Ha ha, you will not get many comments if you delete our comments. I suppose that was a little to hard for you to bear. Even so, I will not play this one again. You just twist everyone's words anyway and do not acknowledge what people say. You hear only what you want to hear like any good liberal. This horse is dead. Deal me out.
"Why aren't the torture defenders calling for the government to torture him? They defended Bush's torture even when it clearly wasn't a ticking time bomb scenario? Is it because he's a white christian?"
We don't agree any the things Bush did rose to level of extreme so we are torture defenders? Plus you say some halfwit claiming their is a conspiracy after offing some monster is a ticking time bomb but a Khalid Sheik Mohammed, while the 9/11 buildings are still smouldering, states "just wait" when asked about further attacks and these attacks substantiated by other intelligence, this isn't a ticking time bomb? Even after it is proven there was a second wave attack.
Most people blog to vent, get to truth, expose something, right some wrong, but Bloc I don't know why you are here. You only want to seem to continue this endless back and forth when you have not even come close to proving want you want to prove and that is we torture people. Isn't it a good thing to discover we don't torture?
Why waste our time commenting here when you just delete them, Mr. Honesty.
It is really weird that bloc posts and then never comments again. (I have
decided to just ignore his comments like he ignores everyone elses comment.)
bloc what is wrong with you? We commented about the ticking time bomb in your other posts. Plus is this really a ticking time bomb? If you want us to not comment on your posts that is perfectly fine then you can have all of your people who preach to the choir (like Kelly) just agree with you. Is that what you are looking for here?
I think bloc is missing George Dubya, the president he loved to hate. I know I
have said many times that I do not agree with torture. I think you get the
answer you want when you use torture, whether it is true or not. Most will
say anything to get the torture to stop. However, I, and many others, do not
believe waterboarding is torture, and that is about all that happened during
the Dubya years. With waterboarding, the terrorists came up with verifiable
information over and over, and they are fine today, as far as I know (no
permanent injuries). Yes, there were some isolated incidents of prisoner / captive
abuse, but those things happen all the time and just need to be punished, which
they were. My disagreement with bloc is that Dubya was not the first, and will
not be the last, president to do what had to be done to protect our country.
I dare say OhBummer will do much worse if the time comes. Anyone that
advocates letting
babies die in a broom closet will have no trouble giving orders to beat the crap
out of enemy combatants to find out what they know. Watching a war being
fought is like watching sausage being made. Once you see that you do not want
to have anything to do with it again. The newsmedia started showing civilians
way too much during the Vietnam years and it has just gotten worse. There are
some things we do not need to know. Just about every James Bond or spy
movie you see indicates that.
In 1973, following the withdrawal of most American troops from the
Vietnam War, a debate emerged about the extent of presidential power in
deploying troops without a declaration of war. A compromise in the
debate was reached with the War Powers Resolution.
This act clearly defined how many soldiers could be deployed by the
President of the United States and for how long. It also required
formal reports by the President to Congress regarding the status of
such deployments, and limited the total amount of time that American
forces could be employed without a formal declaration of war. Although the constitutionality of the act has never been tested, it is usually followed, most notably during the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. The only exception was President Clinton's use of U.S. troops in the 78-day NATO air campaign against Serbia during the Kosovo War.[citation needed]
In all other cases, the President asserted the constitutional authority
to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but
in each case the President received Congressional authorization that
satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act." The prez does not have to declare war anymore and has not since WWII. Those are laws, The patriot act enacted by Bush. pdd 51, I believe. What let it go through? FEAR. Yes, we need laws, not bad ones though. There is a pattern here. 3. irrelevant here. But I like to humor, or at least try to answer the questions. Seems more productive than dodging them. I can give you lots of examples of rape being in the eye of the beholder. Show me bloc. I'm tired of finding links you don't read and address in a logical way. i'm sorry. I have a lot to learn from you, but you are not using productive evidence to support your claims. Here is some history to look up. TREATIES CAUSE WAR as well as stop them. Google Quasi-War for instance.
ALIENated said
on Jun 12, 2009....
stopmediabias said
on Jun 13, 2009....
ALIENated said
on Jun 14, 2009....
doortoinsanity said
on Jun 14, 2009....
Depends.
I believe a successful war has no rules.
I believe war needs to be declared if we are going to spend the money for the "war".
I believe the point of torture is not to kill, it is used to get information, otherwise they would just be shot.
Maybe the tortured need to count their blessings.
bloc said
on Jun 15, 2009....
@door1. We have signed treaties that apply rules to war. If we are a nation of laws then we need to follow those rules or officially pull out of those treaties don't you think?2. agreed, but how do you declare war on a noun? 3. the point of torture is torture. The victim will say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear, you know, like the witch trials. I mean, we have some testimony under torture about who was a witch. How accurate was that?
doortoinsanity said
on Jun 16, 2009....
1. Treaties that apply to rules of war are only worth as much as anyone wants to follow them. You cannot fight against people with no care for rules and win. War is never declared anymore. The government has long since got around that.
2. We have never declared war on a noun. Only to use military force, which apparently only the president has a say in doing. Congress is no longer needed. The prez can use military force against any noun and can spend, kill, and torture any noun at will. I find it usually corresponds with campaign promises and more laws written to weasel away from the people every last right.
3. Torture is in the eyes of the beholder. Some people say tickling is torture. I don't. Maybe we should just tickle them until they turn into Elmo and give us the goods.
The testimony sucked ass, but they knew they had no chance to win and were doing nothing wrong to start with. Lie and hope to stay alive, the truth would have gotten you killed. Survival.
I believe you cannot enter any kind of war with laws and morals fighting against people who don't respect them. I think it is counter-productive and a good solid plan to get an ass kicking.
I have a hard time thinking of some of this torture crap on people who do not mind collecting heads. Is there a treaty for that? Capture and don't lop off a head? I would be surprised to see one.
That said to make a point about torture, if we weren't so busy policing the countries that have interests we want, they wouldn't be lopping off heads in the first place to such an extent as they were.
Maybe if we did that shit back, we may have a chance at war on a noun. However, these are not real wars. Only real deaths.
bloc said
on Jun 17, 2009....
"You cannot fight against people with no care for rules and win."
History says otherwise. We followed basic human rights and defeated hitler and the soviets. 2. Right, we didn't declare war. This is important because people like SMB claim that the President can break the law due to his war powers. Well, he doesn't have war powers if we didn't declare war. Again, this comes down to rule of law. Are we a country of laws or not? Do we want to be or not?3. this is silly. I guess rape is in the eye of the beholder as well. "I believe you cannot enter any kind of war with laws and morals fighting against people who don't respect them. I think it is counter-productive and a good solid plan to get an ass kicking."Again history has plenty of examples that say otherwise.
stopmediabias said
on Jun 17, 2009....
bloc- this moral relativism that hang onto like a baby with a bottle has planted more people than cancer and is the absolute scourge of the entire world. You're Mr. Chamberland who said a pact with Hitler would mean peace in our time. Your Kucinich who would rather 100 million people be slaughtered so he can stand on his high moral ground of "peace." People like you are why we have wars.
And before you say it, yes might does make right.
doortoinsanity said
on Jun 17, 2009....
"History says otherwise. We followed basic human rights and defeated hitler and the soviets."
Did we? Does it? The media was not embedded either was it?
2. Did you read that link above at all?"The War Powers Resolution
