The Bush Six To Be Indicted

[emmett]

killing an enemy on the battlefield is one thing. capturing your enemy alive...taking him into custody...disarming him.... restraining him, and then torturing him is something entirely different. No one ought to expect Americans not to kill our enemies on the battlefield... every American ought to be appalled that we would take an enemy into custody, disarm him, restrain him and then torture him. the fact that you can't see the difference really saddens me and makes me wonder what my country has become.


Actually you have the order wrong!

Capture or Restrain, then disarm, then custody, then torture the piss out of him until he divulges the information necessary to save American soldiers, citizens and then yourself.

[Psychoblues]

I am a veteran of several wars, emmie, for this country, but I would be no veteran at all if I thought I was going to war to protect any right to torture. In fact, my recruiter, my DI in basic and all my subsequent commanders taught me to fight against such. Something evil has this way passed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Actually you have the order wrong!

Capture or Restrain, then disarm, then custody, then torture the piss out of him until he divulges the information necessary to save American soldiers, citizens and then yourself.

Can I get you a a genuine Truck Driver Java?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Seriously!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




That gwb deficit from the 3 trillion surplus he inherited will go down in history as the worst for certain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What to do about the fearmongerers, loathers, and inherently silly ones?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

We were told to vote for Obama to prevent a Bush third term, and to bring change. Yet everytime it is pointed out Obama is doing what Bush did - except on a larger scale - Obama supporters fall back on what Bush did

So much for the change :rolleyes:

[Jeff]

We were told to vote for Obama to prevent a Bush third term, and to bring change. Yet everytime it is pointed out Obama is doing what Bush did - except on a larger scale - Obama supporters fall back on what Bush did

So much for the change :rolleyes:

Exactly!!!!

He just looks a bit dumber doing it, and god know GW didn't always look like a rocket scientist but then again he didn't bad talk America with other world leader's either.

[red states rule]

Exactly!!!!

He just looks a bit dumber doing it, and god know GW didn't always look like a rocket scientist but then again he didn't bad talk America with other world leader's either.

Well Jef, you can;t expect them to actually talk about Obama and his "accomplishements" as his first 100 days draws to a close can you? :laugh2:

[Jeff]

Well Jef, you can;t expect them to actually talk about Obama and his "accomplishements" as his first 100 days draws to a close can you? :laugh2:

LMAO, I talk about that all day on the CB, everything the Libs hated about Bush Obama is doing, just in a much bigger way, hell he is even paying his taxes like GW

[red states rule]

LMAO, I talk about that all day on the CB, everything the Libs hated about Bush Obama is doing, just in a much bigger way, hell he is even paying his taxes like GW

My coworker and car pool buudy is the same. Whenever I point out Obama's huge deficits, the pork, the waste, higher taxes - he goes right into the liberal talking point about what Bush did

He has yet to try and give any defense of the Messiah - only attack Republicans

Perhaps he knows deep down he was suckered in by bumper sticker slogans and a biased liberal media campaign

[moderate democrat]

i see....so you hack your enemy to death with a sword, even take his head off....but you won't waterboard someone to get information to save lives, nope, thats bad....much better to kill themagain...if you cannot see the difference between killing your enemy on the battlefield and torturing an unarmed captive, then we really have nothing to talk about.

[red states rule]

again...if you cannot see the difference between killing your enemy on the battlefield and torturing an unarmed captive, then we really have nothing to talk about.

OK goodby. Please do not let the door hit you in the ass on the way out

[Jeff]

[QUOTE=red states rule;364501]OK goodby. Please do not let the door hit you in the ass on the way out[/QUOT

LMAO, :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[red states rule]

[QUOTE=red states rule;364501]OK goodby. Please do not let the door hit you in the ass on the way out[/QUOT

LMAO, :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Just to be on the safe side Jeff, please order a new door

[Jeff]

[QUOTE=Jeff;364503]

Just to be on the safe side Jeff, please order a new door

LMAO, yes I heard he may have trouble fitting threw the door, lol, I have ordered barn doors, LOL

[red states rule]

[QUOTE=red states rule;364506]

LMAO, yes I heard he may have trouble fitting threw the door, lol, I have ordered barn doors, LOL

Na, it won't work. He will leave a trial of bread crumbs to find his way back

[Jeff]

[QUOTE=Jeff;364509]

Na, it won't work. He will leave a trial of bread crumbs to find his way back

LMAO

[Insein]

again...if you cannot see the difference between killing your enemy on the battlefield and torturing an unarmed captive, then we really have nothing to talk about.

Dead is dead. Alive is alive. Yes there is a difference. Dead is worse.

[Yurt]

again...if you cannot see the difference between killing your enemy on the battlefield and torturing an unarmed captive, then we really have nothing to talk about.

i do see your point, however, i don't understand how you can reconcile killing someone is ok, but waterboarding is not. i'm not talking torture with the fingernails and breaking all your bones etc...i'm talking about so-called torture that does not permanently disfigure or harm the person.

tell me something, are you against this solely because you believe the UN treat outlaws waterboarding? did you ever serve? if so, if you were in a situation and you had a captive and that captive had information that could save a life and that captive of course would not talk as the death of your fellow soldier, friend.... was exactly what he wanted, what would you do?

[moderate democrat]

i do see your point, however, i don't understand how you can reconcile killing someone is ok, but waterboarding is not. i'm not talking torture with the fingernails and breaking all your bones etc...i'm talking about so-called torture that does not permanently disfigure or harm the person.

tell me something, are you against this solely because you believe the UN treat outlaws waterboarding? did you ever serve? if so, if you were in a situation and you had a captive and that captive had information that could save a life and that captive of course would not talk as the death of your fellow soldier, friend.... was exactly what he wanted, what would you do?
I am against waterboarding because it, in my belief, violates our constitution... and yes, I DID take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Killing people in battle, is what the military trains to do. I have no problem killing someone on the field of battle.

Your hypothetical situation is unrealistic. How does anyone know what information a captive may or may not have? But to answer your question, I would not torture any captive under my charge, because it was illegal and not authorized by any field manual or operational procedure that was in effect during my time in uniform.

[Yurt]

I am against waterboarding because it, in my belief, violates our constitution... and yes, I DID take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Killing people in battle, is what the military trains to do. I have no problem killing someone on the field of battle.

Your hypothetical situation is unrealistic. How does anyone know what information a captive may or may not have? But to answer your question, I would not torture any captive under my charge, because it was illegal and not authorized by any field manual or operational procedure that was in effect during my time in uniform.

if my hypo is so unrealistic, then why do so many intelligence agencies say that torture got information that saved lives? further, that is a copout. and if you really believe that capturing an enemy NEVER involves capturing an enemy who has knowledge that could save just one life....i don't even know what so say....

since we are both armchair warriors, i can't argue with my personal knowledge. so i am going to have to believe the intelligence agencies that say differently than you. it also seems like a completely irrational thought.

further, it happens FREQUENTLY in the united states when police arrest a criminal they know just kidnapped someone and they know that the suspect knows the whereabouts of that person and that if the police get to that person in time, the person will live. i can't remember the case, but it is a 6th amendment case where the guy wanted an attorney but the police kept on him becuase the kids life was at stake....something like that.

you are way more naive than i ever thought

[Mr. P]

Waterboarding is NOT torture IMO. It is however, 100% effective, physically non-invasive, non injurious method of interrogation.

In short it's a win, win deal. Unless ya ask the U.N. But last I checked they don't run this country.

[Yurt]

Waterboarding is NOT torture IMO. It is however, 100% effective, physically non-invasive, non injurious method of interrogation.

In short it's a win, win deal. Unless ya ask the U.N. But last I checked they don't run this country.

what if a US president says it is torture?

[Mr. P]

what if a US president says it is torture?

If he's had the "experience" we can talk.

[actsnoblemartin]

the guy thinks he's gonna die, what do you call it?

unpleasant

:lol:

[Yurt]

If he's had the "experience" we can talk.

have you ever had your foot slowly cut off? what about your right arm? slowly, with a dull saw, rusty, dull, ......

is that torture?

[PostmodernProphet]

the guy thinks he's gonna die, what do you call it?

unpleasant

:lol:

is being scared shitless, torture?.......I know people who pay good money at theaters for the same experience.....

[PostmodernProphet]

what if a US president says it is torture?

guess it's one of those borderline situations.....if we have one president who says it isn't, it isn't.....if the next president says it is, it is.....doesn't mean the new president can punish the previous president because he had a different opinion......

personally, I would say if it doesn't cause physical injury, it isn't torture....scaring the shit out of someone is fair game......shucks, I've seen stuff on You Tube that's worse than waterboarding.......

by the way, I remember when they made a big deal out of scaring prisoners at Abu Graib with dogs.....do you remember WHY the guys held in Abu Graib were scared of dogs?......because some of them were the guys who used to feed Sadaam's son's prisoners to dogs.....

[actsnoblemartin]

of course it is.

now were gonna argue over degrees of torture

ill give water boarding a 6 or 7

and youll give it a 3 or 4


have you ever had your foot slowly cut off? what about your right arm? slowly, with a dull saw, rusty, dull, ......

is that torture?

[PostmodernProphet]

of course it is.

now were gonna argue over degrees of torture

ill give water boarding a 6 or 7

and youll give it a 3 or 4

that sounds like a good game.......ranking things you can do to a person on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being yelling at him and 10 being cutting his balls off, where does a typical episode of Jackass rank?........

[Insein]

I am against waterboarding because it, in my belief, violates our constitution... and yes, I DID take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Killing people in battle, is what the military trains to do. I have no problem killing someone on the field of battle.

Your hypothetical situation is unrealistic. How does anyone know what information a captive may or may not have? But to answer your question, I would not torture any captive under my charge, because it was illegal and not authorized by any field manual or operational procedure that was in effect during my time in uniform.

If you are killing someone in battle is that not worse then keeping them alive even if its to find out what they know?

If in battle an enemy soldier came at you. If you could subdue him and then torture him to find out where his allies were, would you not do that or would you kill him on the spot because that is the law? Wouldn't you want to know for your health as well as the health of your fellow soldiers where the other enemy soldiers are or would you risk that health because you felt the need to follow the"Supreme law of the land?"

Does not shooting bullets that can kill a person render undo mental anguish on a person?

If they came up with a law tommorrow that said, you MUST waterboard enemy combatants when they are captured, would you follow it as the "Supreme law of the land?"

Laws are written by men. Most men mean well but are not omnicient. They can not forsee every situation. The law should not be followed blindly as if it were scripture.

[Mr. P]

have you ever had your foot slowly cut off? what about your right arm? slowly, with a dull saw, rusty, dull, ......

is that torture?

Now what does that have to do with waterboarding or whether a US president says it is torture?

But to answer yer question..no, I have not had a foot slowly cut off. Nor my right arm. I have been waterboarded though and IMO it ain't torture. Quick, no blood, no broken bones, no physical injury and it's extremely effective.

[Yurt]

If you are killing someone in battle is that not worse then keeping them alive even if its to find out what they know?

If in battle an enemy soldier came at you. If you could subdue him and then torture him to find out where his allies were, would you not do that or would you kill him on the spot because that is the law? Wouldn't you want to know for your health as well as the health of your fellow soldiers where the other enemy soldiers are or would you risk that health because you felt the need to follow the"Supreme law of the land?"

Does not shooting bullets that can kill a person render undo mental anguish on a person?

If they came up with a law tommorrow that said, you MUST waterboard enemy combatants when they are captured, would you follow it as the "Supreme law of the land?"

Laws are written by men. Most men mean well but are not omnicient. They can not forsee every situation. The law should not be followed blindly as if it were scripture.

wow

amazing

[Missileman]

what if a US president says it is torture?

What if a US president, his VP, his NSA, his AG, etc, say that it isn't?

[actsnoblemartin]

I cant say that i am upset that guy was water boarded, if it can be proven to save lives, then in certain situations on top level al queda, we should make exceptions


Anyone upset this guy was waterboarded?

http://media.eyeblast.org/resources/46950.jpg



CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief


CNSNews.com) - The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

[red states rule]

I cant say that i am upset that guy was water boarded, if it can be proven to save lives, then in certain situations on top level al queda, we should make exceptions

It has been proven Martin. Why do you think the Dems are foaming at the mouth to take the focus away from how effective waterboarding is and how many lives it saved and talk about terrorist rights and emotional distress?

[actsnoblemartin]

dont know


It has been proven Martin. Why do you think the Dems are foaming at the mouth to take the focus away from how effective waterboarding is and how many lives it saved and talk about terrorist rights and emotional distress?

[red states rule]

dont know

Did you read the link Martin? It HAS proven to be effective. It made libs out to be liars so they have to change the subject

[actsnoblemartin]

:poke::poke: don't quit your day job:poke::poke:

agreed

[PostmodernProphet]

I cant say that i am upset that guy was water boarded, if it can be proven to save lives, then in certain situations on top level al queda, we should make exceptions

Martin, you aren't allowed to think that anymore.....you're a Democrat now.....

[actsnoblemartin]

ill think whatever i want

grr :poke:


Martin, you aren't allowed to think that anymore.....you're a Democrat now.....

[red states rule]

http://www.wallpaperdojo.com/images/funny/Funny_Democrat_Jackass.jpg

[PostmodernProphet]

ill think whatever i want

grr :poke:

then you're a libertarian now?......

[glockmail]

... I DID take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.... For what purpose? :poke:

[red states rule]

For what purpose? :poke:

To silence all dissenting voices from those who do not support the Dem party and liberalism

[glockmail]

That's ok though, I can't wait to see them explain how they can prosecute Bush and Cheney for giving the ok to water boarding but not the members of congress, including Nancy Pelosi, that didn't raise any objections to the program when they were read into it before hand.Pelosi was briefed about it beforehand and approved it. How will the Liberals respond about that?

[red states rule]

Pelosi was briefed about it beforehand and approved it. How will the Liberals respond about that?

Libs will respond the old fashioned way

They will IGNORE it

[glockmail]

Libs will respond the old fashioned way

They will IGNORE itThey'll try, but there are still Republicans in Congress. I think Obama opened up a can of worms.

[red states rule]

They'll try, but there are still Republicans in Congress. I think Obama opened up a can of worms.

But the liberal media and Obama supporters will ignore the facts Dems knew about it - and did nothing until they could turn it around for political gain

That is the nature of the liberal.

There is no "truth" there is only "pravda".