![]() |
The ACLU and the NRA
Quote:
I would love that the ACLU is part of any Administration, just as the NRA should be safe-guarding the Second Amendment. Both organizations raise, or lower themsleves, at times to ridiculous ideological contortions, but their presence keeps all those "bozos" in government on their toes and the Constitution front and center. |
Quote:
FOIA exists for a good reason, and in many ways it's a shame that it took an Act of Congress to open records. However, FOIA is not a perfect solution, as it does cost a lot of money to respond to each and every FOIA requests, and many of them are absolutely inane. Some agencies get tens of thousands of FOIA requests per year for all sorts of information and documents, and they take a lot of time to research and collate. On rare circumstances, FOIA requests require a fee if the size of the document(s) is very large, but many times it is not billed because it can cost more to process fee than the fee is worth. ACLU is an interesting organization. "Civil Liberties" is narrow or broad in interpretation, depending on the "liberty" involved. Where ACLU has shown excessive bias is its tendency to only be involved in "very left of center" interpretations of what "liberties" are. As far as linking Republicans and KKK together, that's bogus. KKK is as anarchistic as it gets, and distrusts all parties. And as far as lobbyists go, the daily parade from K Street to each Congressional Committee Chairperson's office (all Democrat now) makes the March of the Penguins look lightly populated. |
Quote:
|
As John McCain said, this whole water boarding/torture issue isn't about who THEY are, it's about who WE are.
|
These terrorists are nothing but deranged animals who's only purpose is to kill innocent civilians... mostly Americans.
They even take great pride in hacking off the heads of totally innocent people in front of a camera while they scream in agony and fear. I have no mercy for them whatsoever. If we can get info that can prevent another attack and save lives then I say the CIA should do whatever it takes. Obama is incompetent and a disgrace. |
The point of the thread and the article was....
"But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power." "So the CIA requests a legal review at a moment of heightened danger, the Justice Department obliges with an exceedingly detailed analysis of the law and interrogation practices -- and, seven years later, Mr. Obama says only the legal advisers who are no longer in government should be investigated. The political convenience of this distinction for Mr. Obama betrays its basic injustice. And by the way, everyone agrees that senior officials, including President Bush, approved these interrogations. Is this President going to put his predecessor in the dock too?" __________________________________________________ ___________ This is POLITICS of a different dimension than we have seen. Everyone is discussing the waterboarding, etc. and that is EXACTLY what is wanted. Does nobody see what this could lead to in this country in the future ? __________________________________________________ _____________ "Just as with the AIG bonuses, he is trying to co-opt his left-wing base by playing to it -- only to encourage it more. Within hours of Mr. Obama's Tuesday comments, Senator Carl Levin piled on with his own accusatory Intelligence Committee report. The demands for a "special counsel" at Justice and a Congressional show trial are louder than ever, and both Europe's left and the U.N. are signaling their desire to file their own charges against former U.S. officials." "Mr. Obama may think he can soar above all of this, but he'll soon learn otherwise. The Beltway's political energy will focus more on the spectacle of revenge, and less on his agenda. The CIA will have its reputation smeared, and its agents second-guessing themselves. And if there is another terror attack against Americans, Mr. Obama will have set himself up for the argument that his campaign against the Bush policies is partly to blame." __________________________________________________ ______________ All of the above from the link I provided but no comment on that..simply discourse on what is waterboarding, and torture, which is EXACTLY what the article pointed out !!! __________________________________________________ ______________ |
Quote:
Unfortunately, the "pretty please, would you like some tea and crumpets?" approach doesn't work. Before condemning what is a viable physio-psychological interrogation technique, please name an alternative that works. Whether one believes it or not, a lot of study goes into what will or will not work that doesn't result in a "wasted subject." This whole waterboarding scapegoating is just another circumstance where amateurs observe an action, don't understand the why and how, and instantly condemn it because it's "not nice." I have never seen a situation where a hard-nosed subject possessing vital information responded to "pretty please" techniques. Again, what's the alternative which gets the necessary information so that friendly lives are protected? Whose life is worth forfeiting so that the subject is not made "uncomfortable?" |
Investigation is not Prosecution
Quote:
On the other hand, the hot potato of who authorized what to whom regarding enhanced torture techniques has become one of deny, deny, deny. Didn't anyone think it odd that the Attorney General of the United States sat before the United States Congress under oath and simply kept saying "I don't recall, I don't recall." . And many more form the Administration did the same thing. Either they represent a serious glandular amomaly that caused Bush executives to suffer from Alzheimer's or they lied. As intelligent adults, which do you think it was? This kettle of fish was self-brewed. Personally, I believe it arises from the arrogance of power: "No one can tell us what to do or how to do it." This same arrogance may overcome the Obama administration as well. I hope not. But if laws are broken, then investigations are incumbent upon Congress or an independent counsel. I believe that it is in our natures- conservatives do not like to air dirty laundry, while liberals are often over-eager to do the opposite. And is is a huge mistake to think that Democrats act in one accord. If you notice the Republican votes in the House, they are virtually unanimous against the Democratic majority, whatever the issue. Tom DeLAy, Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich make non apologies for such partisanship. Democrats, with feckless leadership like Tom Daschle and Harry Reid, were unable to ride herd on their members, and always look disorganized. Republicans run their party like a business; Democrats don't run their party at all. Republicans have problems where the product they are offering is not something the American people desire; Democrats have problems getting a unified message out at all. |
The "I don' t recall" syndrome seems to be universal and party-neutral. I heard the same from the latest batch of appointees regarding their tax status as well. It seems to go with all of them, including the elected.
As far as "dirty laundry" is concerned, you and I tend to think alike to a point. I believe the pendulum also swings based on which is the majority party du jour. Then all laundry is perceived as dirty no matter what condition it is. I don't buy into a categoritization at any level that the military operates any mission with a wanton disregard for life. If anything, the opposite is true. Have there been instances where actions have happened where are far from desired? Sure, and there will always be an occasional one because war is far from pretty, and things happen which are regrettable. That's why there is no group more cautious of committing military assets to resolve a situation than the military leadership itself - folk who know all too well what can and will happen despite the best of intentions. Ironically, it's folk who have never been in combat who historically have been all-too-eager to deploy the military as the "problem solver." |
Well said, SteveZ. I don't agree with everything you post but in this case you hit the nail on the head. What would happen if the military had the final word on operations planned by the politicians? Anyone who thinks that senior military does not care about their soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines, has certainly never been in the military and fought for their country.
|
Quote:
Steve.....a tip of the hat and a resounding AMEN! |
Quote:
And now the US has used it. No matter what you say it is at all times wrong. END OF STORY........... |
100%!
Steve I agree with you 100% as well.
When the tax issues surrounding Geithner & the others surfaced. there were a whole lot of us complaining form the "other" side that something was rotten in all this. On top of that, Geithner was head of the NY Fed when the initial TARP monies went oout without any strings attached. No one is indispensble in any position (except a self-employed person, thank you very much), so I found Obama's pursuit of this uncharacteristically odd. Regarding war and its formulation, I think you have it right on the money. It was one of the anti-war side's most powerful arguments. No one in the Bush Adm. pushing for the war had any military experience whatsoever, and those that did were ignored or even villified as cowards or "with the terrorists." I think if you had Colin Powell or Schwarzkopf supporting, and coordinating the strategy, people might have supported the long-term efforts. But the reality is, they didn't support the war at all. Everyoe got swept up into propaganda and terrror-baiting/ What is an intelligent person supposed to answer when the President of the United States says, "You are either with us, or with the terrorists," and you know in your heart and brain that "us" is wrong? Any way, great post! |
Quote:
|
One thing Steve that I will call you on:
"I don't buy into a categorization at any level that the military operates any mission with a wanton disregard for life." While I think that's overwhelmingly true, it doesn't necessarily apply when attacking one's enemies. There are also foolish Generals whose pride or stupidity cause massive death. The battle at Gallipoli comes to mind, Napolean's march to Moscow, and the tactics of the Japanese in WWII. My dad fought in Eisenhower's signal command in WWII. He didn't like to talk about war, but said that if even one shot came from a building as they advanced, the building was toast. Didn't matter who was inside it. It seems like it's a lot easier to pick and choose when you know that the people you are liberating view you as liberators. That was a problem in Viet Nam and has been throughout the Middle East- the "enemy" mixes in with civilians in a most cowardly way, although I bet many of them see no difference between themselves and those civilians. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by
DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.