Cheney Admits to Promoting Torture - Is It Time to Indict This Sadist Prick??

[Member2019]

It's also evil to inflict a punishment on someone without benefit of proving they're guilty (guilty until proven innocent), outside of a legal system where we don't even allow torture in the first place.

And why do people go the opposite?

These people are not citizens who have committed crimes, they are prisoners of war. Please do not label them as anything else. Prisioners of war don't necessary do anything "wrong" in a criminal sense. They are contained because they are combatants or otherwise found on the battlefield or in an engagement or other situation and cannot be trusted to be released. That's all. That's why they have protections under the Geneva convention, not as private citizens.

So stop calling for the requirement to charge and prosecute them! That is not what prisoners of war are about. For every right-winger I'm sick of that excuses torture I'm tired of another left-winger that keeps wanting to assign them the same rights as private citizens of a civilized nation. They are not entitled to criminal prosecution, they are prisoners of war. The reason for their containment has nothing to do with civil crimes.

I'm not terribly worried about the Al Qaeda boys. Statistically, I have a better chance of dying in a car accident (hey, those can be TERRIFYING, too - not exactly a "better" way to die!), or, on the bright side - winning the lottery - woo-hoo!!! :glugglug:

Then you'd be ignoring the fact that you are an American or EU or American ally consumer and rely on countless resources of and access to the world markets and other details. If you think terrorism is just about harm and death, then you're missing the point.

Wake up! 9/11 was a fiscal attack, not just one about death. This is about disrupting American, EU and American ally financial prosperity. Reality.

 

[PirateKing]

torture is kinky. Nice. Was that you, Spurty?

I thought torture is kinky was you. :dunno: ........that must be one of HELLRAISER's.

I don't know, I think Hellraiser might have done the penguin one. Who could forget his infamous "Penguins are NeoCons" thread.

Who could it be?......Bwahahahaha!!!

 

[Member2019]

UN 1441... give it a browse. Saddam was in violation on numerous accounts and getting away with it as he became bolder and bolder as time went on.
S-o-m-e-b-o-d-y had to enforce the provisions set forth in un 1441 ...
who else but U.S. ? :dunno:

Yes, I get tired of people who talk about how Iraq was a "sovereign nation." It lost its "sovereign status" in 1991, as terms of its surrender. It repeatedly violated those terms -- no less than 20 times. So as much as people argue that the US was not justified, the US -- even if I disagreed with invading (I knew it would lead to nothing good, just like JFK's assassination of South Vietnam's leader = you break it and get to keep both pieces, let alone that was a far worse act) -- did very much have UN granted authority to enforce the terms of the surrender, including re-invasion.

The Clinton administration went round and round with Iraq from 1993-1995. As late as 1995, Iraq was claiming it had disarmed. It bribed Germany and Russia to block UN resolutions, preventing further inspects. Lo'n behold, three defectors gave detailed intelligence and by 1996, Iraq was caught red-handed.

By 1998, with the banning of inspectors, the Clinton administration gave up -- ordered a series of air strikes (none of which hit) and sought support for an invasion from public opinion. When he didn't get it, he left it to the next administration to deal with.

By 2002, after 9/11, despite what people now say about W., public opinion had shifted. That is what led to the invasion of Iraq, popular support in the US. Yes, W. sold it. Yes, it was based on faulty intelligence, but not more faulty than in 1998.

It's easy to say things in hindsight. But too many people forget the US attitude in late 2002. Doesn't surprise me. In fact, as much as left-wingers complained about right-wingers confusing Afghanistan and Iraq, there are plenty of left-wingers today that question Afghanistan like Iraq.

It's sure humorous to see the stances people take on this. But you cannot ignore actual history. There was no reason to believe Saddam would change. But apparently he did between 1998-2002. I like how Oliver Stone covered this in W., exposing the fact that the CIA ended up realizing Saddam was continuing the ruse to keep his own people in line, while thinking the US was bluffing.

 

[bodie54]

Wake up! 9/11 was a fiscal attack, not just one about death. This is about disrupting American, EU and American ally financial prosperity. Reality.

No wake up call necessary here. It was always clear that was the bottom line. As I recall Bin Laden even said as much in the aftermath. He never had the resources to do more than try to initiate a domino effect of western self-destruction. But in that he succeeded spectacularly, thanks in main to the pavlovian predictability of George Bush.

 

[Member2019]

No wake up call necessary here. It was always clear that was the bottom line. As I recall Bin Laden even said as much in the aftermath. He never had the resources to do more than try to initiate a domino effect of western self-destruction. But in that he succeeded spectacularly, thanks in main to the pavlovian predictability of George Bush.

Not just W.
I didn't see many in Congress challenging him. Seriously. That was the problem. You can't pin the general attitude on W. He couldn't do jack without Congressional majority, and the Democrats had at least one house for most of his Presidency.

 

[Jane Burgess]

This thread makes Mr. Wiggles sleepy.

LOL I like Mr. Wiggles.

 

[Hot Mega]

Not just W.
I didn't see many in Congress challenging him. Seriously. That was the problem. You can't pin the general attitude on W.

W got every policy his administration sought. Which of his policies were stopped? The state of the country is a direct result of his "leadership" on his agenda. We all know GOPers can do one thing, push policy in spite of logic, reason or sensibleness.

He couldn't do jack without Congressional majority, and the Democrats had at least one house for most of his Presidency.

Patently untrue.

 

[sporty_carr]

Isn't this now outlawed in Aussieland ?

I thought they just banned small breasts? :dunno:

Now they've banned small people too???

I wonder what their stance is on midget porn. And do the kiddies get to watch the Smurfs? Well, I could understand them banning the Smurfs. Their blue skin offends me.