[Newsbot]

Title: It is called torture, Mr. President
Category: Uncle Sam
Posted By: Streaker
Date: 2009-01-16 09:07:31

[Bibbi]

Interesting that Watergate brought down Nixon but Bush and company have got away with torture, murder (of 2 who died from torture)and unlawful imprisonment and other violations of human rights. War crimes charged should be laid.

[QBall]

Bibbi Bibbi:

Interesting that Watergate brought down Nixon but Bush and company have got away with torture, murder (of 2 who died from torture)and unlawful imprisonment and other violations of human rights. War crimes charged should be laid.

War crimes against an American?

Hope you have a huge army to try and go in and serve the subpoena.

[commanderkai]

Bibbi Bibbi:

Interesting that Watergate brought down Nixon but Bush and company have got away with torture, murder (of 2 who died from torture)and unlawful imprisonment and other violations of human rights. War crimes charged should be laid.

Sigh...people really do not understand the law.

First off, Watergate and what Bush has done are in two very separate categories.

[GreenTiger]

Just listening to George Bush is torture.

[mtbr]

Good thing he doesn't have a Joysey accent.

[Bibbi]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Bibbi Bibbi:

Interesting that Watergate brought down Nixon but Bush and company have got away with torture, murder (of 2 who died from torture)and unlawful imprisonment and other violations of human rights. War crimes charged should be laid.

Sigh...people really do not understand the law.

First off, Watergate and what Bush has done are in two very separate categories.

Domestic skullduggery vs. international violation of human rights, yes, they certainly are in different categories.

The right international organization with the appropriate level of clout and top legal experts could most certainly have the capacity to embarass the Americans by moving in this direction and they would be able to garner some support internationally as well.

The choice is basic. Do we support torture, imprisonment, invading privacy and abusing human rights or not? If we do, ignore it, rationalize it and sweep it under the rug. It is easy to rationalize that it is only happening to terrorists and they deserve it, but the innocent are getting swept up as well due to the aggressive stupidity of some agencies in the U.S. and the R.C.M.P. in Canada. Even amateur photographers are being arrested in the U.S. for taking photos in public places of buildings, bridges or railroads, despite the fact that is within their constitutional rights.

I for one, enjoy my freedom and will fight to maintain my rights and abusing someone else's rights will eventually lead to abusing my rights, so I will fight against it. I definitely do not support torture and the abuse of human rights.

[commanderkai]

Bibbi Bibbi:

Domestic skullduggery vs. international violation of human rights, yes, they certainly are in different categories.

Glad you realize that, now let's see if you can recognize the distinction between them.

What Nixon did, aka, break into a hotel room and illegally listen in on conversations of a group without their consent is illegal within the United States, and Nixon resigned to cover his ass. If I remember correctly, Ford pardoned Nixon for what he did, but I can't recall.

What Bush did is basically nothing. First of all, "International violation of human rights" is a joke. Look at the UN's Human Rights Council, look at all of those countries on there, and please tell me if you see them all as great believers in human rights....they're not.

$1:

The right international organization with the appropriate level of clout and top legal experts could most certainly have the capacity to embarass the Americans by moving in this direction and they would be able to garner some support internationally as well.

And what agency would this be? Basically there is no "international organization" with that level of clout. It doesn't exist. And believe me, the UN won't exist if they try, considering the amount of US dollars they suck up.

$1:

The choice is basic. Do we support torture, imprisonment, invading privacy and abusing human rights or not?

So why is this now a big deal with the US? Why don't we arrest Iran's leader? Or Russia's? Or China's? These violations are not unique to the United States, and beyond that, they're mostly domestic issues, with the exception of torture issues, which is being done to beings who do not fall under any international law ANYWAY.

$1:

Even amateur photographers are being arrested in the U.S. for taking photos in public places of buildings, bridges or railroads, despite the fact that is within their constitutional rights.

Going to ask for proof on this one.

[PluggyRug]

The definition of "torture" has wide boundaries. eg.. Streakers constant anti America rants are torture.

[Streaker]

On a par with waterboarding, no doubt.

[herbie]

$1:

What Bush did is basically nothing.

The President is sworn to uphold the Constitution. Bush et al. conspired to make an end run around it.
He also tried his damnedest to make people believe it only applies to Americans within American borders, and he personally defines what the borders are.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

What Bush did is basically nothing.

Is that supposed to be a ringing endorsement of Bush?

$1:

First of all, "International violation of human rights" is a joke. Look at the UN's Human Rights Council, look at all of those countries on there, and please tell me if you see them all as great believers in human rights....they're not.

The membership of the UN Human Rights council is a red herring. The article says that a US military judge is the one who ruled a suspect was tortured. It barely even mentions the UN. besides, what's your argument? Members of the UN Human Rights COmmission torture so everyone should?

$1:

So why is this now a big deal with the US? Why don't we arrest Iran's leader? Or Russia's? Or China's? These violations are not unique to the United States, and beyond that, they're mostly domestic issues, with the exception of torture issues, which is being done to beings who do not fall under any international law ANYWAY.

Why would you want to arrest anyone in Iran? You're clearly a whole-hearted supporter of torture and arbitrary detention. Iran is as well. You should consider them your allies in this.

And why even bring up international law? First you basically dismiss international law and then appeal to it to support your case.

What is evident is how the neoconservatives have become such an enemy of freedom, perfectly willing to let their governments invade countries based on lies, torture on a whim, detain indefinetely on suspicion--all far from the prying eyes of rights organizations or (until recently) the courts. Where is the much-vaunted freedom you profess? Nowhere. The truth is you'll hand over all your hard-won freedoms on the infintessimal chance that you will be killed in a terrorist attack. Because you are frightened.

[Wada]

[Bibbi]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Bibbi Bibbi:

$1:

Even amateur photographers are being arrested in the U.S. for taking photos in public places of buildings, bridges or railroads, despite the fact that is within their constitutional rights.

Going to ask for proof on this one.

Google it, you will find lots of examples related to Amtrak and elsewhere. Check out any photographic web site including the Popular Photography magazine: popphoto.com

[Bibbi]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Bibbi Bibbi:

Domestic skullduggery vs. international violation of human rights, yes, they certainly are in different categories.

Glad you realize that, now let's see if you can recognize the distinction between them.

What Nixon did, aka, break into a hotel room and illegally listen in on conversations of a group without their consent is illegal within the United States, and Nixon resigned to cover his ass. If I remember correctly, Ford pardoned Nixon for what he did, but I can't recall.

What Bush did is basically nothing. First of all, "International violation of human rights" is a joke. Look at the UN's Human Rights Council, look at all of those countries on there, and please tell me if you see them all as great believers in human rights....they're not.

$1:

The right international organization with the appropriate level of clout and top legal experts could most certainly have the capacity to embarass the Americans by moving in this direction and they would be able to garner some support internationally as well.

And what agency would this be? Basically there is no "international organization" with that level of clout. It doesn't exist. And believe me, the UN won't exist if they try, considering the amount of US dollars they suck up.

$1:

The choice is basic. Do we support torture, imprisonment, invading privacy and abusing human rights or not?

So why is this now a big deal with the US? Why don't we arrest Iran's leader? Or Russia's? Or China's? These violations are not unique to the United States, and beyond that, they're mostly domestic issues, with the exception of torture issues, which is being done to beings who do not fall under any international law ANYWAY.

$1:

Even amateur photographers are being arrested in the U.S. for taking photos in public places of buildings, bridges or railroads, despite the fact that is within their constitutional rights.

Going to ask for proof on this one.

So what you are saying is that torture is all right because other countries do it, as long as you are not the one being tortured, of course. Indefinite imprisonment is also quite proper, again as long as you are not the one being imprisoned. Waterboarding is OK too, as long as it is not happening to you.

Well, we can all see where you are coming from .... a rather limited perspective.