That you can defend the Administration no matter what it does, despite clearly having intelligence, is torture to read. Waterboarding is torture. You know that and chose to ignore it. November 2, 2007 The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Chairman Leahy, In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of President Bush’s nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of “waterboarding” under United States and international law. We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal. In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the authority to prosecute terrorists under the war crimes provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding “the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . .” Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. We agree with our active duty colleagues. This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America’s military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. It is essential to be clear, specific and unambiguous about this fact - as in fact we have been throughout America’s history, at least until the last few years. Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well- established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end. The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules that can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation. We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey. Sincerely, Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02 Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000 Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93 Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88 http://thinkprogress.org/jag-letter-waterboarding/ D&D. Attempt to be Civil! Impeach Bush for Promoting Torture.
I damn near never post in D&D, so I've formed no opinion at all regarding the political leanings of the posters here in general. However, as a guy who considers himself solidly moderate (or even apolitical, depending on my mood that day...), I must say that even the most hippie, tree-hugging liberal and the most religious, red-neck conservative consider themselves to be far more objective than they are. Take my dear old mother. She's republican to the core, and says that "Fox news is the only remotely objective news on TV today." She dismisses democratic candidates without ever listening to them, and rationalizes everything any republican ever does wrong. She thinks the whole world seems to be liberal, and constantly bemoans that fact. It annoys the hell out of me. On the other side, we have a former college classmate of mine. Joins every service group, champions every relief effort, and endlessly torches all but the most bleeding-heart liberal political candidates. Constantly campaigns and sends letters out to all her friends telling them how the country is entirely in the grips of republicans, and how the free world is going to end if such-and-such republican candidate is elected. She was inconsolable when Bush was re-elected. That annoys the hell out of me, too. In summary, this board could have a very strong liberal leanings, but I'm guessing that, like anywhere else, it's more a matter of personal perspective than anything. If you're really conservative, you're going to see moderates as liberal, and if you're really liberal, you're going to see moderates as conservative. The fact that you seem so very sure of your statement suggests to me that you are in the former camp.
yeah I voted for reagan and bush and i regret it, i put down republican for that reason, but i pretty much can't stand either party
I like that one party that sucks the most more than the other one that sucks equally the mostest too as well.
I'm actually not extremely conservative. I would characterize myself as a liberal republican. I have just seen enough threads to recognize a pattern. T_J or DonkeyMagic or another Republican will be on one side of an argument, and there will be twenty or so people posting in the other direction. It used to be a little more balanced, but still leaning left, but about half the 'pubs left.
You have Mr. Bush to thank for that. Before the 2000 election I didn't really want to favor Bush or Gore, I thought Bush would really be a conservative that would control spending and be compassionate (I favor fiscal conservative and social liberal, which is basically the anti-Bush), which of course turns out to be 100% wrong. If he was going to implement his crazy policies, at least be competent, but no, he has to appoint a bunch of morons to various high government posts and create one disaster after another).
Neither. Both parties are so far on the lunatic fringe it leaves nothing for those of us in the middle.
I understand being disappointed with the two major parties but I don't believe for a minute that either you or RMT would vote for any of the credible GOP candidates over any of the credible Dem ones. You're both liberals or progressives or whatever you want to call it and even if you don't want to embrace the Dem party label you are both basically down with the platform. And so are, in most ways, your boys Ron Paul and Kinky Friedman. You may be moderates (most Democrats are), you may be Independents (most lean Dem) but that doesn't mean that either of you seriously considers Republican candidates on a regular basis. I defy either of you to name even one important issue concerning which the GOP is closer to your beliefs than the Democrats.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V2c7ZZNcWsA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V2c7ZZNcWsA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> but overall i would say democrat
But why do you need an entertainer to tell you it's okay to think for yourself and that it's okay to be on either side of the fence on any given issue?
You could make the argument, but it wouldn't be reasonable. Dems went against their party's interest on civil rights. Dems went against their party's and their president's interest on Vietnam. Dems fight with each other all the time. Traditionally, they have not been a rubber stamp for anyone. Also, no Dem president... and no president before W... would have even considered invading Iraq. See W's dad for example. But W and his administration did go into Iraq and the Repubs not only supported the action, but actively worked to quell any dissent. It's convenient for Repubs to argue that the problems we face now would be the same had the other party been in power... or that the other party would have reacted exactly the same way. Neither is true, but repeating it enough tends to turn off the voters who aren't paying attention.
Since Deckard was talking about waterbording, and you responded with a quote saying that you wholeheartedly support torture, at least you seem to admit that waterboarding is torture. I guess that is progress.
Schumer's good on some things, bad on others. This is one he's bad on. And for the record, in the preface to those remarks he refers to a hypothetical of a nuke ready to kill thousands. I would still be against torture for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which are the corruption of the torturers and the inadequacy of info extracted under torture. Still, Schumer is not talking about the pedestrian torture we see this administration partaking. The banality of evil indeed.
The problem is that the terms "liberal", "conservative", "Republican" and "Democrat" have largely been defined by one issue in particular and whether you agree with the Bush Admin.. I think this is a disservice to those terms and why I bemoan single or narrow interests politics. I know that there are posters that have previously identified their political affiliation as Republican and espouse socially and/or economically conservative positions who don't agree with the war yet are now lumped into as being a liberal and a Democrat. At the same time there are posters who have identified themselves as being liberal but support the war and so they are conservative and Republican. The terms and the parties encompass a wide range of issues yet everything is largely defined by one or two issues. For that matter those issues themselves don't really match up for what has traditionally been considered "liberal" or "conservative" so we have the situation where you can support the profoundly liberal idea of forcefully spreading democracy and also the Administration that has engaged in the most Keynsian economics since FDR and you are considered a hard core conservative. The use of these terms these days seems about dividing and labelling each other so you get posts like in this thread where you have people claiming that there are more liberals and Dems here than they will admit to and also that someone can't be a liberal or a Dem if they don't subscribe to a certain narrow set of beliefs.
you are hilarious. could you please tell me how many times "waterboarding" has been used, and when the last instance was?
