Reward Offered for Obama's birth certificate

[Oleg Bach]

What court in America would try a President for fraud? They did not try Bush - so why would they attack Obama for committing a fraud and breaching the constitution? Even if a faulty birth certificate was presented - no court in the land would dare utlize it - it would bring about chaos in their system.

[KrustyKidd]

I have admitted it, my reading of that particcular piece of legislation was fauty, and I corrected myself. I have made another mistake as well... wasting my time with a conspiracy nut.

Sure you corrected yourself however, that is not why i mentioned it rather, it is your continual assumptions based on what you wisah to believe rather than hard evidence. Nobody has produced a document which is an origional to prove his birth to an impartial examination. As for me being a conspiracy nut, simply because i don't assume everything like you does not make me that. In fact, your err on two planes with this comment;

1. In order to have a conspiracy, there must have beenn action by at least two people. My contention was that no action has taken place to cover anything upby Obama or his people.

My comment

I doubt the Obama campaign have dealt with this directly to any degree. And, I'm willing to bet Obama has not even seen the origional which is in the vault having relied al his life on people who do not question his place of birth.

Sounds quite nutty doesn't it to have me thinking that Obama is not involved in a coverup of some kind and that there is nop conspiracy.

2. As for beig a nut, I believe Obama was born in the US.

My comment

While I certainly don't believe that Obama was born anywhere else other than the US, some people do. If he would allow forensic examination of his original BC then it might stop some detractors but really, not allowing it stops none.

3. I even agree with Obama for not producing the original.

My comment

In the end, if I were he, I wouldn't lower myself to a level that has anything to do with this unless I was forced to. But, there is the possibility that there is merit to this troofer theory nonetheless.

I also understand why people wish to see the original. You don't seem to understand the severity and repercussions if something blows out.

No longer. When you have something that looks like the shadow of an evidence of any the stupid claims espouses by the lunatics (that he was born in Kenya, that he was never a U.S. citizen, that he has lost his citizenship, that he currently holds Kenan and or Indonesian citizenship, that an independant fact checking think-thank is not to be trusted because they received funding from the same source that funded dozen of political research and education advocacy programs including one Obama was involved with, that just providing in a court of law the information he has made public would shut the imbeciles up), I may waste my time commenting. Until then, feel free to defy logic without me.

The possibility exists so don't discount it by being absolute in your conviction as the original has never been produced. Everybody is just working wi9th assumptions.

In the ewal world, torture techniques are torture techniques, no matter how legal one declares them to be. I used to be content to just think Bush did n't know what he was talking about. Not now that the White House has relased memos detailing some approved interrogation techniques that constitute tortures.

Actually, in the US, at that time, those techniques were legal and not considered torture by the US government. You know, the real government of the US, not the fantasy one you imagined.

What court in America would try a President for fraud? They did not try Bush - so why would they attack Obama for committing a fraud and breaching the constitution? Even if a faulty birth certificate was presented - no court in the land would dare utlize it - it would bring about chaos in their system.

They wouldn't try Obama for fraud. He is a lawyer and knows that his safest bet is to continue to obfuscate this process so that the original never comes to light. It's more than likely good, but, however remote the possibility is, it may contain something unknown to him that is bad. To not have his staff or himself ever see the document absolves him from all responsibility so that there will never be a possibility of there being a case for fraud or conspiracy. As for chaos, I believe he is past that point and agree with you. The time to show this document was prior to the democratic primaries and in fact, in light of this problem, there are some Congress Members drafting a bill to make showing an original BC to an elections board compulsory prior to beng considered for the race.

[CANADIEN]

Sure you corrected yourself however, that is not why i mentioned it rather, it is your continual assumptions based on what you wisah to believe rather than hard evidence. Nobody has produced a document which is an origional to prove his birth to an impartial examination. As for me being a conspiracy nut, simply because i don't assume everything like you does not make me that. In fact, your err on two planes with this comment;

1. In order to have a conspiracy, there must have beenn action by at least two people. My contention was that no action has taken place to cover anything upby Obama or his people.

My comment

Sounds quite nutty doesn't it to have me thinking that Obama is not involved in a coverup of some kind and that there is nop conspiracy.

2. As for beig a nut, I believe Obama was born in the US.

My comment

3. I even agree with Obama for not producing the original.

My comment

I also understand why people wish to see the original. You don't seem to understand the severity and repercussions if something blows out.

The possibility exists so don't discount it by being absolute in your conviction as the original has never been produced. Everybody is just working wi9th assumptions.

Yep.. Obama was right to to make the original available, but he was wrong not doing so. There is no conspiracy, but factcheck.org imust be conspiring with Obama to hide the truth. He was born in the US., but we must entairtain any wingnut theory that says otherwise hey, they might be right.. Whatever.

Actually, in the US, at that time, those techniques were legal and not considered torture by the US government. You know, the real government of the US, not the fantasy one you imagined.

:lol: it's legal, therefore it's not torture.

Not that I would compare Bush to Hitler or Stalin, but their crimes were perfectly legal too. In the real world, what is wrong remains wrong even when it's covered by law.

[KrustyKidd]

Yep.. Obama was right to to make the original available, but he was wrong not doing so. There is no conspiracy, but factcheck.org imust be conspiring with Obama to hide the truth. He was born in the US., but we must entairtain any wingnut theory that says otherwise hey, they might be right.. Whatever.

No. Unlike McCain, Obama did not make the original available other than on an internet site of hhis and, verified by one which like the organization that helped propel him to politics, was on the recieving end of grants from the same entity. If this were the norm, anybody who could produce a birth certificate on the internet could run for President.

:lol: it's legal, therefore it's not torture.

It was legal and it was known as enhanced interrogation techniques, not torture.

Not that I would compare Bush to Hitler or Stalin, but their crimes were perfectly legal too. In the real world, what is wrong remains wrong even when it's covered by law.

Stalin and Hitler were carrying out heinous acts however, completely legal within their own countries at the time until Hitler decided to invade other countries that were not in violation of various treaties.

In the real world, what is wrong is often right at the time and always, in the real world, a lie is not a lie when it is the truth or, the person uttering it has every reason to believe it is true.

[CANADIEN]

It was legal and it was known as enhanced interrogation techniques, not torture.

In the Nazi vocabulary, genocide was legal, and it was called a final solution.

Many of the so-called "enhenced interrogation techniques" approved by the Bush administration, such are waterboarding, arer widely considered to be toprture techniques. The Bush Administration knew this. So either Bush lied when he stated that "the United States does not do torture", or is not intelligent enough to recognize torture. I don't believe he's an idiot.

Now feel free to embrarass yourself by keeping on arguing that torture is not torture if it's declared that is not torrture. I don't plan to help you do that.

[KrustyKidd]

Many of the so-called "enhenced interrogation techniques" approved by the Bush administration, such are waterboarding, arer widely considered to be toprture techniques.

Now feel free to embrarass yourself by keeping on arguing that torture is not torture if it's declared that is not torrture. I don't plan to help you do that.

I don't need to declare anything other than that Bush, when president of the US was working under US laws and definitions of the time rather than your personal views or, laws of other countries. Hence, he did not lie.

[jbg]

In the Nazi vocabulary, genocide was legal, and it was called a final solution.

Godwyn's Law violation?

Many of the so-called "enhenced interrogation techniques" approved by the Bush administration, such are waterboarding, arer widely considered to be toprture techniques. The Bush Administration knew this. So either Bush lied when he stated that "the United States does not do torture", or is not intelligent enough to recognize torture. I don't believe he's an idiot.

Now feel free to embrarass yourself by keeping on arguing that torture is not torture if it's declared that is not torrture. I don't plan to help you do that.

And I'm sure the Taliban swarming across Pakistan are quite cognizant of the Geneva Convention. Ditto the 911 authors.

These people being "waterboarded" are not nice people.

[Smallc]

These people being "waterboarded" are not nice people.

And that makes it right?

[waldo]

I don't need to declare anything other than that Bush, when president of the US was working under US laws and definitions of the time rather than your personal views or, laws of other countries. Hence, he did not lie.

your certainty is profound and absolute... I would expect you could readily advise, as you state, which U.S. laws and definitions... of the time... allowed Bush to emphatically state that "America does not torture". Thanks in advance.

[CANADIEN]

I don't need to declare anything other than that Bush, when president of the US was working under US laws and definitions of the time rather than your personal views or, laws of other countries. Hence, he did not lie.

He knew, or he should have known, that he was declaring as legal actions that were at the time, and still are, widely considered to be torture. The moment he declared those acts not to be torture, he was lying to the world, and to himself.

Period.

[KrustyKidd]

He knew, or he should have known, that he was declaring as legal actions that were at the time, and still are, widely considered to be torture. The moment he declared those acts not to be torture, he was lying to the world, and to himself.

Period.

And of course, he listened to the legal experts rather than give you a call.

Oh, and if he was lying to himself, he would have to believe it to be true, which would make it an unintentional mistake rather than a lie as he would be mistakenly uttering what he thought to be true rather than deliberately misrepresenting the truth.

[CANADIEN]

And of course, he listened to the legal experts rather than give you a call.

Let me know when you manage to say something even more stupid, will you?.

The International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Briitsh House of Commons, Physicians for Human Rights and the ACLU, among other organizations, have condemned some of the interrogation techniques authorized by Bush as being tortore. The U.S. State Department has often denounced those practices as being torture, when used by countries hostile to the HSA. The deliberate rendtion of terrorist suspects to other countries for the purpose of having them tortured is a documented fact.

When the Detainee Treatment Act was voted by the u.S. Congress in 2005, including an amendment to prohibit the use of torture, Bush issued a signing statement stating that he reserved the right to ignore the law if it felt it was necessary.

Bush knew this was torture, Period.

Edited May 7, 2009 by CANADIEN

[waldo]

Oh, and if he was lying to himself, he would have to believe it to be true, which would make it an unintentional mistake rather than a lie as he would be mistakenly uttering what he thought to be true rather than deliberately misrepresenting the truth.

oh snap! Bush is just the most unluckiest guy around... there's just a never ending supply of 'darn good intelligence'... that proves to be... not so darn good, after all.

c'mon Krusty... play along - cause, according to U.S. Code, Title 18—Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Part I - Crimes, Chapter 113C - Torture, Section 2340. Definitions:

1- “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

2- “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

a- the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

b- the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

c- the threat of imminent death; or

d- the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

so, Krusty... you say those "enhanced interrogation techniques"... aren't torture, according to the U.S. laws you keep falling back on. Really? Which laws?

[KrustyKidd]

Let me know when you manage to say something even more stupid, will you?.

Stupid is believing that the President of the USA should be follow and be loyal to other countries policies rather than his own which is what you are basing your entire argument on.

The International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Briitsh House of Commons, Physicians for Human Rights and the ACLU, among other organizations, have condemned some of the interrogation techniques authorized by Bush as being tortore. The U.S. State Department has often denounced those practices as being torture, when used by countries hostile to the HSA. The deliberate rendtion of terrorist suspects to other countried for the purpose of having them tortured is a documented fact.

When the Detainee Treatment Act was voted by the u.S. Congress in 2005, including an amendment to prohibit the use of torture, Bush issued a signing statement stating that he reserved the right to ignore the law if it felt it was necessary.

Bush knew this was torture, Period.

More bandwidth wasting hubris. The parameters which Bush worked under defined this as legal interrogation techniques. Bush and the US government does not operate under your rules, the Red Crosses, Spain's, Canada's or anybody else s other than theirs. No matter how you slice it, how terrible you felt it was, under the definitions along with the scenarios, safety precautions and trained personnel used by the US government at that time, was not torture nor was it illegal.

[KrustyKidd]

oh snap! Bush is just the most unluckiest guy around... there's just a never ending supply of 'darn good intelligence'... that proves to be... not so darn good, after all.

c'mon Krusty... play along

Ok.

other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions

And, seems they had lots of lawful sanctions to work with.

[KrustyKidd]

And that makes it right?

Right or wrong morally does not matter at this point as it was considered by the Bush Administration as interrogation and legal. Hence. Canadian is simply mistaken when he once again, assumes in that Bush lied when he said that the US does not torture.

[CANADIEN]

Stupid is believing that the President of the USA should be follow and be loyal to other countries policies rather than his own which is what you are basing your entire argument on.

My argument is that torture does not stop being torture because someone decides it's not torture.

More bandwidth wasting hubris. The parameters which Bush worked under defined this as legal interrogation techniques. Bush and the US government does not operate under your rules, the Red Crosses, Spain's, Canada's or anybody else s other than theirs. No matter how you slice it, how terrible you felt it was, under the definitions along with the scenarios, safety precautions and trained personnel used by the US government at that time, was not torture nor was it illegal.

Terrorism suspect enters a CIA interrogation room. Just for the fun of it, the chief interrogator describes what will happen to him if he does not talk, from waterboarding to beatings to death threats to threats of rape, etc., etc., etc.

"And yes we know, when your *77^^%^^%% Iran does it, we call it torture. But with us, it won't hurt a bit. Because it's not torture when WE do it."

[M.Dancer]

My argument is that torture does not stop being torture because someone decides it's not torture.

Why not? Doersn't torture become torture because someone decides it is torture? Isn't that how sleep deprivation became torture?

[Smallc]

Right or wrong morally does not matter

And what about ethics?

[sharkman]

So if you believe that, then you have to believe that America tortures its own ciitzens. By that definition Canada certainly condones torture as well(taser). The American forces use waterboarding as a training technique, and I have yet to see the Dems be outraged about this, they save it for terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America.

[waldo]

I don't need to declare anything other than that Bush, when president of the US was working under US laws and definitions of the time rather than your personal views or, laws of other countries. Hence, he did not lie.

Oh, and if he was lying to himself, he would have to believe it to be true, which would make it an unintentional mistake rather than a lie as he would be mistakenly uttering what he thought to be true rather than deliberately misrepresenting the truth.

And, seems they had lots of lawful sanctions to work with.

excellent work Krusty… it really wasn’t so hard to get you to this point – after all.

so, yes – thanks for acknowledging that there are no ‘laws on the books – nothing in the U.S. Legal Code’, to legitimize your/Bush’s claim that the “United States does not torture”. You have nothing to align with your claim that Bush didn’t lie, other than legal opinions drafted from within the Justice Department – the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) – propped up, in turn, by Bush’s own Executive Orders. And now, we’ve begun to come full circle with Obama’s recent release of a portion of those OLC torture opinions/memos… released in response to the long-standing FOIP request from the American Civil Liberties Union.

but let’s look closer… it’s been shown, extensively, that there were differing legal opinions within the OLC during the Bush years… interesting to see that, ultimately, the OLC opinions relied upon by the Bush administration were those that aligned with the Bush torture agenda. Your own linked to NYT article, quotes a former head of the OLC, Douglas W. Kmiec, who headed the OLC under President Reagan and President Bush Daddy:

Douglas W. Kmiec, who headed that office under President Ronald Reagan and the first President George Bush and wrote a book about it, said he believed the intense pressures of the campaign against terrorism have warped the office’s proper role.

“The office was designed to insulate against any need to be an advocate,” said Mr. Kmiec, now a conservative scholar at Pepperdine University law school. But at times in recent years, Mr. Kmiec said, the office, headed by William H. Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia before they served on the Supreme Court, “lost its ability to say no.”

“The approach changed dramatically with opinions on the war on terror,” Mr. Kmiec said.

“The office became an advocate for the president’s policies.”

any thinking American should reflect intensely upon the Bush years and the resultant suspension of U.S. Constitutional rights….. the effective “trashing” of the U.S. Constitution by the Bush administration. What has yet to be revealed???

but it gets better… in the final days of the Bush administration – when the rats began to desert the ship – Steven Bradbury, the outgoing head of the OLC, on Jan19,2008, issued a legal opinion declaring earlier OLC opinions invalid… you know, Krusty… the ones you say validated “Bush’s truth” - that the “United States does not torture”. In fact, Bradbury writes that these opinions hadn’t been relied upon since 2003, and notes that:

it is important to acknowledge in writing “the doubtful nature of these propositions.” The opinions “do not currently reflect, and have not for some years reflected, the views of the OLC”, Bradbury writes, “and on several occasions we have already acknowledged the doubtful nature of these propositions.”

uhhh..... so, Krusty..... uhhh..... what do you have since 2003?

so - in summation: mix in a parcel of trumped of legal opinions designed to support the Bush torture agenda... add a little ole Bush executive order and... voila - "the United States does not torture". And "Bush didn't lie" - he just didn't, again, get darn good intelligence!!! Uhhh..... even though it was "his own" torture tailored intelligence being relied upon. But only good to 2003 Krusty... up to 2003! What about since 2003 Krusty? Krusty? Anyone... anyone...

Memos Reveal Scope of Power Bush Sought in Fighting Terror

[CANADIEN]

Why not? Doersn't torture become torture because someone decides it is torture? Isn't that how sleep deprivation became torture?

Nice try.

The prolonged use of sleep deprivation as an interrogation method IS a form of torture, designed to physically and mentally break down its recipient.

"In the head of the interrogated prisoner, a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep... Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger and thirst are comparable with it.

"I came across prisoners who signed what they were ordered to sign, only to get what the interrogator promised them.

"He did not promise them their liberty; he did not promise them food to sate themselves. He promised them - if they signed - uninterrupted sleep! And, having signed, there was nothing in the world that could move them to risk again such nights and such days."

Menahem Begin on the use of sleep deprivation by the KGB

[CANADIEN]

So if you believe that, then you have to believe that America tortures its own ciitzens. By that definition Canada certainly condones torture as well(taser). The American forces use waterboarding as a training technique, and I have yet to see the Dems be outraged about this, they save it for terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America.

American forces use waterboarding as a training technique... to prepare their personel to resist torture. Thanks for making my point for me.

Edited May 8, 2009 by CANADIEN

[bush_cheney2004]

any thinking American should reflect intensely upon the Bush years and the resultant suspension of U.S. Constitutional rights….. the effective “trashing” of the U.S. Constitution by the Bush administration. What has yet to be revealed???

Why? We're still working on Lincoln and FDR's "trashing" of the Constitution...Bush will have to wait for his turn in history.

Not bad company to be in.

[Oleg Bach]

They still going on about the birth certificate? What a joke - even if the guys not legit...such a chain of constitutional breaches preceeds Obama that was the formal administration that it would be like a bunch of toothless pirates issueing a warrant for the arrest of a pirate. The withered and decaying sytemic abuse of what was your constitution is now normal - put bluntly..you don't have a constitution anymore - even a foreigner like myself can without being submerged in your nation can see that.