U.S. abuse of detainees

bushco legacy is spelled out in the McClatchy investigation. i dont know if anyone else is following this in the local papers..its a very big deal to me.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38775.html

It sounds pretty bad if the stories are accurate. I hope this gets straightened out and doesn't end up causing more harm than good. But how about blaming the wrongdoers involved. Sure Bush laxed the rules, but no one was complaining about that after 9/11. Bush isn't the one there chaining prisoners to the wall and beating them. But then it is an election year.

he isnt the one who physically performed the acts..true. he just intentionally manipulated the laws in order to allow the acts to occur.

like mr bill didnt actually participate in an oral act..it was something that another individuals body part did to his body part...and the meaning of the word "is" is...

I don't see at all how the two compare. Mr. Bill didn't participate in his act as a national security issue. I'm not saying it was the right thing to do, just saying there is blame to go around. I guess I should be used to this by now.

I don't see this getting a TON of press from either of the candidates. What's Obama going to do.. point to how the current admin did something wrong.. the guy running against him WAS tortured, so he'd be playing up to McCain's strengths by mentioning this. And I don't see McCain wanting to diminish the US Military.

I suppose this is linked to the larger picture.

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5054&news_iv_ctrl=1061

lol.. i laugh when i see the impeach bush stuff.. elections held in 5 months.. congress couldn't act quick enough... and then they'd be left with President Cheaney? Seriously? That's better?

cardinal5150 wrote:lol.. i laugh when i see the impeach bush stuff.. elections held in 5 months.. congress couldn't act quick enough... and then they'd be left with President Cheaney? Seriously? That's better?

Naw, they'd find a way to get Pelosi in there.

cardinal5150 wrote:lol.. i laugh when i see the impeach bush stuff.. elections held in 5 months.. congress couldn't act quick enough... and then they'd be left with President Cheaney? Seriously? That's better?

I hadn't thought of this before, but what if Cheney did have to become president? Would he be the Republican nominee this November since he only held the office for part of one term, or would his tenure as 8 VP count towards the "no more than 2 consecutive terms" rule? I'm guessing it will be McCain either way, but just don't know how the law works.

Markwes wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:lol.. i laugh when i see the impeach bush stuff.. elections held in 5 months.. congress couldn't act quick enough... and then they'd be left with President Cheaney? Seriously? That's better?

I hadn't thought of this before, but what if Cheney did have to become president? Would he be the Republican nominee this November since he only held the office for part of one term, or would his tenure as 8 VP count towards the "no more than 2 consecutive terms" rule? I'm guessing it will be McCain either way, but just don't know how the law works.

Dick would have to challenge McCain at the convention for the nomination, just being President does not entitle you to the nomination. You guys would nominate him though ... that would be super.

Who is this "you guys"?

It's two terms and not necessarily consecutive terms. Also Cheney could take over the presidency and be elected to two additional terms since the his first term would be less than two years. Hypothetically speaking.

Vis wrote:It's two terms and not necessarily consecutive terms. Also Cheney could take over the presidency and be elected to two additional terms since the his first term would be less than two years. Hypothetically speaking.

And you think there's a political divide now, can you imagine what it'd be like if that'd happen.

Cheaney has been on record to say that he has NO interest in being President.

i know when he speaks we should all believe whatever he says..hell he is already the puppetmaster.

Before anyone grills me on what I'm about to say, let me just say that I know I don't have all of the facts. The following is just an opinion...

I sometimes think it's a double-edged sword to "Monday-morning-quarterback" decisions made by our leaders when it comes to "enemy combatants." I think when you look back to the months following the September 11th attacks, most of our country was out for payback. Somebody was gonna pay for what they did to us. Our president and his administration were trying to do the best they could during extraordinary times. No other president that I can think of has had to deal with an attack on our soil of this scale since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I think they were trying to do everything they could to keep something like that from happening again. If it did happen again, guess what? Everyone would have been up in arms saying "Why didn't you do more to protect us?" "Why didn't you bend the rules to protect us, because after all, what's more important, our lives or some rules that restrict you from protecting us?"

Now, I realize everything is not roses when it comes to abuse at prisons of detainees, but I do know one thing...no more attacks have happened here since that awful day 7 years ago.

And I'm not saying we should never question our leaders either. I'm just saying that before we all get caught up in things that have gone on, put yourself in their place at that time (try to forget what you know now), and ask yourself what you would have done.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:.....

And I'm not saying we should never question our leaders either. I'm just saying that before we all get caught up in things that have gone on, put yourself in their place at that time (try to forget what you know now), and ask yourself what you would have done.

It's simple... I would have treated the individuals as POWs and followed the rules of the Geneva convention as dictated by international law. I know that someone may say, "How many lives were saved by torturing [the fat slobby looking guy]?" To that, I can only counter with how many lives were cost by the atrocities at Abu Ghraib?

How much respect on the world's stage was squandered by our Invansion of Iraq and our torture of prisoners in AG, as well as Gitmo. Imagine an individual declaring his neighbor an "enemy" and therefore felt it was within his rights to imprison him in his basement and waterboard him.

I would not have used the happenings to go into two other countries and rip them apart looking for someone and never find him or his cronies

If we can see a cigarette pack on the desert floor with a satellite we can find Bin baby

I would have not lied to the American people about it and then try and cover it all up and try to forget it

excellent points mort and pez!

i agree alot of us were in attack mode as the war started. as the lies became apparent..maybe a year later? from that point on bushco just created signing statements for any topic where they knew they didnt opt to follow the law being passed. and they continue that deception. so a whole lotta folks got smart a few years or so ago...except those in control.

from law to shining law bushco finds a way to believe they dont apply to him and his. did you read its only bad enough to be called torture if their vital organs shut down and/or if they die??? and by golly nobody who knows diferent will ever appear in any investigation or hearing on any topic because they have executive privalige. seems to me that term means they are aware of illegal acts and are not permitted by bushco to discuss them.

oh wait...if its gonna be public lets change what we called facts before the ruling LOL!!!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91769846

Government Asks to Revise Guantanamo Evidence
by Jackie Northam and Scott Simon

Weekend Edition Saturday, June 21, 2008 · Defense lawyers for terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, say the Bush administration wants to rewrite some of the evidence against the detainees. The administration's request came up during a closed-door meeting this week with judges, defense attorneys and government lawyers. The meeting was to discuss logistics following a Supreme Court decision that Guantanamo prisoners have the right to challenge their detention in federal court.

floridafun wrote:oh wait...if its gonna be public lets change what we called facts before the ruling LOL!!!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91769846

Government Asks to Revise Guantanamo Evidence
by Jackie Northam and Scott Simon

Weekend Edition Saturday, June 21, 2008 · Defense lawyers for terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, say the Bush administration wants to rewrite some of the evidence against the detainees. The administration's request came up during a closed-door meeting this week with judges, defense attorneys and government lawyers. The meeting was to discuss logistics following a Supreme Court decision that Guantanamo prisoners have the right to challenge their detention in federal court.

LOL, this is too funny. I guess this is what happens when they know they will be held accountable.

Funny how things become a much bigger concern during an election year. And how some of the Board members here all of the sudden are big human rights advocates.

Markwes wrote:Funny how things become a much bigger concern during an election year. And how some of the Board members here all of the sudden are big human rights advocates.

Careful... we might just save your arse one day... you never know!

IMO, all of these things, Torture, Guantanamo detainees, Justification for Military Action in Iraq and Afghanistan, Patriot Act, etc. are tied together under the greater umbrella of Executive Office abuses/misuses.

Markwes wrote:Funny how things become a much bigger concern during an election year. And how some of the Board members here all of the sudden are big human rights advocates.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't these same types of discussion happen on the JG board before The Real Board was created?