House passes war appropriations bill - Chimpy throws a hissy fit

no i havent. im just talking about now and current topics. I dont want to hop around b/c we can play that game all day and its just not constructive.

neither party is approaching saint status. We will never have to worry about that

 

lol. im not a bush supporter. i think some things he's done have been questionable...and some have been better than people give him credit.

I just dont think bush is a devil. i dont think he is plotting ways to ruin the country or things like that. I dont think he rejoices at war, etc etc.
And i dont think that everything that goes wrong is necessarily his fault.

 

D&D

dungeon and dragons?

i didnt bring my staff of might... damn!

 

Sorry to be picky but it is impotant to consider the context when using examples. During the Revolutionary War there was no Bill of Rights specifically forbidding the government from unauthorized searches and seizures. The difference is that now we have one.

There is precedent for the suspention of Habeus Corpus since Lincoln did it during the Civil War but I think most people consider that as being an Unconstitutional use of power. Flexibility is a good thing but the problem is how flexible you are going to be. What constitutes a crisis is often subjective and if you consider the Constitution too flexible whats to stop the executive from suspending Constitutional protections anytime they feel things get difficult? Many of the founders regarded the Constitution not as a safeguard of government from external or internal danger but as a safeguard against government. That was why the Bill of Rights was added in the first place.

 

Sorry to be picky but it is impotant to consider the context when using examples. During the Revolutionary War there was no Bill of Rights specifically forbidding the government from unauthorized searches and seizures. The difference is that now we have one.

good point. i was thinking of the civil war.


but you're right. the degree of flexibility and the criteria for such flexibility is where the real debate is, and thats one that will never end. You just hope the system adapts quickly enough to account for any changes in the environment .

 

how exactly is torture a "loaded" term? it was defined and spelled out pretty clearly by the geneva convention, which we signed onto, and the bush administration changed it to be pretty much only in the case of death or organ failure. seems like you are a follower of the gonzales theory that the geneva convention is "quaint".

you said "one has to be tough and putting men through emotional distress to gain into is necessary". if you think all they are being subjected to is emotional distress than you dont really have a clue as to what is happening. there is alot more being done than naked pyramids, which in and of itself is pretty freaking weird. and what about subjecting children to tough interrogation techniques? do you consider sodomy to be torture? your definition of torture seems to be very vague, but by established international law we are torturing people, including children. are you ok with that?

you may not be saying "beat them", but that is what is happening and our government authorized it. it would behoove you to do some research on the issue.

i didnt say interrogations are unamerican. i said torture is. but since we cant find common ground on the definition of torture, this is a moot point.

more so than being unamerican, torture is inhuman. anyone who advocates it is scum, imo.

yes you did use that reasoning with this statement...

before you make this statement you need to provide what you consider torture to be. you claim torture is a "loaded" term. unload it for me.

by law, the things you are advocating are torture and experts in the field of interrogation are against them. i know you think it is a loaded term and that all we are doing is fraternity pranks, but the experts argue that what bush is doing is torture and it is not effective. are you going to claim that military and cia interrogation experts are wrong?

are you denying that bush's former legal council has argued that there is no law preventing him from sexually torturing children? are you denying that interrogators have raped and tortured children?

 

yes, things are indeed messed up. but it has nothing to do with the people in charge, rather the people who complain about them.

if only there were no people complaining about our crappy leadership than there would be no problems.

 

While it doesn't apply to people on this forum, it could apply to Congress who COULD make a difference if they played less games. But both parties are more interested in getting & having power than actually doing anything useful with it.

 

You're right there is always going to be debate regarding how flexible the Constitution is but I'm leaning towards keeping it on the side of individual liberties.

 

I thought it is elephants who love peanuts..

 

you do realize that the vast majority of troops want to end the war, right?

you cant go around claiming that you support the troops when what you are advocating for goes against their wishes.

 

I just realized that the Constitutional approach by Congress to the end the war actually shouldn't be cutting off the funding but overturning the authorization to use military force in Iraq in the first place. That would remove any "support the troops" argument since it is absolutely clear they aren't cutting off the funding and depriving the troops of ammo and other gear but are ending the US military involvement.

 

Except it's not really about ending funding or ending involvement. Most of the Congressional Democrats are just interested in having their name on a paper that says they're against the war. It's purely political, otherwise this bill would have fewer holes in it.

 

I agree it is political and cynical given there is no possibility of either house or Senate bill passing. That said I'm intersted in the situation from the Constitutional standpoint which I think isn't being considered as closely.

 

Given that both bills have almost no chance of passing though what other purpose is there for the bills than political? Obviously many have a sincere belief that the war was a mistake and should be ended but voting for a bill that you know has no chance of passing is doing so to make a political statement.