who had become the de-facto lenders) were losing massive amounts of money. Some smart investors had purchased "insurance" for the possibility that these investments would fail. There was a market for these "insurance policies", known as derivatives, and they became another major investment product. However, with so many of these policies having to pay out for losses in the REITs, the derivative products were also showing massive losses.

Borrowers were losing their homes, banks were losing their loans, investors were losing value in their investments, and the market just FROZE. No banks were willing to risk making loans that they might not get repaid for. Furthermore, there are strict rules and regulations about how much money they needed to reserve against bad debt, and the bad debt reserve was eating into the cash available for loans. Even if they had been couragous enough to make loans, they had no money to lend. Investors were getting out of the bad products, leaving the insurance companies to pay off on the insurance policies by themselves. Companies like AIG got killed because they had so much of these derivative products outstanding that they couldn't cover all the policies that were being called in. Meanwhile, because home values had dropped so much, even loans that hadn't yet failed were considered risky, because nobody knew the true value of the home in the current market. Was your loan covered or was there a shortfall? Was your loan a 20% LTV, and 80% LTV or a 120% LTV? Nobody knows.

So banks stopped ALL lending. Companies that relied on their banks for cash flow loans suddenly saw their sources of cash flow drying up, and many of them went belly-up because of it. (That's PART of what happened to the Big 3 auto makers, but only part of it.) The drying up of the credit market resulted in businesses dying.

Even worse, banks weren't lending money to each other. Is your bank suffering from massive losses due to real estate? Is your bank capable of sustaining those losses and continuing to operate? Is your bank a safe risk or not? Will my bank be paid back if we make our usual loan to you? So the inter-bank trade stopped, which killed the entire financial system for a couple of months.

The point of all of this is that it all started long before anyone had ever heard Obama's name. The causes are nothing that Obama could have caused, nor are they something he could have used as a way to get elected. It all happened too fast and too suddenly to be predicted. There were those who warned about it back in the 90s and the early 2000s. But even they were caught off guard by how fast it all took place and how quickly we felt the impact. Obama had nothing to do with how this all started.

But he DOES have a hand in what happens next... and so far he ain't doing the right things to heal the economy or fix the issues that caused the economic collapse in the first place.

Elliot

I'm no supporter of Obama, but I don't believe that it can be argued that Obama somehow caused the collapse of the economy either as a result of his election or in order to cause his election.


Putting on my tin foil hat for a moment... it is a bit of a coincidence that there was a money market run ,similar to the type of manipulations George Soros has been known to engineer ,on Sept.18.:D

I don't buy it, Tom. Soros only has power if he maintains his wealth. The economic collapse has hurt him as much as every other rich guy, he lost half his net worth... which serves only to cut his power in half. It doesn't make sense.

Elliot

I don't buy into conspiracy theories either . However when you read things like this you got to wonder

George Soros interview: A very good crisis | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25211027-5018061,00.html)#


And foreseeing the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression has certainly paid off financially. In August 2007, with the first symptoms of the credit crunch on the horizon, Soros came out of semi-retirement to reassume control of his Quantum investment fund, astutely repositioning it for the tsunami about to hit. By year's end Quantum was up almost 32 per cent for 2007, netting Soros profits of $US2.9 billion at a time when other financiers were struggling to break even.

His fortune was estimated at $US11 billion by Forbes in September 2008 and it has grown even larger amid the spreading financial carnage. That same year, in which Hedge Fund Research estimates the hedge fund industry lost a record 18.3 per cent, Soros was up another 9 per cent. He now believes he can step back from a hands-on role at Quantum.

I don't buy into conspiracy theories either . However when you read things like this you gotta wonder

George Soros interview: A very good crisis | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25211027-5018061,00.html)#

Interesting. And perhaps worthy of investigation by the SEC. In an environment when the smartest investors in the world (including Warren Buffet) were losing millions and even billions, Soros was making a hefty profit?

Or so he claims.

Keep in mind that Quantum is privately held. It's investors are not dislosed. It's financials are not disclosed. The funds are Cayman Islands based and Curaçao based, not US based. I haven't seen any financial statements on his funds, have you?

Could it be another Madoff case? Probably not. But nobody seems to know Soros' methodology. His "reflexivity" theory of market assessment has been proven wrong more often than right, so that ain't it. In fact, he's only been right twice so far in his predictions... the Bank of England thing and this crisis. Granted, both were huge and it is possible to make huge money in a huge drop in the market, but his hit/miss ratio is still pretty low. So assuming that what he is reporting regarding his earnings is accurate, what the heck is he doing?

Hmmmm.

Agreed ;didn't he also create a monetary crisis in Asia 1997-98 ? In fact ; to deepen the conspiracy ;Tim Geithner was in the IMF at the time and according to former Aussie MP Paul Keating ,Geithner's "solution" to the crisis was dead wrong and devastated many Asian economies, in particular Indonesia.

Seems Soros is always around when capitalism comes under assault.

Speaking of chatty Cheney...


Obama v. Cheney Heats Up (http://blog.american.com/?p=924)

By Danielle Pletka
May 20, 2009, 11:45 am

So, the White House announced today that President Obama will deliver a “major” speech on antiterrorism policy tomorrow. The timing isn’t entirely clear, but MSNBC reports that it will be “about an hour” after former Vice President Cheney delivers an address on the same topic here at the American Enterprise Institute.

The announcement of the former Veep’s address went out officially from AEI on May 12, though he had been asked to give a talk a couple of weeks before. (We asked him because this is one of the most important national security issues of the day, and AEI is committed to informing and prompting a public debate consisting of more than sound bites.) President Obama’s speech was announced today. What do we think? 1) The Obama White House runs the savviest information ops of any White House in modern history. This is all about rebutting an increasingly effective exponent of aggressive counterterrorism policies. 2) Why do it? The simple answer is that the public is listening to Cheney on the issues, and if the Democratic Congress’s decision this week to deny funding to close Gitmo is any indication, finger-in-the-wind politicians are listening, too.

There’s another message in the former vice president’s efforts to rally the nation behind a robust policy: Americans know we are at war. They don’t want Gitmo’s denizens in their backyards. They aren’t embarrassed by their country, by their soldiers in the field, or by their public servants striving to keep them safe. Mr. President, take note: It’s not just about the air time. Leadership matters. Especially in times of war.

I think this more than anything is what irritates the left about Cheney, he gets results.

putting on my tin foil hat for a moment ......it is a bit of a coincidence that there was a money market run ,simular to the type of manipulations George Soros has been known to engineer ,on Sept.18.:D

If george has that kind of a speculative power I am going to start calling him god.

Obama is acting more and more like the dufus. It should give you righty's wood.

Nah, he could bring Cheney back as VP, and it still wouldn't be enough for them. Appeasement never works.

Hello again,

The thing that is so disheartening, is that Cheney hasn't changed his position one iota. The Obadufus, on the other hand, is changing every minute. He looks a deer caught in the headlights.

I'm waiting for the Obama speech. He's a wimp.

excon

Here is his address . Waiting for Cheney to respond.

RealClearPolitics - Protecting Our Security and Our Values (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/21/obama_guantanamo_speech_transcript_96610.html)

Hello again,

The thing that is so disheartening, is that Cheney hasn't changed his position one iota. The Obadufus, on the other hand, is changing every minute. He looks a deer caught in the headlights.

I'm waiting for the Obama speech. He's a wimp.

Been listening vaguely to Obama's speech, he's very good at taking every side of an issue. Mostly he's justifying himself.

Summarized this way
“It's all Bush's fault... and he released terroists before I was in office "

Meanwhile he told human rights groups yesterday that he was considering a "preventive detention " system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried .
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=1&hp

Now if that is the case ;why does it make a difference if they are held in GITMO or inside the US??

Now he is being rediculously stubborn.

Hello again:

He speaks about the nation and our core values, like I speak about the nation and our core values. Even though I might not agree with him on everything, he's the man for the job.

I'm listening to vice. I wonder if what he's going to say represents our nations core values. I doubt it.

excon

meanwhile he told human rights groups yesterday that he was considering a "preventive detention " system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried .
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=1&hp

Now if that is the case ;why does it make a difference if they are held in GITMO or inside the US ???

Now he is being rediculously stubborn.

If it becomes law he can say we're still a nation of laws... the difference is he can get away with it unlike Bush.

So, EIT's "serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America."

Gitmo, "has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us."

How is that any different than conservative's arguments on what would "embolden the terrorists?" The best recruitment tool, rallying cry, emboldening act for terrorists is a successful terrorist strike. Cheney will argue that Bush administration policies were successful in preventing such another attack.

Btw, enjoyed an entertaining, informative, encouraging evening with Michael Medved last night thanks to a friend (an autographed copy of his book included). Watch Israel.

I'm listening to vice. I wonder if what he's going to say represents our nations core values. I doubt it.Hello again,

I was right.

excon

PS> Oh, yeah. Be scared - very scared!

One thing that everyone seems to forget is that films of the 9/11 attacks have served as the single greatest recruiting tool of the terrorist groups.

Anything that prevents another 9/11 from becoming a recruitment tool of the terrorists is a good thing.

Gitmo and EITs haven't been nearly as effective a recruiting tool as the actual attacks were, and have prevented actual attacks from taking place.

The "rallying cry" and "recruitment tool" argument is complete BS. Yes, it serves as a propaganda tool. It creates martyrs. But as Meir Kahane used to say, "Martyrs in the Middle East are a dime a dozen. Nobody pays attention to them anymore." A dead or incarcerated terrorist, however, is one less badguy that needs to be stopped later. And any information that can be obtained from him that prevents attacks is a good thing.

Elliot

Hello again:

Here's the deal... As sleazy as it was, and as bad a speaker as he is, it was far more riveting than Obama's speech, and ultimately, more effective.

And, THAT is the problem.

excon

Hello again:

Here's the deal.... As sleazy as it was, and as bad a speaker as he is, it was far more riveting than Obama's speech, and ultimately, more effective.

And, THAT is the problem.

excon

Didn't I say something about that (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/chatty-cheney-obama-collapse-353695-8.html#post1746703) yesterday? :D

Didn't I say something about that yesterday? :DHello again, Steve:

How did you hear vice's speech yesterday? ;)

Riveting doesn't make it accurate. In fact, THAT'S what makes it so scary. It was absolutely WRONG - and absolutely BELIEVABLE.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

How did you hear vice's speech yesterday? ;)

Riveting doesn't make it accurate. In fact, THAT'S what makes it so scary. It was absolutely WRONG - and absolutely BELIEVABLE.

excon

I'm omniscient. Um no, I said something about him being effective. :D

I will echo the others who said the images of the Twin Towers going down or Daniel Pearl's head being sawed off by KSM were much better recruiting video for jihadistan . In fact if someone can show me video that AQ has used depicting prisoners in GITMO suffering I'd love to see it.

Certainly Obama has proven that being tough on jihadists offends his sensibilities .But I have seen no evidence of this claim that it helps them in their recruiting . How is it that he was so successful recruiting jihadists pre- 9-11 ?

Here is text of Cheney's speech

RealClearPolitics - Keeping America Safe (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/21/cheney_obama_keeping_america_safe_96615.html)

Here is Allahpundit's recap of Obama's speech, "We must look forward while also remembering that everything is Bush's fault, and we must not abandon our core ideals unless doing so would make things too difficult for The One."

I think he set a record for referring to himself, 104 occurrences of "I" if my count was correct.

Thanks for the link, tom.


For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.


Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about “values.” Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.


The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.


It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

Bravo...

I was to busy at work to pay attention to either speech so I can't make a judgment on either. I'll read them later.

If it becomes law he can say we're still a nation of laws...the difference is he can get away with it unlike Bush.

But Bush DID get away with it, and so will Obama. I feel sick.

But Bush DID get away with it, and so will Obama. I feel sick.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean. Bush was hammered relentlessly, Obama will get a pass because it isn't about what's being done, it's about who's doing it.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean. Bush was hammered relentlessly, Obama will get a pass because it isn't about what's being done, it's about who's doing it.
Well, I'm not giving him a pass. For me, it's entirely about what's being done, not who's doing it.

Well, I'm not giving him a pass. For me, it's entirely about what's being done, not who's doing it.

That shows character and is to be commended. I'm just waiting for the rest of those who swept Obama into office and toe his line in congress and the media to show some consistency there.

I was just talking to a co worker about this and both aren't giving him a pass. He lost a lot of respect from me when he answered the online question and the pot question came up it wasn't the fact that he said no it is not a good idea. It was when he said I guess that says a lot about the people on line. Oh you mean the people who basically got you elected. That pissed me off.

Well, I appreciate your character too Spit. Who's next?

Yup,

Its looking more and more like you guys aren't much different to the guys you are fighting after all.

Yup,

Its looking more and more like you guys aren't much different to the guys you are fighting after all.

Oh Skell, please elaborate on that one, I insist.

Torture!

First it was "we dont torture, it enhanced interrogation", then its "it torture, but they're really bad guys who hate us, so its ok. Plus it works really good".

You guys always preach the slippery slope argument when it comes to gay marriage, drug legalisation etc. Well you're on the slippery slope now and going down fast.

Next it will be "lets torture that pedophile to tell us the names of his pedophile buddies he shares kiddie pictures with on the net". That will be OK under Cheny's values system. Why stop there?

You've gone from denying torture to justifying it. That isn't good. But most of us still hold out hope that that will change. But then again you are probably the last in the developed world to still impose the death penalty, so maybe not.

I look forward to the argument that I should be grateful, because you guys are doing the dirty work to keep us safe done here. And for that we should support you 100% even when it goes against what we believe. Well we did that for 11 years and it didn't make us safer. In fact quite the opposite.

That shows character and is to be commended. I'm just waiting for the rest of those who swept Obama into office and toe his line in congress and the media to show some consistency there.

Let's see, you were pissed when we opposed Bush for doing it, but now you cheer when we oppose Obama for doing the same thing? Oh, I get it, "it isn't about what's being done, it's about who's doing it". You want Obama dissed even when he implements the policies you favor.

Let's see, you were pissed when we opposed Bush for doing it, but now you cheer when we oppose Obama for doing the same thing? Oh, I get it, "it isn't about what's being done, it's about who's doing it". You want Obama dissed even when he implements the policies you favor.

Um, nope. I wasn't pissed that you opposed Bush's policies, that's just politics. I was pissed at the merciless hammering he took from the left and the unending, unfair media war against him. Now I'm pissed at the near complete absence of holding Obama to the same standard as Bush by the SAME people and the media love affair with him. That's consistency, and I was APPLAUDING YOU for having it, so why the heck are you turning the tables on me for paying you a compliment and showing you respect?

Speech your are prematurely pissed off. Bush didn't get hammered his first few months in office. Now after 8 years sure it seemed like he got beat down all the time. You have to give everyone sometime. Sure they aren't beating down Obama right now but it has only been a few months. After 8 years I'm sure it will be different.

Speech your are prematurely pissed off. Bush didn't get hammered his first few months in office. Now after 8 years sure it seemed like he got beat down all the time. You have to give everyone sometime. Sure they aren't beating down Obama right now but it has only been a few months. After 8 years i'm sure it will be different.

The thing is Spit, and everyone seems to agree, is Obama is doing many of the same things Bush got hammered for. If it was bad then shouldn't it be bad now? Do they need time to get pissed off again over the same things they were already pissed off about?

Torture!!

First it was "we dont torture, it enhanced interrogation", then its "it torture, but they're really bad guys who hate us, so its ok. Plus it works really good".

You guys always preach the slippery slope argument when it comes to gay marriage, drug legalisation etc. Well you're on the slippery slope now and going down fast.

Next it will be "lets torture that pedophile to tell us the names of his pedophile buddies he shares kiddie pictures with on the net". That will be ok under Cheny's values system. Why stop there??

You've gone from denying torture to justifying it. That isnt good. But most of us still hold out hope that that will change. But then again you are probably the last in the developed world to still impose the death penalty, so maybe not.

I look forward to the argument that i should be grateful, because you guys are doing the dirty work to keep us safe done here. And for that we should support you 100% even when it goes against what we believe. Well we did that for 11 years and it didnt make us safer. In fact quite the opposite.

Wow, gay marriage, pedophiles and the death penalty all in one shot. As I said before Skell, the mere fact that we're having this discussion, that we DO wrestle over it, shows we are not like them.

Speech it's is like a kid with a shiny new toy its great at first and everyone loves it but once you play with it for a while you realize it the same as your other toy. Patients my friend. Personally I hope it doesn't turn out to be that way but it's not looking to good. But it is still to early yet for me.

the mere fact that we're having this discussion, that we DO wrestle over it, shows we are not like them.Hello again, Steve:

So, STOP wrestling, and BE definitive. It isn't rocket science. Either saving lives is what's important, or the law is. It's no more difficult than that.

So far, the right wing criteria for torture is saving lives... NOBODY on your side says anything else...

Given the above, it's a legitimate question to wonder what's different about questioning a child molester?

excon

Ex, I've never been convinced we broke any laws. As Cheney pointed out yesterday Congress gave consent to do whatever was necessary to protect America. They've just blocked funding to close Gitmo and now have blocked the release (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/21/senate-oks-war-funding-blocks-release-of-detainee-pictures/) of the alleged "torture" photos. Either they're hiding something or they don't really believe we've done anything wrong and all the posturing was just political theater.

Given the above, it's a legitimate question to wonder what's different about questioning a child molester?
As Cheney pointed out yesterday Congress gave consent to do whatever was necessary to protect America.Hello again, Steve:

I ask AGAIN, if "protecting America" is the criteria, ( that's people I presume - not dirt), what's different about questioning a child molester? Or ANY perp who could reveal stuff that might harm America??

Even if all you do is use EIT, what's fundamentally different?

excon

PS> (edited) Once a camel gets his nose under the tent, he's going to get all the way in. Jesse Ventura said that.

Apples and oranges.

EIT was authorized to prevent another attack on America by a foreign entity that declared war on us with the intent to cause mass casualties.

Your example is domestic violence where an American is also the perp.

Hello again, Steve:

I ask AGAIN, if "protecting America" is the criteria, ( that's people I presume - not dirt), what's different about questioning a child molester? Or ANY perp who could reveal stuff that might harm America???

Even if all you do is use EIT, what's fundamentally different?

excon

PS> (edited) Once a camel gets his nose under the tent, he's gonna get all the way in. Jesse Ventura said that.

There is a fundamental difference between POWs and criminals. The difference is legal and moral. You have never been able to see that difference, Ex, and that is why you see EIT of POWs as no different from interrogations of criminals. But the difference is there nonetheless.

Again, the incarceration of POWs isn't because they are criminals, it is to keep them off the battlefield. The interrogation if POWs isn't in order to get evidence against them for prosecution in court, it is to obtain information that stops the enemy and protects the civilian population of the USA. The difference is important, and changes the moral and legal implications of the entire situation.

One other point, excon: You have said that "We're better than them", and used that as an argument of why we shouldn't be using EIT... that we shouldn't be violating their "civil rights" because we are and always have been better than that.

I have to tell you that you are 100% wrong about that.

- In the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus rights and jailed his political opponents without trial... without even a crime being committed. The SUpreme Court of the time overruled Lincoln, but he ignored the court. This was a CLEAR violation of civil rights, and was completely unconstitutional. But Lincoln did it anyway.

- In WWII, FDR and Truman interred over 100,000 Japanese Americans in interment camps without trials. Again, this was a clear violation of the Constitution and of civil rights, but they did it anyway.

- In WWII, Truman dropped a nuclear weapon killing 80,000 people instantly and another 60,000 from radiation sickness and other secondary causes. THEN he dropped a second one on Nagasaki killing another 73,000 instantly and another couple of hundred thousand from secondary causes.

- In the first Iraq war, we used DU rounds that have (supposedly--- I don't really believe it) caused thousands of deaths due to radiation poisoning.

Where do you get the idea that we are "better" than the enemy when it comes to war? We are STRONGER, we have better training, we have better equipment, sure. But the METHODS of fighting a war are no different from those the enemy uses, and that includes the methods by which we gather information from the enemy. Actually, we ARE better than them because the techniques we use, while uncomfortable and perhaps even painful, do not leave any lasting effect on the POWs. The same cannot be said of the techniques our enemies use. But the point is that war is war, and you fight it using any methods at your disposal. Because that is what it takes to win a war and protect your civilian population.

And I will ask again, if not with the EIT, what methods would you use to gather information from the POWs... information that can stop the next terrorist attack and save thousands of lives? You still have not answered this question, excon. You have explained all the reasons you WOULDN'T use the techniques used by the CIA, but you still haven't given us any alternatives that you WOULD use.

Elliot

There is a fundamental difference between POWs and criminals. The difference is legal and moral. Hello again, El:

Like two ships passing in the night, I ask one question - you answer another...

I ask about OUR behavior, and you tell me about THEIRS. You do that, because it's THEIR behavior that sets the standard for YOURS.

I, on the other hand, along with my good countrymen, get my standards from the Constitution.

Therefore, I ask AGAIN, if OUR behavior is based upon how BAD THEY are, INSTEAD of the law, why is a perp fundamentally different than a terrorist?

excon

If our behavior is supposed to be the same during war as it is during a criminal investigation then why are we not Mirandizing the prisoners picked up in the war ?

if our behavior is supposed to be the same during war as it is during a criminal investigation then why are we not Mirandizing the prisoners picked up in the war ?Hello again, tom:

Because Miranda isn't true. What a terrorist says won't be held against him. He'll be tortured because of what he DIDN'T say.

excon

And I would add that these are not POW's, they do not adhere to the laws of war, are not deserving of Geneva protections, are not American citizens, and hasn't the question of torture been answered legally?

hasn't the question of torture been answered legally?Hello again, Steve:

I don't know. Maybe you could answer my question.

It defies logic how 39 seconds of waterboarding ISN'T torture, but 40 seconds IS. It's bizarre to even consider such a notion.

Nonetheless, let's for a minute assume that standard... Now, let's take your ticking time bomb scenario. You've got a guy on the waterboard, who you KNOW, knows stuff that can save American lives...

The waterboarder notices the detainee struggling, but NOT talking, after 35 seconds. At 38 seconds the guy is about to give up the vital, life saving information - but he doesn't - not quite yet.

So, with a pure heart and mind, and every good intention, the waterboarder goes 45 seconds, and the guy gives up his stuff.

Is the waterboarder a hero or a war criminal? What if the guy DIDN'T give up the stuff? Does it matter?

So, NO! The legality has NOT been established. We do NOT live in bizarro world.

excon

Chatty Joe Biden
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/05/22/out_of_the_loop_joe_biden_says_decision_to_shut_gu antanamo_was_like_opening_pandoras_box_

Well then ex, since Congress approved all means necessary, funded Gitmo, many were kept apprised of what was going on and raised no objections, investigate and let the chips fall where they may. Just don't stop with half the story. But like I said before, either Congress doesn't want this investigation because they have something to hide or they don't really believe we broke any laws either.

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know. Maybe you could answer my question.

It defies logic how 39 seconds of waterboarding ISN'T torture, but 40 seconds IS. It's bizarre to even consider such a notion.

It similarly defies logic that people who are 18 years old can vote, but those who are 17 and 11 months can't. Or that a person who is born on this side of a line on a map is considered a legal citizen, but someone born 20 feet away on the other side of the line is not. Nevertheless, those are the standards that have been set. And they are the LEGAL STANDARD.


Nonetheless, let's for a minute assume that standard... Now, let's take your ticking time bomb scenario. You've got a guy on the waterboard, who you KNOW, knows stuff that can save American lives...

The waterboarder notices the detainee struggling, but NOT talking, after 35 seconds. At 38 seconds the guy is about to give up the vital, life saving information - but he doesn't - not quite yet.

So, with a pure heart and mind, and every good intention, the waterboarder goes 45 seconds, and the guy gives up his stuff.

Is the waterboarder a hero or a war criminal? What if the guy DIDN'T give up the stuff? Does it matter?

So, NO! The legality has NOT been established. We do NOT live in bizarro world.

Excon

Actually, once the legal standard is set, anything beyond it IS illegal. So at 40 seconds the interrogator is fine. At 41 he's not. The standard may not make sense to you, but it is THE standard... it HAS been settled, it HAS been established. You just don't like it. Fine. You thinks it's immoral. No problem. We can disagree about the morality of it. But it isn't AGAINST THE LAW, and that's what this issue is all about: Should the guys responsible (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Yoo, and the rest) be prosecuted for breaking the law? The answer is NO because no law was broken.

Elliot

Most people voted for him because he was a better canditate than mc cain, if you think the only reason he won was because he was black then you need to get off that rush limba cool aid.

I agree with you Dare. I am as white as the new fallen snow and I voted for him. So did my son, and so did my daughter. My husband voted for McCain was has recently been leaning the other way. And, I would vote the same way today. Obama, a breath of fresh air.

Perhaps in some areas that may be true but the large majority of black people in my area did vote for him, when asked why most of them had no logical reason other then his race.

Would you be supporting him so much yourself if he was not black? If he really was a southern white guy? Answer truly. Considering all of the facts, would you still support him and why?

Don't forget about the large numbers that did NOT vote for him because he was black. My niece is usually a very compassionate, sweet person but she really shocked me around election time. I said something like" you voted for McCain?!?" she came back with... "I'm not voting for no ni&&er!" You could have knocked me over with a feather after hearing this come out of her mouth. She went on to say, "I voted for who my daddy told me to vote for". I just had to realize that she hadn't started thinking for herself yet (age 21) and was just mimicikng her father. The big corporate exec, my sisters ex.

I'm not generalizing. I asked a large number of people personally. The fact is that out of the people I asked most African Americans supported Obama. Some of them did not but the majority did.

I am personally not much of a fan of either choices, however due to my own personally beliefs I am more inclined towards Mcain. I wish there had been better candidates for both parties.

I am getting quite tired of you accusing me of being racist. Anytime anybody has a problem with Obama too many people instantly try and throw that card out there.

You went around asking blacks if they voted for Obama because he is black? Or did they just say that they supported Obama and you assumed it was because of the black thing.

I am not throwing out any race card antics here. I'm just asking you how you know their reason for backing Obama. Was because he was black.

I'v heard that Obama has spent about $800,000 in legal fees to keep from having to provide his legal birth certificate. That would seem to provide fuel for the conspiricy theory.

You've "heard" ? Sounds like you hang out at the beauty parlor with the other gossips.

Wow, gay marriage, pedophiles and the death penalty all in one shot. As I said before Skell, the mere fact that we're having this discussion, that we DO wrestle over it, shows we are not like them.

Some would argue that it shouldn't need a discussion or wrestling...

And yes, I got three of your favourit discussion points in one post. A new record for me. But you failed to address the point I made. Where does it stop?? The slippery slope remember? You've brought it up before..

Ex, I've never been convinced we broke any laws. As Cheney pointed out yesterday Congress gave consent to do whatever was necessary to protect America. They've just blocked funding to close Gitmo and now have blocked the release (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/21/senate-oks-war-funding-blocks-release-of-detainee-pictures/) of the alleged "torture" photos. Either they're hiding something or they don't really believe we've done anything wrong and all the posturing was just political theater.

Oh, so it was OK cause Congress said so? C'mon Steve, that's laughable.

Anything else Congresss does you reject.

And I would add that these are not POW's, they do not adhere to the laws of war, are not deserving of Geneva protections, are not American citizens, and hasn't the question of torture been answered legally?

So for once you disagree with Elliot? He calls them POW's.

What do you call them? Oh that's right. Enemy combatants...

It similarly defies logic that people who are 18 years old can vote, but those who are 17 and 11 months can't. Or that a person who is born on this side of a line on a map is considered a legal citizen, but someone born 20 feet away on the other side of the line is not. Nevertheless, those are the standards that have been set. And they are the LEGAL STANDARD.



Actually, once the legal standard is set, anything beyond it IS illegal. So at 40 seconds the interrogator is fine. At 41 he's not. The standard may not make sense to you, but it is THE standard... it HAS been settled, it HAS been established. You just don't like it. Fine. You thinks it's immoral. No problem. We can disagree about the morality of it. But it isn't AGAINST THE LAW, and that's what this issue is all about: Should the guys responsible (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Yoo, and the rest) be prosecuted for breaking the law? The answer is NO because no law was broken.

Elliot

Who made this law and when? Was it made to justify illegal actions?

Some would argue that it shouldn't need a discussion or wrestling...

But since the events in question actually took place the fact that we can and do discuss it freely still shows we're not the same as them. They wold have no discussion on the morality of it beyond what heinous act would Allah have them do next to accomplish their goal.


And yes, I got three of your favourit discussion points in one post. A new record for me. But you failed to address the point I made. Where does it stop?? The slippery slope remember? You've brought it up before..

I'm not as huge a fan of the slippery slope as you might think, but on those issues I have precedents and history on my side. No one is actively campaigning for more torture and I doubt the court system is going to find any precedents to justify increased torture. We do have Lambda which has for years campaigned for the right to have their little boy lovers.

So for once you disagree with Elliot?? He calls them POW's.

What do you call them? Oh thats right. Enemy combatants...

Do we always have to agree? I know you guys think we walk in lockstep together but we don't. I've never, ever, not once considered rogue jihadists as POW's. They don't fit any of the legal criteria.

Alright, alright I just have to ask. Was that random joke or a reference to my sig?

Catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt!

Who made this law and when? Was it made to justify illegal actions?

Ummm... if it is law, then the actions pursuant to it are not illegal. Changing the law now doesn't make past actions illegal as you can't charge somebody ex post facto. As for who made the law, I would hazard a guess that it was either congress or an activist judge but don't my word for it as I am only a Political Scientist.

Do we always have to agree? I know you guys think we walk in lockstep together but we don't. I've never, ever, not once considered rogue jihadists as POW's. They don't fit any of the legal criteria.


Steve,

An illegal combatant or an unlawful combatant captured in battle is still a POW. He is just simply not subject to the rights and protections of the Geneva Conventions. He's still a POW. He's just a POW without rights.

A spy caught during wartime is similarly a POW. But because he's a spy, he's not subject to GC protections. He's an unlawful combatant as per the GC, and not subject to the protections of the GC, but he's still a POW.

Elliot

Ummm...if it is law, then the actions pursuant to it are not illegal. Changing the law now doesn't make past actions illegal as you can't charge somebody ex post facto. As for who made the law, I would hazard a guess that it was either congress or an activist judge but don't my word for it as I am only a Political Scientist.

So if a law is made to justify illegal activity than that is OK.

And thanks, I won't take your word for it.

So if a law is made to justify illegal activity than that is ok.

And thanks, I wont take your word for it.

Claiming something is an "illegal activity" doesn't make it an "illegal activity." You have to have the law to back it up making it "illegal." It becomes law when congress makes it a law. Now, a lot of liberals like to think that anything that they find distasteful is an "illegal activity," and they simply need to make it a statement of fact (like you just did) and repeat it over and over again until everyone around them believes it or else find an activist judge who agrees with them and legislates it from the bench ex post facto. The basis of your argument is that you have already decided what is "illegal,' and you've made up your mind and the rest of us just need to accept your enlightenment as superior to our reasoning.


Sorry, not buying it anymore!

...and they simply need to make it a statement of fact (like you just did) and repeat it over and over again until everyone around them believes it ...Sounds like RNC and Fox News talking points! LOL!

Hello Mark:

We've been here before... Waterboarding is torture. It's illegal. It always has been. Hopefully, it always will be. Conservatives think all you got to do is redefine the meaning of a word, and everything will be OK... Then they think they can fool us into thinking their definition has been right all along...

But, of course, they're flat wrong... Clearly, if the things WE do to detainees were done to American captives, you'd never hear the end of it...

Can you say hypocrisy?

excon

Hello Mark:

We've been here before.... Waterboarding is torture. It's illegal. It always has been. Hopefully, it always will be. Conservatives think all you gotta do is redefine the meaning of a word, and everything will be ok... Then they think they can fool us into thinking their definition has been right all along....

But, of course, they're flat wrong.... Clearly, if the things WE do to detainees were done to American captives, you'd never hear the end of it....

Can you say hypocrisy?

excon

Hey Excon old buddy,

Unfortunately you have me there. Redefinition of a word is a wholly liberal democrat prerogative and how dare us conservatives do it! Seriously, both sides do it enough that it has become standard procedure. Case in point would be Bill Clinton trying to redefine what the meaning of the word "is" is. It is no longer about the truth and that was born out with this gulf war business. Bush "lied" according to any liberal or press source you would care to name but he said nothing Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Reid, Pelosi, and nameless others didn't say countless times based upon the same intelligence estimates and the same intelligence sources before Bush became President. It only became a "lie" when they didn't like the messenger. Captured newspaper reporters are tortured and mutilated and have their heads cut off with their executions broadcast live so we can watch on TV and we simply don't hear the end of it... we barely hear it at all. A few soldiers die every now and then in Iraq and we don't hear the end of it (even if it's a simple vehicle accident, its counted as an American casualty). Even more people die every year on the roads in South Carolina and we don't hear about it in Colorado from the press or the democrats. I don't hear the democrats saying "its a lost cause and that the civil war is not winnable and we should pull out." For a population of 28 million in Iraq to a population of 4 million in South Carolina the percentages are staggering small in Iraq.


No more spin. The civil war is a lost cause. Governor Sanford (R) of South Carolina doesn't want the stimulus money, lets pull out now! We can put that money to better use in Colorado anyway!

When defining torture Excon uses the Potter Stewart rule.

When defining torture Excon uses the Potter Stewart rule.Hello again, tom:

Well, when YOU can't recognize torture when you see it, some adult has to step in.

excon

Hey Excon old buddy,

Unfortunately you have me there. Redefinition of a word is a wholly liberal democrat prerogative Hello again, Mark:

You lost me too with your rant against the dreaded left... I don't know about THEIR words. I only know about mine.

So, I'll take that as a YES. The Bushies redefined the law so as to allow them to commit a war crime in our name. Mind you, not only is torture against the law, but writing the memos that allowed it, is too.

excon

Hello again, tom:

Well, when YOU can't recognize torture when you see it, some adult has to step in.

excon

And thus we go back to my earlier statement


Now, a lot of liberals like to think that anything that they find distasteful is an "illegal activity," and they simply need to make it a statement of fact (like you just did) and repeat it over and over again until everyone around them believes it or else find an activist judge who agrees with them and legislates it from the bench ex post facto. The basis of your argument is that you have already decided what is "illegal,' and you've made up your mind and the rest of us just need to accept your enlightenment as superior to our reasoning.


You have proven my point much more succinctly than I ever could have imagined. Thank you!

Hello again, Mark:

You lost me too with your rant against the dreaded left... I dunno about THEIR words. I only know about mine.

So, I'll take that as a YES. The Bushies redefined the law so as to allow them to commit a war crime in our name. Mind you, not only is torture against the law, but writing the memos that allowed it, is too.

excon

I am sorry if I used too much reason and logic. It was completely inappropriate.

Writing memos which explore whether certain actions are legal is in your mind illegal? Are you advocating locking up all the lawyers who write memos? Or just making the writing of memos a punishable offense?


When memos are outlawed, only outlaws will have memos!

You can have my memo when you pry my cold dead hands from around it.

"I am in here for car-jacking, what are you in here for?" "I wrote a memo."

"A memo is hard to define, but I know it when I see it."

Thanks for the material buddy, this is the best laugh I had in a while!

Waterboarding was never classified as a crime. In 2005, Ted Kennedy proposed a bill outlawing waterboarding. Congress turn him down. In 2007, again the proposal was made and again turned down by Congress .

If you cite international law it is important to understand that the Senate added a caveat about CID(cruel inhumane degrading treatment ) It was to be understood in the U.S. by governing American law and not what activist NGOs, international law professors, and foreign regimes decided terms like “degrading treatment” might mean.

That means US statute was the guidelines and not what anyone "thinks " torture is. Section 2340 of the federal criminal code defines it as a government act “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering” .

But that is not defined in the code either and that is why the so called "torture memos " by the Justice Dept was needed ;to clarify how far an interrogator can go.

I am sorry if I used too much reason and logic. It was completely inappropriate.Thanks for the material buddy, this is the best laugh I had in a while!

You have proven my point much more succinctly than I ever could have imagined. Thank you!Hello again, Mark:

So, you're actually accusing ME of redefining the word. Dude! That's chutzpa!

excon

Hello again, Mark:

So, you're actually accusing ME of redefining the word. Dude! That's chutzpa!

excon

Actually, I am! You came back and stated that the writing of the memo itself was an illegal activity thus proving my earlier point. You ARE redefining the writing of memos to be illegal, are you not? (if you are not sure, see your past posts) Now under your rules, any defense team in a criminal trial would be committing an illegal act anytime they write memos to each other exploring possible defenses they might offer up before a judge or a jury. I don't have chutzpa my friend, you got it all!

You ARE redefining the writing of memos to be illegal, are you not?..... I don't have chutzpa my friend, you got it all!Hello again, Mark:

Read carefully. Unlike my opposition, I don't change the meaning of words.. I don't dance around. I don't spin. I don't misspeak. I remember what I post.

The writing of the memos by itself, isn't a crime, as you so aptly point out. However, the writing of the memos to reach a foregone conclusion, so as to provide cover for war crimes, IS against the law. It's called conspiracy.

excon

Hello again, Mark:

Read carefully. Unlike my opposition, I don't change the meaning of words.. I don't dance around. I don't spin. I don't misspeak. I remember what I post.

The writing of the memos by itself, isn't a crime, as you so aptly point out. The writing, however, of the memos to reach a foregone conclusion, so as to provide cover for war crimes, IS against the law. It's called conspiracy.

excon

It is spin. You have decided something is illegal and the memo supporting it is also illegal. The question is who defines the legality? The question was answered by another poster and you choose to ignore it. Here it is again...


Waterboarding was never classified as a crime. In 2005, Ted Kennedy proposed a bill outlawing waterboarding. Congress turn him down. In 2007, again the proposal was made and again turned down by Congress .

If you cite international law it is important to understand that the Senate added a caveat about CID(cruel inhumane degrading treatment ) It was to be understood in the U.S. by governing American law and not what activist NGOs, international law professors, and foreign regimes decided terms like “degrading treatment” might mean.

That means US statute was the guidelines and not what anyone "thinks " torture is. Section 2340 of the federal criminal code defines it as a government act “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering” .

But that is not defined in the code either and that is why the so called "torture memos " by the Justice Dept was needed ;to clarify how far an interrogator can go.


You don't like it, so you are defining it as illegal because you "think" it is, all based upon your own liberal superior position-


Hello again, tom:

Well, when YOU can't recognize torture when you see it, some adult has to step in.

excon

I also read carefully. I don't have to remember what you post because its still in here to be referred back to.

As for my opinion, to use waterboarding to get a confession for use in a court of law, I would consider it a violation of the 5th amendment right against self incrimination and actions to get the confession a violation of 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. If it was used to extract time sensitive information needed to save lives from someone who was an unlawful combatant whom intelligence indicated a very high likelihood that they had the information, then I don't. I consider it a reasonable search and I don't afford them the 5th amendment protections either as the Geneva Conventions are clear on the issue.

As for my personal opinion, to use waterboarding to get a confession for use in a court of law, I would consider it a violation of the 5th amendment right against self incrimination and actions to get the confession a violation of 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. If it was used to extract time sensitive information needed to save lives from someone who was an unlawful combatant whom intelligence indicated a very high likelihood that they had the information, then I don't. I consider it a reasonable search and I don't afford them the 5th amendment protections either as the Geneva Conventions are clear on the issue.Hello again, Mark:

I see that your values ARE malleable depending on the circumstance... Isn't that what you righty's call moral relativism?? I think you do.

Ahhh, the ticking time bomb scenario... I'll discuss it, and have. I've torn it apart from one end to the other... Couldn't you find those posts?? I will if you insist.. However, you'd think you could come up with stuff that some TV writer didn't think of first.

Tell me, is the "intelligence indicated" mentioned above, from the same source that Vice used to tell us about the Iraqi WMD'S?? The same intelligence that warned up about 9/11?? The same "slam dunk" intelligence used to invade Iraq??

"Intelligence", hmmm. Somebody TOLD you that the guy you are about to torture KNOWS stuff that you want to KNOW... Why don't you torture the guy who told you that?? Oh, you DID?? That's where this "intelligence" came from?? I understand. Really, I do.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Hello again, Mark:

Read carefully. Unlike my opposition, I don't change the meaning of words.. I don't dance around. I don't spin. I don't misspeak. I remember what I post.

The writing of the memos by itself, isn't a crime, as you so aptly point out. However, the writing of the memos to reach a foregone conclusion, so as to provide cover for war crimes, IS against the law. It's called conspiracy.

excon

Defense teams are guilty of conspiracy if they write a memo supporting the position of the defendant in a self-defense case?

Defense teams are guilty of conspiracy if they write a memo supporting the position of the defendant in a self-defense case?Hello again, Mark

If you want to discuss silly tangents, go discuss it with somebody else. I thought you were a serious opponent.. Guess not.

excon

Hello again, Mark:

I see that your values ARE malleable depending on the circumstance... Isn't that what you righty's call moral relativism??? I think you do.

Ahhh, the ticking time bomb scenario... I'll discuss it, and have. I've torn it apart from one end to the other... Couldn't you find those posts??? I will if you insist.. However, you'd think you could come up with stuff that some TV writer didn't think of first.

Tell me, is the "intelligence indicated" mentioned above, from the same source that Vice used to tell us about the Iraqi WMD'S??? The same intelligence that warned up about 9/11??? The same "slam dunk" intelligence used to invade Iraq???

"Intelligence", hmmm. Somebody TOLD you that the guy you are about to torture KNOWS stuff that you want to KNOW... Why don't you torture the guy who told you that??? Oh, you DID??? That's where this "intelligence" came from???? I understand. Really, I do.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

All Obama has to do to prove your point is release the information Cheney asked him to release. (He declassified other stuff, why not this?) Did the information gained actually provide us with good intelligence which enabled us to stop them from committing more acts of terrorism against the United States?

You are right about the faulty "slam dunk" intel, but wrong in your misplaced blame. It was intel from the leftover gutted intelligence operations that Bill Clinton left to the new administration. If you claim Bush left Obama the financial mess, then you have to admit Clinton left Bush the faulty intel. And why wouldn't Bush and Cheney believe it? Clinton and the Democrat leaders had been repeating it for years!

I imagine you have "torn apart" those other arguments the same way you think are tearing apart mine- By ignoring the facts and the arguments based upon those facts because you've already made up your mind.

My opinion isn't malleable and it isn't moral relativism. I don't think our government has a right to use waterboarding against you to find out if you broke the law and then use that evidence against you. You are a citizen and you have the rights spelled out for you in the Constitution. They are not, and the law even goes so far as to state they do not even have Geneva Convention protections yet you are trying to give them the civil rights that would protect them from my government which has the obligation to protect me from foreign enemies! What is more important, the governments obligation to protect me or their supposed right to not have their feeling hurt?

Hello again, Mark

If you want to discuss silly tangents, go discuss it with somebody else. I thought you were a serious opponent.. Guess not.

excon

I believe this is a standard hollow argument strategy- Belittle your opponent if they use your logic against you. I simply followed your argument out to what I consider a reasonable conclusion just to show how preposterous it was. I feel like I can safely take the point on this one.

Sailor Mark,

Great points. And ones that Tomder, Speechless and I have made to Excon. He's wrong, his arguments are weak, he is stuck with ignoring facts in order to make his point, and he knows it. But he'll never admit it, because he can't stand to admit that Bush was right about ANYTHING. His hatred of Bush is so strong that he's willing to paint himself into a corner with his own arguments rather than accept that Bush was right about anything, especially anything having to do with the War on Terror (aka "Bush's War") that he decries so strongly.

Kudos on a well-reasoned response.

Elliot

Hello again, Mark:

Read carefully. Unlike my opposition, I don't change the meaning of words.. I don't dance around. I don't spin. I don't misspeak. I remember what I post.

The writing of the memos by itself, isn't a crime, as you so aptly point out. However, the writing of the memos to reach a foregone conclusion, so as to provide cover for war crimes, IS against the law. It's called conspiracy.

excon

A man shoots a home intruder and is arrested on murder charges. His legal team prepares for trial by discussing legal strategy. Memo is written saying they are basing their arguments on "Self-Defense." Conspiracy?

A man shoots a home intruder and is arrested on murder charges. His legal team prepares for trial by discussing legal strategy. Memo is written saying they are basing their arguments on "Self-Defense." Conspiracy?Not a good example. This one is better:

A man rapes a girl. He gets two friends to testify that he was at their place at the time of the rape. Conspiracy?

What is more important, the governments obligation to protect me or their supposed right to not have their feeling hurt?Hello again, El and Mark:

What is more important?? The Constitution. Funny you didn't mention that.

Who needs a long drawn out argument? The facts are clear. The law is clear. We tortured people. That's a war crime. You call it something else. That's spin, cover for one's a$$, and vengeance.

What's NOT clear is what anybody is going to DO about it. I vote jail.

excon

PS> (edited) Oh yeah, I forgot. Even IF torture works, it's STILL illegal. I'm not going to say it doesn't work. Who cares? It's inhumane. It's uncivilized. It's disgusting. And, most of all, it's against the law.

Sailor Mark,

Great points. And ones that Tomder, Speechless and I have made to excon. He's wrong, his arguments are weak, he is stuck with ignoring facts in order to make his point, and he knows it. But he'll never admit it, because he can't stand to admit that Bush was right about ANYTHING. His hatred of Bush is so strong that he's willing to paint himself into a corner with his own arguments rather than accept that Bush was right about anything, especially anything having to do with the War on Terror (aka "Bush's War") that he decries so strongly.

Kudos on a well-reasoned response.

Elliot

Thank you for your vote of confidence. :)

Thank you for your vote of confidence. :)Hello again, Mark:

So, you need a team, huh?? It STILL ain't enough.

excon

Hello again, Mark:

So, you need a team, huh??? It STILL ain't enough.

exconThat's been the tactic on this board since they got here.

That's been the tactic on this board since they got here.

You mean as opposed to you, excon, Chou (when she was around), and Synen, trying to use "that tactic" against us?

I don't team up with anyone. I argue my own points because they are correct. If others are arguing the same points, perhaps it's because they are also correct.

I can't help it if others are intelligent and come to the same conclusions that I do. I'm just trying to work on the fools like you who don't evince that much intelligence on their own.

A man shoots a home intruder and is arrested on murder charges. His legal team prepares for trial by discussing legal strategy. Memo is written saying they are basing their arguments on "Self-Defense." Conspiracy?Hello again, Mark:

Ok, I guess I have to spell it out...

The writing of legal memos isn't illegal.

If you were a lawyer who wrote a memo telling your client that he can break the law, and he does, he's still guilty. You aren't. If, however, you KNEW he was breaking the law, and you wrote a memo AFTERWARDS to cover his little rear end, that's conspiracy.

I don't know if that's clear enough for you. Ought to be. It's simple enough.

I'm sure you'll find some other tangent to spout off on that has NOTHING to do with the argument at hand. I'm used to the subterfuge.

excon

Hello again, Mark:

So, you need a team, huh??? It STILL ain't enough.

excon


Yeah, well, get a few more people on your side, and maybe it'll be a fair fight. Probably not, because if they agree with you, they probably aren't adding too much to your side in terms of intelligence.

:cool:

Elliot

I'm just trying to work on the fools like you who don't evince that much intelligence on their own.Touched a nerve? Hehe. Sticks and stones...

... because if they agree with you, they probably aren't adding too much to your side in terms of intelligence..Look at you, you're on a roll!

Look at you, you're on a roll!


This from the person who has the Swedish Chef as an avatar.

This from the person who has the Swedish Chef as an avatar.It's Beaker!Beaker - Muppet Wiki - Muppets, Sesame Street, Henson (http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Beaker)
But that argument was a really good one! Bravo!

Hello again, El and Mark:

What is more important??? The Constitution. Funny you didn't mention that.

It seems to have slipped your mind where I said



As for my personal opinion, to use waterboarding to get a confession for use in a court of law, I would consider it a violation of the 5th amendment right against self incrimination and actions to get the confession a violation of 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. If it was used to extract time sensitive information needed to save lives from someone who was an unlawful combatant whom intelligence indicated a very high likelihood that they had the information, then I don't. I consider it a reasonable search and I don't afford them the 5th amendment protections either as the Geneva Conventions are clear on the issue.

Lets expand that further...

The US Constitution does not give civil rights to people who are not US citizens. The obligation of the government to protect me from terrorists is spelled out. Article I section 8 says congress has to protect me from terrorists, Article I section 9 says they can't declare something illegal after the fact.

Article II, section 2 says the President may require the opinion (read "memo") concerning anything he has oversight on in order to perform his duties. He is also the one in charge of the military that the congress is required to provide in order to take on the terrorists.

Article III, section 3 says that by trying to impart civil rights unto a terrorist in order to protect them from our government is itself a treasonous act.

Article IV section 2 says if they are not already US citizens then they do not have all the rights conferred by the Constitution.

Article IV section 4 says that each state is guaranteed a Republican form of government and the federal government has to protect it from invasion (again, terrorists coming here or even planning on coming here to commit acts of terrorism is bad and the government is supposed to take care of the problem for me).

Amendment 9 says that my rights under this Constitution are not surrendered because you want to (treasonously?) give the unlawful combatants civil rights under the it also.


Game, set, and match, have a nice day! :cool:

That's been the tactic on this board since they got here.

Thanks for proving your point. Its okay for you and not for me. Liberal elitism at its finest.

Hello again, Mark:

The United States of America is a party to the United Nations Convention Against Torture from 1984, which clearly contains the obligation to make torture a criminal offense under domestic law. So, if under the direct jurisdiction of the United States of America, a government official - whether it's a high official or a low official or a police officer or military officer, doesn't matter - whoever practices torture shall be brought before an independent criminal court and be held accountable. That isn't just the torturer, him or herself, but also those who are ordering torture practices, or in any other way participating in the practice of torture. This is a general obligation, and it applies to everybody; there are no exceptions in the Convention

The Geneva Conventions, to which the United States is of course also a signatory, also provides that all contracting parties will bring before its courts any individuals or government officials who have committed breaches of the obligations of the Geneva Conventions.

Does Geneva also provide or impose a legal obligation on the United States to investigate and prosecute those who may be guilty of committing war crimes? Of course,

But in my opinion, the Geneva Conventions are not the main source because I do not consider this so-called "war on terror" as an international armed conflict. This was the paradigm of President Bush in order to justify certain practices under the assumption that human rights law would not apply, but of course human rights law does apply, no matter how much you twist the law

excon

Thanks for proving your point. Its okay for you and not for me. Liberal elitism at its finest.Did I give excon a glowing review of his post like you did? I didn't did I.

Did I give excon a glowing review of his post like you did? I didn't did I.

I just gave someone a thank you. I gave no "glowing reviews" of a post by somebody else, just merely referred back to one because it answered the questions of legality which excon said wasn't offered yet. I don't have a long history here and was in no way using them as part of my "team" as you inferred. You did however add practically nothing substantive to the argument and simply agreed with him and gave him a little moral support. You did exactly what you said I was doing, didn't you?

The United States of America is a party to the United Nations Convention Against Torture from 1984, which clearly contains the obligation to make torture a criminal offense under domestic law. So, if under the direct jurisdiction of the United States of America, a government official - whether its a high official or a low official or a police officer or military officer, doesn't matter - whoever practices torture shall be brought before an independent criminal court and be held accountable. That isn't just the torturer, him or herself, but also those who are ordering torture practices, or in any other way participating in the practice of torture. This is a general obligation, and it applies to everybody; there are no exceptions in the Convention

The Geneva Conventions, to which the United States is of course also a signatory, also provides that all contracting parties will bring before its courts any individuals or government officials who have committed breaches of the obligations of the Geneva Conventions.

Does Geneva also provide or impose a legal obligation on the United States to investigate and prosecute those who may be guilty of committing war crimes? Of course,

But in my opinion, the Geneva Conventions are not the main source because I do not consider this so-called "war on terror" as an international armed conflict. This was the paradigm of President Bush in order to justify certain practices under the assumption that human rights law would not apply, but of course human rights law does apply, no matter how much you twist the law

excon

Again, OHCHR (then toture convention) which you refer to just says you can't torture but doesn't define when something is torture and when it is not. We used waterboarding to train our military to resist harsh interrogation tactics but it is not torture during the training period. The question became what exactly is torture and where to stop during questioning. This is the reason behind the memos so that they would comply with OHCHR Section 1. In addition to this, it clearly states that it doesn't apply to " pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

By applying your interpretation, serving a search warrant against somebody would violate this convention. It comes back to YOU being the one who gets to define what torture is because you don't like what was done.

It is such typical "liberal" thinking that wants to attach more importance to UN rules than to our US Constitution.

That is a position that I strongly feel is against my best interests.
It was difficult to get the States originally to relinquish a part of their power to a federal government. They did not trust a centeral government.

I understand that the further government gets from the populace (more layers) the less responsive it is to those governed.

Count me as one of those rednecks who want the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.

Retain our sovereignty at all costs!!

It is such typical "liberal" thinking that wants to attach more importance to UN rules than to our US Constitution.Hello gal:

The United Nations Convention Against Torture is a treaty that your man Ronald Reagan signed in 1984. It wasn't just a nice liberal idea. It's a TREATY!

I don't know. ME? I guess you can call me a liberal because I want to stick to our treaties...

You conservatives don't want to?? That's trouble.

excon

Hello gal:

The United Nations Convention Against Torture is a treaty that your man Ronald Reagan signed in 1984. It wasn't just a nice liberal idea. It's a TREATY!

I dunno. ME?? I guess you can call me a liberal because I wanna stick to our treaties....

You conservatives don't wanna??? That's trouble.

excon

I am adamantly opposed to ANY treaty taking precedence over the Constituton, no matter WHO signed it. Any treaty our pres signs should NOT destroy what he swore to uphold.

If not, then the Constitution can be made worthless by treaty.

Do you think that is a good thing to do?

Here you have been ranting about how you uphold the Constitution.

So NOW treaty is more important than Constitution?

I am not offering a legal opinion, just mine.

So NOW treaty is more important than Constitution?Well a treaty is an understanding that involves several nations, the Constitution concerns only the US. They serve separate purposes.

They serve separate purposes.Hello again, gal:

And, they don't conflict.

excon

Hello again, gal:

And, they don't conflict.

excon

Should you have added "yet"?

As long as they don't conflict, that's fine.

But what about if our pres signs a treaty promising some kind of welfare for foreign nations to be paid by the US taxpayer? Wouldn't that be a conflict?

Seems I remember Obama talking about something like that during the campaign.

Or some treaty allowing the UN to monitor our elections? Far fetched? Hopefully!

But what about if our pres signs a treaty promising some kind of welfare for foreign nations to be paid by the US taxpayer? Actually that happens all the time, has been for decades, regardless of who is president.

Actually that happens all the time, has been for decades, regardless of who is president.

If you refer to foreign aid, that is something done by the US, not mandated by the UN or treaty.

If you are not talking about foreign aid, then you will have to explain what.

Again, OHCHR (then toture convention) which you refer to just says you can't torture but doesn't define when something is torture and when it is not. We used waterboarding to train our military to resist harsh interrogation tactics but it is not torture during the training period. The question became what exactly is torture and where to stop during questioning. This is the reason behind the memos so that they would comply with OHCHR Section 1. In addition to this, it clearly states that it doesn't apply to " pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

By applying your interpretation, serving a search warrant against somebody would violate this convention. It comes back to YOU being the one who gets to define what torture is because you don't like what was done.

No, that's right. How could we forget... Its only torture when you do it for 40 seconds but not 39?

How silly. And Elliot we don't need your argument about how drinking is OK for 19 year olds but not 17 year olds. That's silly as well.