Current Events

TOPICS:

2/9/08
2/4/08

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29

 ... 434

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

NOV 03, 2007 07:18 PM

malkav11 said:

shapeshifter23 said:

I do have a solution, though. We should waterboard Mukasey so he can make a determination if it is torture or not.



You know, I like to think of myself as a reasonable, peaceable and nonviolent man. But I rather like this idea. smile



Well, if it's not torture, what's the big deal, right? Am I right?




I dunno, seemed to sway this former Bush Department of Justice official:

goatinamoat

goatinamoat

New York, NY
March 2006

NOV 03, 2007 07:20 PM

Not sure how Juan's girlfriend escaped being an assface of the week. I think that's pretty self-evident, like waterboarding is torture. Although I admit I have no sympathy for the fucks that we waterboard -- I don't think it's good for the the soul of our nation to do it, but part of me understands that handling these cretins with tactics like waterboarding could be a real temptation.

trapper

trapper

Neffs, PA
July 2007

NOV 03, 2007 07:41 PM

KUNGFOO said:

mrat said:
It's amazing how you find everything wrong with the USA as Bush's problem !! Who's going to fix it ??? Clinton ?? You seem to know everything- why don't you run ???



No, you are!



I am what ???

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

NOV 03, 2007 08:40 PM

mrat said:

KUNGFOO said:

mrat said:
It's amazing how you find everything wrong with the USA as Bush's problem !! Who's going to fix it ??? Clinton ?? You seem to know everything- why don't you run ???



No, you are!



I am what ???



I'll take Nuts for $1000 Alex ?

RudieCantFail

RudieCantFail

Intercourse, PA
January 2006

NOV 03, 2007 08:53 PM

Chainlink said:

mrat said:

KUNGFOO said:

mrat said:
It's amazing how you find everything wrong with the USA as Bush's problem !! Who's going to fix it ??? Clinton ?? You seem to know everything- why don't you run ???



No, you are!



I am what ???



I'll take Nuts for $1000 Alex ?



sucK it trebek!

fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Mokena, IL
January 2005

NOV 03, 2007 09:06 PM

DJFriar said:
Wait, no "gonna get messy" for this roundup?

And I don't think any of us have to hope too hard that Juan gets what he deserves in prison. Thankfully.



Well, it's kinda assumed at this point, right?

captknutz

captknutz

Colorado Springs, CO
April 2004

NOV 03, 2007 10:26 PM

They should totally make the guy who beat the two year old be cellmates with the necrofeliac, then drug the child abuser so he lies good and still just the way the necro likes it.

Clidna

Clidna

Emo, ON
January 2005

NOV 03, 2007 11:50 PM

ardour said:
I generally feel nervous about someone who is asked a question like "Is waterboarding torture?" and they... refuse to respond? Come on here. This is ridiculous. You either think it is, you think it isn't, or you don't really know.The fact that these people aren't answering is showing sketchy behavior, and that is a pretty big red flag.

_DictionaryGirl_ said:
That Jersey corpsefucker's Myspace page just made my day. love



I know, right?

Watching Movies, weight training, playing football, making mix dance/club mixes, going out to the hottest clubs in NYC, and last but not least working hard always cause I know in the end it will all pay off. The harder you work the harder you can party.



Is it me, or does he say hard waaay too many times in that quote... shocked

Zarth

Zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

NOV 04, 2007 11:45 AM

jpaul256 said:

Zarth said:
Waterboarding is already forbidden by laws against torture, both domestic and international.


Really? Which laws make waterboarding illegal?


Reading comprehension not your strongest subject?

goatinamoat said:
Not sure how Juan's girlfriend escaped being an assface of the week. I think that's pretty self-evident, like waterboarding is torture. Although I admit I have no sympathy for the fucks that we waterboard -- I don't think it's good for the the soul of our nation to do it, but part of me understands that handling these cretins with tactics like waterboarding could be a real temptation.


At issue, though, is not whether or not we are comfortable abusing the guilty. Whatever ugly thing that may say about human nature, it's human. While it's true that it degrades us morally as a nation, it's still human.

What's at issue, at least as I see it, is whether we're comfortable with the possibility of it being applied to the innocent, and how great our trust is in this administration's capacities to determine, in the absence of either judicial or legislative oversight, the difference. Given its track record of intelligence failures (9/11 and the Iraq War stand out particularly), I'm not comfortable with that at all.

malkav11

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN
July 2003

NOV 04, 2007 04:38 PM

I don't think it's just a question of our trust in this administration in particular (although they certainly serve as an effective example of what can go wrong), but our willingness to place those powers in the hands of totally unknown replacements in the future. Because once given, it's going to be hard to take them back.

bald_eagle

bald_eagle

Indianapolis, IN
November 2006

NOV 04, 2007 07:08 PM

malkav11 said:
I don't think it's just a question of our trust in this administration in particular (although they certainly serve as an effective example of what can go wrong), but our willingness to place those powers in the hands of totally unknown replacements in the future. Because once given, it's going to be hard to take them back.



That's pretty much what we've done for the past 200+ years. If you're saying we should be wary of the amount of power that's been concentrating in the executive branch recently, I agree with you.

AbeVigoda

AbeVigoda

Providence, RI
August 2003

JAN 31, 2008 09:31 PM

if said:
"As of Thursday, four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have publicly stated that they would vote against Michael Mukasey to become the next Attorney General."

This is one of those rare moments when I'm glad that the candidate I voted for lost. I was very happy to see that Sheldon Whitehouse has far more integrity and balls than I ever expected him to have.



He's still going after Mukasey::

WHITEHOUSE: You are the top law enforcement officer of the United States and prosecutors do look back. Prosecutors do investigate things that have happened in the past. They do dredge up the past in order to do justice...Now the president has said that we will investigate, prosecute all acts of torture and you've just said today, "if someone is guilty of violating the laws of the United States," they get prosecuted...There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited if the alleged offender is a national of the United States and a person who conspires to commit an offense under this section is subject to the same penalties other than the penalty of death..." So, we have a statute on point, you are, I believe, the sole prosecuting authority for that statute, correct?

MUKASEY: I am as the top of the Department of Justice, which is the sole prosecuting authority. [...]

When it comes to past conduct, one of the many questions involved in past conduct in addition to what was done, is, what authorizations were given, what authorizations were reasonably relied on. My current evaluation of the statute, if there is one, has only tangentially to do with that because if it has directly to do with that, then the message is, your authorization, you who did whatever you did, your authorization is good only for so long as the tenure of the person who gave it and maybe not even for that long...

WHITEHOUSE: The message you send otherwise is that 'I was only following orders' is a fine response.

MUKASEY: It's not a fine response. It was a response at Nuremberg that was found unlawful, we both know. Ummm...

WHITEHOUSE: And yet it's the one that you're crediting right now. 'I had authorization and therefore I'm immune from prosecution.'" Isn't that where that analysis leads?

MUKASEY: No, it's, I had authorization and let's take a look at the authorization. If the circumstances under which it was given and what was done have a whole wide range of variables that I don't have before me.

WHITEHOUSE: Has that been done? Has there been a thorough, independent analysis under your administration of whether or not any national of the United States is potentially in violation of Section 23-40A as the result of...

MUKASEY: I don't, I don't start investigations out of curiosity. I start investigations out of some indication that somebody might have had an improper authorization. I have no such indication now. [...]

WHITEHOUSE: I don't see how that resolves the Nuremberg defense problem. If the reason that you're giving us for investigating the destruction of the tapes, but not investigating the underlying interrogation, is that it appears that the interrogators were following orders and it appears that the destroyers were not, isn't that the Nuremberg defense?

MUKASEY: No, because you're assuming what was on the tapes, you're assuming that the interrogation was unlawful...

WHITEHOUSE: I'm not assuming any such thing, anymore than you'd be assuming that the destruction was unlawful. What I'm suggesting is that you should investigate it and there should be at least somebody who at least takes a look at this in a principled, thoughtful way, and if the answer that comes back is, no, there was not a crime and here's why, then we can lay the question to rest. But if you're telling me that this hasn't even been investigated although the destruction of the tapes is being investigated, it strikes me that there is a split standard there and I'm trying to understand why.



Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next