Dick Cheney "The Prince of Darkness"

[Smocca]

I see. So to "win" we have to let them get away with torture. You sir, are a genius.

[Arbiter]

Originally Posted by Smocca

I see. So to "win" we have to let them get away with torture. You sir, are a genius.

Who is them?

Oh,... you mean all parties involved in congress that approved the legislation and methods for the Bush administration and the CIA to pursue?

[Smocca]

What do you want, names? How about we and Obama just get off of the Justice department's nuts and let them figure it out. That is their job. If people in congress are involved and go down for this I couldn't care less. If Obama himself turns out to be involved up to his eyeballs I will cheer as he goes down (and I support just about all of his policies to at least some degree). I don't really understand all of this hesitation to hold politicians accountable for their actions. Pushing to simply let things go because "lolz this is all just for political points" is ridiculous.

But my post was directed at Cad's ridiculous insinuation that one can't be outraged about human rights violations unless a politician has pulled the puppet strings to make that happen. Also, armchair politicians who try to pretend that both sides are equally shitty on every single issue are fucking retarded. As if lying about getting a dick sucked = torturing hundreds of individuals = increasing the budget deficit.

Sorry for giving a fuck. I will go back to apathy+cynicism+some weird desire to make excuses for politicians and join the rest of you all ASAP.

[Plisko]

Originally Posted by Cad

You're only frothing at the mouth over this and thinking it reflects our national values because that's what a political team and their media cohorts want you to think. They want you to be mad at those other guys and see them as the "good guys" protecting your values. What you don't see is that while Bush was worse than most, all of these politician fuckholes are scum. They will exploit everything you think for their own advantage. If they can get you mad about something, they'll twist it around to use it politically. The only reason we even KNOW about this shit is because they wanted us to. Period. It's all partisan politics and it fucking sucks.

So then torturing people in our custody has no bearing on our national values? It is just a neutral event that only has meaning when someone says it has meaning?

Honestly, this conversation is making me think nothing will ever outrage people anymore. If this doesn't . . . nothing will.

For what it's worth, both "teams" are currently trying to brush this issue aside. It is a subset of people, mostly from the grass roots, who are trying to push the issue past the Washington excuses and into something with teeth.

[Arbitrary]

Originally Posted by Cad

You're only frothing at the mouth over this and thinking it reflects our national values because that's what a political team and their media cohorts want you to think.

No.

[Flight]

Originally Posted by Smocca

What do you want, names? How about we and Obama just get off of the Justice department's nuts and let them figure it out. That is their job. If people in congress are involved and go down for this I couldn't care less. If Obama himself turns out to be involved up to his eyeballs I will cheer as he goes down (and I support just about all of his policies to at least some degree). I don't really understand all of this hesitation to hold politicians accountable for their actions. Pushing to simply let things go because "lolz this is all just for political points" is ridiculous.

But my post was directed at Cad's ridiculous insinuation that one can't be outraged about human rights violations unless a politician has pulled the puppet strings to make that happen. Also, armchair politicians who try to pretend that both sides are equally shitty on every single issue are fucking retarded. As if lying about getting a dick sucked = torturing hundreds of individuals = increasing the budget deficit.

Sorry for giving a fuck. I will go back to apathy+cynicism+some weird desire to make excuses for politicians and join the rest of you all ASAP.

I agree with your sentiments about this, but there comes a time when the people shouldn't just sit back and let those in responsibility sort it out, when the people themselves should be heard. This is one of those times.

[Arbiter]

Originally Posted by Smocca

What do you want, names? How about we and Obama just get off of the Justice department's nuts and let them figure it out. That is their job. If people in congress are involved and go down for this I couldn't care less. If Obama himself turns out to be involved up to his eyeballs I will cheer as he goes down (and I support just about all of his policies to at least some degree). I don't really understand all of this hesitation to hold politicians accountable for their actions. Pushing to simply let things go because "lolz this is all just for political points" is ridiculous.

But my post was directed at Cad's ridiculous insinuation that one can't be outraged about human rights violations unless a politician has pulled the puppet strings to make that happen. Also, armchair politicians who try to pretend that both sides are equally shitty on every single issue are fucking retarded. As if lying about getting a dick sucked = torturing hundreds of individuals = increasing the budget deficit.

Sorry for giving a fuck. I will go back to apathy+cynicism+some weird desire to make excuses for politicians and join the rest of you all ASAP.

Maybe there will come a time when you will be wiser than the snake who is pulling the strings before people to cause the unwarranted controversy and drama.

I absolutely don't have much respect for obama playing these political games right now.

[Simas]

You know the Memo's were released because of an ACLU FOIA case right? Obama just didnt take it to the Supreme Court, general opinion seems to be SC would have ordered them released as well.

Same thing with the 44 new photos dropping next month, ACLU FOIA case. Pretty sure ACLU is going after more as well.

And it was a leaked Red Cross report that got the ball rolling in many ways.

You think Obama engineered this clusterfuck? Its a landmine and he cant win for losing.

[Arbiter]

Originally Posted by Simas

You know the Memo's were released because of an ACLU FOIA case right? Obama just didnt take it to the Supreme Court, general opinion seems to be SC would have ordered them released as well.

Same thing with the 44 new photos dropping next month, ACLU FOIA case. Pretty sure ACLU is going after more as well.

And it was a leaked Red Cross report that got the ball rolling in many ways.

You think Obama engineered this clusterfuck? Its a landmine and he cant win for losing.

He actually should have taken it to the supreme court. Just because some organization in our country wants top secret information doesn't mean anyone in our leadership is suppose to just toss it at them. I don't care who they are, left or right.

He obviously just threw this out there without regard to consequences and advisement, and I see that as nothing more than political jousting on his part, or even worse, he crumbled under the pressure and gave in. Either way, I don't see him as having our best interests as a country at heart when he does things like this, in amongst all that is going on atm.

[Simas]

Sounds like you have a problem with the freedom of information act.

"Political jousting" makes no sense, this isnt good for Obama. "Crumbling under the pressure" makes even less sense, unless you mean the pressure of the law.

You are aware the military (Bob Gates et al) argued to release them (ie not take it to the SC) as well? Im sure Gates was all about some political jousting.

Anyways you seem to be unaware of alot of the facts, google yo. WaPo had a decent article about it the other day.

[chaos]

You're talking to the same guy who a few posts back said this:

Originally Posted by Arbiter

Investigate if they want, but I don't think congress and the Bush administration handled anything wrongly throughout that time, in fact, I think they were very careful in what they legislated and put into use.

It comes down to mainly just political points.

Knowing nothing of the facts, he thinks Bush was right. Why? Well, because he is Bush. Things like "facts" and "evidence" aren't going to mean much to a guy who uses that kind of logic. He went into this situation with the goal of making Obama his scapegoat.

[Plisko]

Originally Posted by Cad

First, acts of congress supercede treaties. Interpretation of the supremacy clause has been that if it comes earlier in the clause, it's superior. So it goes:

Constitution
Acts of Congress
Treaties
State law

The treaties don't mean shit until they are enacted (ratified) by Congress.

This may be true but, as I understand it, Congress can only abolish treaties that have already been ratified. They can't then write laws that contradict the treaties or get rid of a portion of them. Treaties are like a contract. They are binding in full or terminated. To change them all other world signatories would need to agree to the changes.

[Badass]

Originally Posted by Plisko

This may be true but, as I understand it, Congress can only abolish treaties that have already been ratified. They can't then write laws that contradict the treaties or get rid of a portion of them. Treaties are like a contract. They are binding in full or terminated. To change them all other world signatories would need to agree to the changes.

You are correct. Anyone who thinks briefing a few members of congress about possible interrogation techniques, and having them not formally object to what they saw, equates to over-riding a treaty ratified by Congress and signed into law by the President is a fucking idiot.

[Cad]

Originally Posted by Plisko

This may be true but, as I understand it, Congress can only abolish treaties that have already been ratified. They can't then write laws that contradict the treaties or get rid of a portion of them. Treaties are like a contract. They are binding in full or terminated. To change them all other world signatories would need to agree to the changes.

No, Congress can ratify part, all, or no part of a treaty, and can repeal part or all of it any time. The foreign services make the treaties but they must be implemented by Congress or they are not binding on the United States. Treaties are implemented as law in the US by acts of Congress. It amuses me that you think a foreign agreement would take precedence over our own legislature.

[Cad]

Originally Posted by Badass

You are correct. Anyone who thinks briefing a few members of congress about possible interrogation techniques, and having them not formally object to what they saw, equates to over-riding a treaty ratified by Congress and signed into law by the President is a fucking idiot.

Actually I think a fair percentage of CIA operations work like this, there are oversight committees that the CIA has to brief in on what they are doing, and if they get approval from the oversight they are good to go. Even for things that would ordinarily violate the law.

Hey it happens in Tom Clancy, must be how it works, right?? (This is sarcasm if you can't tell, you shitheads.)