Reward Offered for Obama's birth certificate

[Borg]

Nobody would believe al-Quaida if they said they were not targetting civilians, would they?

That being said, I have no expectation that low-life murderers will abide by the standards of a democratic society founded on the rule of law and respect for what is right. The expectation I have is that we will not sunk as low as they do in barbarism and abdication of any morality. As Romeo Dallaire, a man who has witnessed the worst of what human beings can do to each others, put it, torture is taking us on a slippery slope.

Can't beat them at the negotiating table, then beat them in the alley and the ditch - to win with honour? Or to win?

Kill them all and let God sort it out?

Romeo can talk - he has been turned into a bit of a cultural hero in canada - worked recently with a few other nations who were there - they are not so appreciative of his wisdom or his ability.

If it talkes getting down and dirty then so be it.

The only unfair fight is the fight you lose.

Borg

[CANADIEN]

Can't beat them at the negotiating table, then beat them in the alley and the ditch - to win with honour? Or to win?

Kill them all and let God sort it out?

Romeo can talk - he has been turned into a bit of a cultural hero in canada - worked recently with a few other nations who were there - they are not so appreciative of his wisdom or his ability.

If it talkes getting down and dirty then so be it.

The only unfair fight is the fight you lose.

Borg

You are of course welcome to believe we have to lose our soul and become no better than the ennemy.

I am welcome to know this would be our worse defeat.

[Borg]

You are of course welcome to believe we have to lose our soul and become no better than the ennemy.

I am welcome to know this would be our worse defeat.

And this Ladies and Gentlemen is why - in the long run - we have lost - social re-egineering at its best. It is weak people like you who cannot face the reality of what it is like out there in the rest of the world - and you are looked upon as nothing more than meat in the shwarma

Loss may come through this mentality of being fair at all cost.

You are simply living up to the heritage of your ancestors, who have - over and over again - lost due to their weakness.

The only way to negotiate with the enemy is with your knee in his chest and your knife at his throat. For he will do the same. Or worse.

No one will remember the finer details years after the fight - they will just remember who the leaders were and how they won/lost. That is why Romeo is a hated man in many militaries.

Must run for a couple of days

Cheers

Borg

[waldo]

Krusty... I am equally impressed with your apologist positioning and your ever present hard-on for Bush, "the Great Liberator"... how would you rate/categorize that level of your expressed excitement/delirium?

but Krusty... you've nailed it! As you say, "at the time"... again... those OLC opinions were invalidated in 2003 - as acknowledged by Steven Bradley, the outgoing head of the OLC under Bush.

so again, Krusty... since 2003. What are the post-2003 OLC opinions that validate the Bush torture agenda… that substantiate your claim that Bush did not lie about torture (post-2003)… that support the Bush claim that the, “United States does not torture (post-2003)”?

But Waldo, you missed it! Bradly is not President of the USA and thus cannot rescind Presidential Directives made on information from prior years be they based on faulty or accurate facts. Hence, the same directive covers it until Obama overturned it.

hey now Krusty! I thought it would take me a couple of more steps to get you to this point… well done – most Bush apologists are usually not as accommodating. You’ve clearly put the onus right back where it belongs – on Bush.

you are certainly correct in stating the OLC does not have the authority/power to rescind the Executive Order that Bush issued… the Bush Executive Order that was based on those OLC “torture opinions.” Equally as certain is the fact that the OLC can invalidate its own opinions… as was done, right back to 2003 – as has been formally stated by Steven Bradbury, the outgoing head of the OLC under Bush.

the pertinent OLC opinions (pertinent to this torture discussion) were invalidated… yet the Bush Executive Order remained in effect. Clearly when Bush stated, “the United States does not torture”, his Executive Order was in effect… the basis for that Bush Executive Order, the supporting OLC opinion was not (in effect)… it had been invalidated and was no longer recognized within the OLC.

the authors of those OLC opinions are on the path to impeachment/disbarment… perhaps more. The word “scapegoats” is widely being assigned to those OLC opinion authors – scapegoats for the Bush administration.

the onus was on Bush to have rescinded his Executive Order, when the supporting OLC opinion no longer… supported it. By not doing so, Bush perpetuated the lie – ergo, Bush lied – ergo, “the United States did torture”.

[jbg]

Nobody would believe al-Quaida if they said they were not targetting civilians, would they?

That being said, I have no expectation that low-life murderers will abide by the standards of a democratic society founded on the rule of law and respect for what is right. The expectation I have is that we will not sunk as low as they do in barbarism and abdication of any morality. As Romeo Dallaire, a man who has witnessed the worst of what human beings can do to each others, put it, torture is taking us on a slippery slope.

The trouble is that since they fight out of uniform, fighting by Geneva Convention rules may well be suicidal.

[CANADIEN]

The trouble is that since they fight out of uniform, fighting by Geneva Convention rules may well be suicidal.

I would tend to disagree.

[Smallc]

Did the September 11 attackers make such fine distinctions between interrogation and torture?

So are you saying that the average American interrogator is no better than a 9/11 terrorist?

[bush_cheney2004]

So are you saying that the average American interrogator is no better than a 9/11 terrorist?

Of course not.....why is this pretend moral superiority and high ground so important to you, even as "we" kill, not just torture?

[Smallc]

Of course not.....why is this pretend moral superiority and high ground so important to you, even as "we" kill, not just torture?

Killing is a normal part of war, torture doesn't have to be. I'm pretty sure that if killing wasn't necessary in war, we wouldn't allow it. There is no reason to torture.

If we don't hold the moral high ground, then we have no business telling other people to try to reach it. There is nothing pretend about any of it.

[waldo]

ya, ya... "used on Americans in training"... watch Fox News much? Fox's Jim Angle continues to beat that same drum and, apparently, less discerning types "eat it up".

Contradicting Bush Justice Dept., Angle equated waterboarding of terrorists, trainees

On the April 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle asserted that "the odd thing ... is that President Obama has decided that waterboarding, which we have done, by the way, to thousands of our own people in the military -- pilots and Special Forces are often trained by being waterboarded. We've done it to thousands of our own people. He has decided it is too harsh to use on terrorists."

However, according to a recently released May 2005 Office of Legal Counsel memo by Steven G. Bradbury, the Bush administration's principal deputy assistant attorney general at the time, individuals undergoing waterboarding as part of the U.S. military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training are "obviously in a very different situation from detainees undergoing interrogation;

SERE trainees know it is part of a training program, not a real-life interrogation regime, they presumably know it will last only a short time, and they presumably have assurances that they will not be significantly harmed by the training." The memo further states that the waterboard technique was used "quite sparingly" in SERE training -- "at most two times on a trainee for at most 40 seconds each time"

-- whereas the CIA used the tactic at least 83 times on Abu Zubaydah in August 2002 and 183 times on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in March 2003.

Uh, yeah, all of this is common knowledge by now(But thanks for the bold highlights).

If it is wrong to waterboard, then it is never right to do so in training. This disconnect exposes more Bush Derangement Syndrome and little else.

that so-called common knowledge you allude to doesn’t include your personal attempt to minimize the significance/impact… your position is quite clear with your statement, “It doesn't cause physical pain, it doesn't harm the person, but it makes him quite uncomfortable”…

apparently – to you – waterboarding is just another form of a “toilet swirly” frat house prank.

anyway - you really need to update your Fox News, “it’s used on Americans in training”, talking point… the Pentagon banned the use of those SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) tactics in 2002… for the exact reason BushCheney2004 trots out the “moral superiority” deflection.

the consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of detainees is that it could be used by adversaries to justify the torture of captured U.S./allied personnel. Deflecting to suggest that “the al-Qaida enemy” doesn’t recognize the Geneva/UN Conventions is a weak, twisted, narrow view… that adversary of tomorrow could very well be one of the same signatories to the UN Convention Against Torture. When the U.S. doesn’t abide by its acceptance to recognized treaty/conventions… the stage is set… for others to do exactly the same.

[bush_cheney2004]

the consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of detainees is that it could be used by adversaries to justify the torture of captured U.S./allied personnel.

Clue: They already do this...where is the hue and cry when there is no political gain to be had?

Deflecting to suggest that “the al-Qaida enemy” doesn’t recognize the Geneva/UN Conventions is a weak, twisted, narrow view… that adversary of tomorrow could very well be one of the same signatories to the UN Convention Against Torture.

See above....are you serious?

When the U.S. doesn’t abide by its acceptance to recognized treaty/conventions… the stage is set… for others to do exactly the same.

The "stage" was set long before that. Treaties are made to be broken. Just ask the First Nations.

Edited May 10, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

the consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of detainees is that it could be used by adversaries to justify the torture of captured U.S./allied personnel.

Clue: They already do this...where is the hue and cry when there is no political gain to be had?

clearly, the real-world (U.S.) military hierarchy values the need to hold to a distinction that the U.S. “supposedly” positions itself to a higher moral ground - legitimately. Keyboard warriors – like you – quite naively cast aside the greater implications of wholesale world perceptions that might/could recognize the U.S. as a “rogue nation”.

Deflecting to suggest that “the al-Qaida enemy” doesn’t recognize the Geneva/UN Conventions is a weak, twisted, narrow view… that adversary of tomorrow could very well be one of the same signatories to the UN Convention Against Torture.

See above....are you serious?

serious? Quite. Today’s friend/ally may be tomorrow’s enemy… the same enemy that might have previously signed the UN Convention Against Torture. What’s to presumably hold that enemy to a higher station when/if it sees the U.S. totally flaunt its obligations in regards the same signed conventions/treaties?

When the U.S. doesn’t abide by its acceptance to recognized treaty/conventions… the stage is set… for others to do exactly the same.

The "stage" was set long before that. Treaties are made to be broken. Just ask the First Nations.

made to be broken – really? Clearly… you’ve chosen your MLW pseudonym quite appropriately

[jbg]

The "stage" was set long before that. Treaties are made to be broken. Just ask the First Nations.

Or for a more current example, ask the Taliban and residents of Swat Valley in Pakistan about treaty breaking.

[bush_cheney2004]

clearly, the real-world (U.S.) military hierarchy values the need to hold to a distinction that the U.S. “supposedly” positions itself to a higher moral ground - legitimately. Keyboard warriors – like you – quite naively cast aside the greater implications of wholesale world perceptions that might/could recognize the U.S. as a “rogue nation”.

Oh Christ...now we have a champion and apologist for US military honour even as it stomps about the planet squishing whomever it pleases, and even those it doesn't.

serious? Quite. Today’s friend/ally may be tomorrow’s enemy… the same enemy that might have previously signed the UN Convention Against Torture. What’s to presumably hold that enemy to a higher station when/if it sees the U.S. totally flaunt its obligations in regards the same signed conventions/treaties?

You mean like the Airborne Regiment? When push comes to shove, you can wipe your ass with "treaties".

made to be broken – really? Clearly… you’ve chosen your MLW pseudonym quite appropriately

Ya think?

[Oleg Bach]

Wish old Sam the forger was still around - I could have had a real nice certificate made up for your President....you know BC - it really does not matter much - either a surrogate with papers or without - a front man does not need to be legal - Biden has a birth certificate ..that should be enough for the both of them.

[bush_cheney2004]

Wish old Sam the forger was still around - I could have had a real nice certificate made up for your President....you know BC - it really does not matter much - either a surrogate with papers or without - a front man does not need to be legal - Biden has a birth certificate ..that should be enough for the both of them.

I think we agree on that, but some wankers need to see the paperwork!

[Oleg Bach]

I think we agree on that, but some wankers need to see the paperwork!

It's an Alex Jones thing! They want to see the paper work and get a Big Berky water filler tossed in for good measure - what an opportunist trouble maker Jones can be - even if he tells the truth - how useful is that truth?

[Oleg Bach]

I think we agree on that, but some wankers need to see the paperwork!

It's an Alex Jones thing! They want to see the paper work and get a Big Berky water filler tossed in for good measure - what an opportunist trouble maker Jones can be - even if he tells the truth - how useful is that truth?

[bush_cheney2004]

It's an Alex Jones thing! They want to see the paper work and get a Big Berky water filler tossed in for good measure - what an opportunist trouble maker Jones can be - even if he tells the truth - how useful is that truth?

He has to work it either way for Web hits and video sales. InfoWars.com is going after Obama!

[Oleg Bach]

He has to work it either way for Web hits and video sales. InfoWars.com is going after Obama!

When I heard Jones on short wave a number of years ago and he advocated armed rebellion - and was not arrested - I knew he and his so-called enemies were ALL full of shit.

[bush_cheney2004]

When I heard Jones on short wave a number of years ago and he advocated armed rebellion - and was not arrested - I knew he and his so-called enemies were ALL full of shit.

Jones wouldn't last five minutes in Canada.....but for us, it's just more entertainment!

[Oleg Bach]

You get a 14 year old Muslim terrorist wanna be suggest on the beheadment of a prime minsiter and he's gone - if Jones so much as uttered his crap this side of the boarder against our government - it would be the east detention centre...and a show cause hearing for threatening.

[KrustyKidd]

You’ve clearly put the onus right back where it belongs – on Bush.

The memo need not be viewed as anything other than bird cage fodder by Bush as, he may or may not decide to act on it as he already had made a decision based on what he considered to be correct opinion and, made a directive to cover this issue.

you are certainly correct in stating the OLC does not have the authority/power to rescind the Executive Order that Bush issued… the Bush Executive Order that was based on those OLC “torture opinions.” Equally as certain is the fact that the OLC can invalidate its own opinions… as was done, right back to 2003 – as has been formally stated by Steven Bradbury, the outgoing head of the OLC under Bush.

Yes it can invalidate it's own opinions. and, opinions are all they are. When Congress and the Intelligence Committee continues to approve of the directive, that trumps anything Bradlbury advises.

the pertinent OLC opinions (pertinent to this torture discussion) were invalidated… yet the Bush Executive Order remained in effect. Clearly when Bush stated, “the United States does not torture”, his Executive Order was in effect… the basis for that Bush Executive Order, the supporting OLC opinion was not (in effect)… it had been invalidated and was no longer recognized within the OLC.

And at that time, how many government sanctioned enhanced interrogations were taking place? And, how many have taken place since?

the authors of those OLC opinions are on the path to impeachment/disbarment… perhaps more. The word “scapegoats” is widely being assigned to those OLC opinion authors – scapegoats for the Bush administration.

No they're not. Unless of course, Pelosi and Rockerfeller are going down with them as well as a lot of Democrat congress members who all, by virtue of their knowledge of this, and their continued approval and funding of it go down with them.

the onus was on Bush to have rescinded his Executive Order, when the supporting OLC opinion no longer… supported it. By not doing so, Bush perpetuated the lie – ergo, Bush lied – ergo, “the United States did torture”.

Well, he didn't. Maybe Bush, the greatest liberator the world has ever known, was too busy bestowing the gift of freedom to millions and, was having his decision validated by the continued approval via continued funding by the now speaker of the house and the Democratic run bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee.

In an case, at the time Bush made that statement, how many government sanctioned enhanced interrogations were taking place? And, how many have taken place since?

hey now Krusty! I thought it would take me a couple of more steps to get you to this point… well done – most Bush apologists are usually not as accommodating.

Get back to me once you've done a bit of homework and find the two steps you seem to have lost Waldo.

Edited May 11, 2009 by KrustyKidd

[KrustyKidd]

You are of course welcome to believe we have to lose our soul and become no better than the ennemy.

I am welcome to know this would be our worse defeat.

Why?

[waldo]

Get back to me once you've done a bit of homework and find the two steps you seem to have lost Waldo.

LOL! Krusty... your scurrying about does not go unnoticed... I note the edit of your last post added/changed nothing more than a challenge to, as you say, ''find the two steps you seem to have lost'' (hopefully, you'll engage)

you can attempt to obfuscate by targeting Congress and the Intelligence Committee, but the time lines are clear... the Bush torture agenda was covert prior to eventual Congressional notification (oh my! Krusty, you know what that means, right?) ... and Congress was/has never been completely informed. Take it from ''Jello Jay'' himself:

Congressional Record: April 22, 2009 (Senate) --- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OPINIONS ON CIA'S DETENTION AND INTERROGATION PROGRAM

... from that Congressional Record, in regards, the recent Obama release of the OLC memos, Rockefeller states:

Three of these OLC documents are among those that I sought for the committee starting as far back as 2005, when it became increasingly clear to me that

Congress had not been given complete information regarding the Bush administration's interrogation policies and practices.

the declassified document Rockefeller refers to... yes, the time lines are quite clear:

RELEASE OF DECLASSIFIED NARRATIVE DESCRIBING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL’S OPINIONS ON THE CIA’S DETENTION AND INTERROGATION PROGRAM

after you Alphonse...