Obama and Democrats' Torture Problem

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
Obama and Democrats' Torture Problem
U.S. News & World Report
By Kenneth T. Walsh
Posted May 22, 2009
Some of Obama's supporters are urging the Justice Department to prosecute policymakers who wrote legal opinions authorizing the controversial methods. But word has leaked that a preliminary inquiry at Justice concludes that, while the authors of those memos showed poor judgment, they should not be criminally prosecuted because giving bad advice is not illegal.

Other options, such as congressional hearings to determine if there was wrongdoing, could prove just as divisive. Sixty-two percent of Americans oppose such hearings, according to a poll in late April by CBS News and the New York Times—including 89 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of independents, and 51 percent of Democrats. On the issue of torture itself, the country is split. Forty-nine percent of Americans support Obama's position that the United States should not use torture, but 48 percent say there are cases in which the United States "should consider torture against terrorism suspects," according to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll.

When Pelosi said she had nothing else to say on the matter did that mean she wouldn't be talking about torture again?

 

D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Posts
1,512
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
123
Trinity,

If Cheney had instructed the Bush Justice Dept. to find a legal justification for killing detainees at Guantanamo (because indefinate detaining cannot go on forever, let's imagine Bush and Cheney instructed the Justice Dept. to find a legal rationale for executing the suspected terrorists - who were not going to get a trial anyway - and then instruced the CIA to carry out this mission).... would that be considered "bad advice", too? Poor judgement? And "not illegal"? Because whatever the president does is, by definition, not illegal?


I seriously doubt you've ever given this topic an hour's worth of serious contemplation. Like a honey bee going from flower to flower, you seem to flit from one "conservative" article to the next, and plop down the links to the current talking point.


The point is that Bush and Cheney broke existing domestic and international laws. And, knowing that this was illegal, they artificially constructed "new" legal theories via Justice Department lawyers to overide these existing laws.

If Bush had had the Justice Dept. write up legal justifications for overriding the U.S. Constitution during 2002, would you continue to defend him - because during times of war the president gets to become a unitary executive branch of government?
 
Last edited:

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The point is that Bush and Cheney broke existing domestic and international laws. And, knowing that this was illegal, they artificially constructed "new" legal theories via Justice Department lawyers to overide these existing laws.
QFT, but moreso with Cheney than anyone else. He's been pulling the strings with everything surrounding the war in Iraq from the beginning, and that includes the issues of redefining "torture" and manipulating the people around him to do most of the talking and taking the falls. And everyone knows, if Obama himself made pushing an investigation a high priority, he wouldn't be able to focus on the economy, health care and everything else that our nation needs.

Whether or not our beloved forum nuisance who created this abomination of a thread realizes that is a different story. Of course, (s)he's not here to truly get to the bottom of the whole torture problem. (S)he just want to watch Pelosi burn because (s)he thinks it would have an adverse effect on Obama. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
Trinity,

If Cheney had instructed the Bush Justice Dept. to find a legal justification for killing detainees at Guantanamo (because indefinate detaining cannot go on forever, let's imagine Bush and Cheney instructed the Justice Dept. to find a legal rationale for executing the suspected terrorists - who were not going to get a trial anyway - and then instruced the CIA to carry out this mission).... would that be considered "bad advice", too? Poor judgement? And "not illegal"? Because whatever the president does is, by definition, not illegal?

Why would we discuss 'what if' scenarios of situations that did not occur? Obama himself has suggested that he may have a group of indefinite detainees. Bad advice and poor judgement is what the current Administration believes the legal opinon to be. The previous Administration holds a different view on the legal opinion. Criminalization of differing policy is what AG Holder's Justice Dept. did not want to enter into. In order for him to determine a crime was committed, the action would have to be illegal. Just because Obama does not agree with the legal opinion, does not mean the legal opinion is outside the rule of law. AG Holder had to admit that the legal opinion did not break the law.

I seriously doubt you've ever given this topic an hour's worth of serious contemplation. Like a honey bee going from flower to flower, you seem to flit from one "conservative" article to the next, and plop down the links to the current talking point.

Replace "conservative" with "Obama" and you describe your little Obama crush that is your thread creation history.

The point is that Bush and Cheney broke existing domestic and international laws. And, knowing that this was illegal, they artificially constructed "new" legal theories via Justice Department lawyers to overide these existing laws.

Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder didn't agree:

One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.


It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not. - Eric Holder, Former Deputy Attorney General in 2002

(You may need to see and hear Holder say this himself...)

Holder: Detainees Don't Fall Under Geneva Conventions
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,757
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Why would we discuss 'what if' scenarios of situations that did not occur? Obama himself has suggested that he may have a group of indefinite detainees. Bad advice and poor judgement is what the current Administration believes the legal opinon to be. The previous Administration holds a different view on the legal opinion. Criminalization of differing policy is what AG Holder's Justice Dept. did not want to enter into. In order for him to determine a crime was committed, the action would have to be illegal. Just because Obama does not agree with the legal opinion, does not mean the legal opinion is outside the rule of law. AG Holder had to admit that the legal opinion did not break the law.



Replace "conservative" with "Obama" and you describe your little Obama crush that is your thread creation history.



Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder didn't agree:

One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.


It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not. - Eric Holder, Former Deputy Attorney General in 2002

(You may need to see and hear Holder say this himself...)

Holder: Detainees Don't Fall Under Geneva Conventions
Bla Bla Bla...........Waterboarding IS TORTURE, Just because Al-Qaeda didn't sign the Geneva Convention, the UNITED STATES did. The USA has tried and convicted people for performing waterboarding. There is NO SUCH THING as "enhanced interrogation", it's TORTURE and we live in a country where torture is illegal.
 
Last edited:

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
And with every post, the ugliness that is Trinitroll continues to be exposed.
(S)he can't even fathom that someone can have a favorable position on Obama without somehow being "enamored" by him. Meanwhile, (s)he's obsessed on his utter demise by posting anywhere up to 10 different anti-Democrat, anti-Liberal or anti-Obama threads every week.

The game doesn't fool anyone, bitch. Try a different one.
 

TurkeyWithaSunburn

Legendary Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
3,589
Media
25
Likes
1,224
Points
608
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Who's the title of the leader of the executive branch?
(President)

I wasn't aware of any override vote etc... So must've been the executive branch's doings. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
D

deleted15807

Guest
And with every post, the ugliness that is Trinitroll continues to be exposed.
(S)he can't even fathom that someone can have a favorable position on Obama without somehow being "enamored" by him. Meanwhile, (s)he's obsessed on his utter demise by posting anywhere up to 10 different anti-Democrat, anti-Liberal or anti-Obama threads every week.

The game doesn't fool anyone, bitch. Try a different one.

The 'Hillary Democrat' charade has long been over. The Faux News correspondent has been exposed. A complete fraud.

Would a 'Hillary Democrat' start the following?

[FONT=&quot]Obama and Democrats' Torture Problem
Claim by Former FBI Interrogator Defies Logic and Common Sense
U.S. Postal Service buying homes when it is broke?
Fed Judge Rules Teacher Violated 1st Amendment with anti-creationism speech
Barney Frank and ACORN's Stimulus Money
Donald Trump Should Support Miss CA Carrie Prejean
PolitiFact: Judd Gregg on Obama's Budget- True!
Arlen Specter seriously got punked by Obama and the Dems
FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape
Dem Stripped Flu Pandemic Preparedness From Stimulus
President Obama not fulfilling the "change" of Candidate Obama
Tea Party Protests - CNN Gets OWNED for it's Bias and tries to hide the evidence
Dear Mr. President
Gov. Sarah Palin's Speech was Epic <----This one is a real jewel
Lawsuit Filed Against Obama:Citizenship Ineligibility
Biden Gaffes in Foreign Policy Speech
Obama Ducks Debates...follows with no leadership
Obama Holds Back on His Economic Crisis Plan
Is Biden Being Replaced by Hillary?
Obama's Record On Rape Kits
Democrat has Detailed Economic Crisis Proposal...
Obama Needs More Cash To Reach Goals
RealClearPolitics:McCain leads Electoral Map
Palin 47%, Biden 44% in Matchup[/FONT]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
The 'Hillary Democrat' charade has long been over. The Faux News correspondent has been exposed. A complete fraud.

You are the only fraud. You can't respond to what Obama's Attorney General stated or to the article in the original post...but don't worry you attacking me is speaking volumes.

The silence is still deafening...
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,757
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You are the only fraud. You can't respond to what Obama's Attorney General stated or to the article in the original post...but don't worry you attacking me is speaking volumes.

The silence is still deafening...
I see you are trying to scare us with LARGER TYPE!...lol........did it ever occur to you that some of us may be bored with your litany of anti-Obama threads? Hence the "silence"
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
of yes it's obama's and the democrats problem..........it was the fuktard bushsheep that started it.

No. On inauguration day all of Bush's problems were officially turned over to Obama and are now his problems and need to be cleaned up immediately with no costs and within 30 days. I mean how long do you need to undo 8 years of government inepitude and two wars? How HARD can that be?
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
I see you are trying to scare us with LARGER TYPE!...lol........did it ever occur to you that some of us may be bored with your litany of anti-Obama threads? Hence the "silence"

Nope. You simply have nothing of substance to say to the facts presented.

Personal Attacks, pitiful excuses that have no relevance to the facts of the thread and head-in-the-sand silence...that's about it.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,757
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Nope. You simply have nothing of substance to say to the facts presented.

Personal Attacks, pitiful excuses that have no relevance to the facts of the thread and head-in-the-sand silence...that's about it.
Nope, no head in the sand here..........just bored.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,757
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Really? Just bored when you hear Eric Holder, Attorney General say that detainees don't fall under the Geneva Conventions because that would limit our interrogations...Sure.
Nope.......bored with your threads

(BTW I don't agree with the President or Attorney General on this issue and am lobbying my representatives in congress)
 
Last edited:

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
Nope.......bored with your threads

Yep, head in the sand.

One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.



It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not. - Eric Holder, Former Deputy Attorney General in 2002




(You may need to see and hear Holder say this himself...)

Holder: Detainees Don't Fall Under Geneva Conventions
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,757
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Yep, head in the sand.
One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.



It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not. - Eric Holder, Former Deputy Attorney General in 2002




(You may need to see and hear Holder say this himself...)

Holder: Detainees Don't Fall Under Geneva Conventions
I don't need to listen to anything. I don't agree with what Holder said in 2002. BTW, it's 2009. I think a country how TORTURES has a stain on it. I don't want to live in a country who TORTURES> You apparently do
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
I don't need to listen to anything. I don't agree with what Holder said in 2002. BTW, it's 2009. I think a country how TORTURES has a stain on it. I don't want to live in a country who TORTURES> You apparently do

Of course I don't.

Obama can make a teleprompter speech so eloquent (of course he'll be advised by Soufan) that it will sway the most hardened terrorist to put down their weapons of mass destruction, abandon their plans of mayhem at the mere sound of Obama's righteous reason and Soufan can do all the interrogations of detainees where he'll hand out coca-cola and laughs and obtain all the intelligence needed to foil all imminent attacks. I'm all for it.