Let the torture begin!!!

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Carl_Reginstein, Nov 8, 2005.

  1. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    Well, apparently they already came up with it.

    Outing Secret Jails

  2. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    So what you are saying is we shouldn't be alarmed that THIS President wants explicit authority to torture because OTHER Presidents have tortured covertly?

    Well, there IS a difference. The former illegality probably served to restrict such activity because of the real chance of getting CAUGHT. Making it legal, at least by implication, will remove whatever restraint that consideration has imposed up 'til now.

    Incidently, this is EXACTLY the reasoning Alberto Gonzales proposed in his infamous torture memo...
  3. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    I think we should be alarmed that CLINTON wanted EXPLICT authority to TORTURE. Clinton MUST have WANTED that authority to TORTURE because CLINTON did not back this pending legislation.

    Is this what passes for logic in law school?
  4. gkillion

    gkillion New Member

    If previous Presidents had "explicit authority to torture" then why did they have to do it covertly?
  5. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Alberto Gonzales' memo was legally incorrect. I am definitely NOT saying that any President ever has had the right to use torture.
  6. gkillion

    gkillion New Member

    You said President Bush wants the "explicit authority to torture." When, in reality, what he wants are the same rights and privilages that every other President has had. So if he retains these rights, he will NOT have the "explicit authority to torture" because no other President has ever had that.

    So... like the rest of the Left, you are creating a story where there is none, and you're spreading falsehoods about what the bill does and what the President is trying to do.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 9, 2005
  7. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    NO! Every other President has had NO SUCH RIGHT! That's what I'm trying to tell you!
  8. gkillion

    gkillion New Member

    I know!

    Then how can you say that's what Bush wants? That's what I'm trying to ask you!
  9. Because .... he's ASKING for it! DUH!

    Also, all the warning signs are there. Memos, requests, bills, dancing around the topic. It is a DISGRACE that the leadership of the United States of America will even condone a discussion of the legal use of torture. That's what the problem is, and that's what you right-wingers apparently can't get through your thick skulls! So there!
  10. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member


    Unfortunately, the right-wingers can't get a lot of things through their craniums.

  11. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Who, in this thread, are the "right-wingers?"
  12. Anyone who disagrees with me on this matter.....
  13. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Apparently so.
  14. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    The REAL debate.

    I don't think this is really a "left-right" debate.

    I think that it is really a debate between:

    -those who believe that our system of constitutional government wherein elected officials exercise limited powers subject to the checks and balances from other officials is adequate to protect the country from a new and particularly dangerous and determined terrorist enemy; and

    -those who believe that our constitutional institutions are too restrictive and cumbersome to allow those officials to respond to a threat which our system was never designed to meet.

    For my part, I am unwilling to entrust unlimited power in any single person. Even if I would consider such a thing as a general proposition, I certainly would not trust this President or the people around him with my freedom.

    However, the other side DOES have historical warrant for its position. President Lincoln and "President" Davis each assumed personal powers far greater than ever contemplated by their respective constitutions in order to meet the national emergencies they faced.

    President Wilson, with far less justification than Lincoln or Davis, also suspended in law and in practice a much greater array of our civil rights than this Administration seems to be trying to do.

    Outside of America (now, don't jump on me for citing foreign law!) the Weimar Constitution contained an explicit provision for rule by Presidential Decree during national emergencies. Hitler made good use of that one.

    I am no expert on the basic law of the Roman Republic, but I believe that the Romans could appoint a "dictator" with essentially unlimited powers in time of war in order to meet the needs of defense.

    So the beast has long existed. in otherwise democratic societies.

    But in too many cases, the appeal of a "strong man" to meet a crisis have been the vehicle to impose permanent dictatorships.

    My own opinion? I believe that a sustained effort is being made to "roll back" the civil liberties and rights that have grown in this country since World War II and that this Administration is a conscious participant in that effort. It is being done in the name of religion but the real driving force is an ideology of hate and intolerance.
  15. gkillion

    gkillion New Member

    Nosborne, I don't think anyone wants to bestow too much power on any one person. That's the whole idea of our system of government.

    You mention Lincoln and Wilson suspending certain laws during extraordinary times, but this particular case is not about suspending laws or creating new powers. This case is about maintaining existing laws. Noone is trying to make the constitution less cumbersome. The Administration is simply trying to maintain the same rights that every other administration has had in the past. Noone can argue that.

    Besides the lies that are being told, my biggest problem is that people are trying to benefit politically by hamstringing the administrations ability to execute this war. This is nothing more that a knee-jerk reaction to some sensationalized media reports. I don't believe the enemies of the President are trying to do what is best for the country, but like most politicians, they are doing what is best for them.

    War is not a game, but too many people are trying to play political games and as a result, our military and our safety suffers.
  16. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Just tell us this

    Where are you getting the idea that the President has the power to use torture?

    I am not asking whether Presidents HAVE used torture; I'm asking where you get the idea that the President has the right to do so.
  17. gkillion

    gkillion New Member

    Re: Just tell us this

    Huh? I don't have that idea. That's my whole point. You are saying Bush wants to use torture, not me. I'm saying he doesn't want to do anything more, or less, than any other president has done.

    Since you have informed me that other Presidents did not have that right, where do you get the idea the Bush wants it?
  18. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Just tell us this

    Bush wants to exempt the CIA because the CIA, like all foreign intelligence agencies, works internationally with all cooperative governments. If the CIA can't be associated with torture (undefined in this thread) then it can't work with many of the nations it most needs to work with.

    That Bush wants to practice torture is an addled fabrication. Unless, that is, someone has something specific to offer to give body to the fabrication.
  19. DTechBA

    DTechBA New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Just tell us this

    What people don't understand is that current US law makes it illegal for the CIA to work with foreign intelligence services that we believe practice torture. It was one of the findings of the 9/11 commission that this prevention basically cut us off from intelligence services that may have had more information on the Al Qaeda since bad guys tend to hang around with other bad guys. If you are required to deal only with squeaky clean people you never learn any dirt. The business of intelligence and getting dirt on bad people means you have to get your hands dirty sometimes. Of course, in saying they want to be able to work with these people the liberals are screaming we want to torture people. On the other hand, if another 9/11 happens they'll scream that Bush failed to stop it. Deans been demagoguig the SSN issue but when asked what his ideas are he just says that "Bush should negotiate with us". no ideas, nothing. What we have is a group of people saying lets do this and another group attacking them while providing no ideas of their own. Can't win against people like that. ....
  20. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Just tell us this

    Israel? If this bill goes through, it will be interesting to see how long it is before there are calls to keep the CIA from cooperating with Israel. Or any US agency, for that matter.

Share This Page