law
so hang on a minute. hang on. what is this? the head of the office of legal counsel says waterboarding is illegal.but then he says that Bush can authorise it if he wants.
wtf?
and when Congress outlaws it, Bush will veto that. and the Republican party will back that.
is there even a choice in November? if you vote Republican, let's face it, you are voting for your nation to be a lawless torture state. it's not just Arabs. don't think it is. it's you and your family one day, if you are in their way.
we are supposed to be defending our values, aren't we? what are they? liberty and the rule of law?
the rule of law does not mean law for those too weak to defy it. that was how barons ran the place. that is the jungle.
that is what we say we despise about them. we cannot equally love it about us.
there is a clear choice for America. Democratic or the abyss. neither is perfect but by fuck, you don't want the abyss.
posted by Dr Zen @ 10:30 am
11 Comments:
Of course I suppose you know more about American politics than I do but as I recall McCain was one of the few GOPpers who has consistently spoken out against the practice. Given that the other still-alive Repug, Huckabee, has also always been against it, it's evident the voters simply aren't selecting people anymore who waffle on this issue. Therefore, this particular simplification of reasons not to vote Repub really doesn't make any sense.
Also, my interpretation of "reserved the right for the Bush administration to restore the CIA's right to waterboard terrorist suspects, provided that the attorney general and Bush himself personally approve it" is that there will be no plausible deniability but instead, a very open and direct accountability to the President. Given this and the fact that even with plausible deniability they "only" did it three times, I would say they are in fact agreeing not to do it anymore, leaving just a little opening to save face. Of course, the next good step would be to outlaw it entirely, so that a President who authorizes it can go to prison.
In any case, it is entirely obvious that McCain at least will never put his signature on that particular requisition. Will Clinton or Obama? Probably not but neither of them has ever really been tested either. Give them the classic scenario -- nuke in city, captive knows where, only torture will tell -- and I think Obama will crack. Clinton might. McCain is the most likely among them not to.
1. McCain voted against the measure in Congress that Bush will shortly veto, which restricted the CIA to the techniques outlined in the army field manual.
2. The entire Republican caucus in the senate voted against it. Learn the fucking facts, dude.
3. Your interpretation is untenable. He is plainly saying that the president is not bound by the law. If you knew *anything* about Bradbury, you'd know he signed a secret memo saying that waterboarding was fine so long as Bush said it was.
4. You have *admitted* to torturing three people in this particular way. Given how many lies your administration has told...
5. "Of course, the next good step would be to outlaw it entirely, so that a President who authorizes it can go to prison." It is already entirely outlawed, and the president should be in prison. The measure that McCain voted against would have illegalised waterboarding for the CIA. He refuses to do that.
6. "In any case, it is entirely obvious that McCain at least will never put his signature on that particular requisition." It is not in the slightest obvious that he will "Will Clinton or Obama?" It's my firm belief that neither will. The "classic scenario" is bullshit and any intelligent man should be able to see that.
7. It's nice to see you justifying voting for torture YET AGAIN. These people must celebrate that they have shills like you.
"Give them the classic scenario -- nuke in city, captive knows where, only torture will tell "
Classic where? Third-rate action flicks? 24? The five-ring circus that is being called "a debate" by the journalists who can't see anything but money? Put the popcorn down, get up and take a good look at your country. IRL.
Ah. So McCain appears to have change his tune. Well, I challenge you to find where I said I planned to vote for him.
I don't see your argument as a good reason to vote Democrat. I simply don't trust them. You may believe no Democrat would appoint the sort of clown for AG that we've been seeing of late, but I don't.
That was all. I liked McCain in part because he was unequivocal in his opposition to torture. Now we get a different picture.
I would agree that a change of party would help clean out some of the slimier elements that have crawled in under the floorboards. Thing is, I felt that way in 2000 too.
You know, it seems a nobrainer that Americans should reject the Republicans. They have been so venal, so ugly, so willing to encroach on your freedoms and increase executive power (a bad thing) that you'd think even the likes of Don would catch on. But I guess that it's a "littlebrainer".
Don, you're a typical wingnut. You allow hatred of liberals simply to blind you to what is true. The Dems and Repugs are not even close to comparable. They weren't in 2000 either. Clinton was actually *good* for your country. Not brilliant, but a thousand times better than Bush. Look beyond the shit thrown at him and even you can see that.
And dude, no Democrat is going to appoint an AG who believes the president is above the law because if there were such a beast, he'd be a Republican. Or Joe Lieberman, which is much the same thing.
Don, you're a typical wingnut.
Guilty. I heard an interview with Nader today and he was making sense.
Though I'll probably not forget to say this later when it matters, it is foregone that my representation in the Electoral College will be for the Democrat. Therefore it matters not how I vote, except that I vote with a clear conscience. The likely candidates therefore number rather more than two.
Nader is an arsehole. Remember to include a note of thanks for eight years of Bush with your vote. Maybe he'll succeed in giving you eight of McCain.
Dude, without fools like you, the robbers and murderers could not operate. You're a fellow traveller of Pinochet, Yeltsin, Bush, Suharto, Deng. Nice company.
Bullshit. You're tarring me with a brush dipped in buckets round the uselessnet. Say, how come you left Putin off your list?
I don't even understand what your comment is trying to say. It looks a lot like "boo hoo hoo hoo mommy nasty man said i smell of poo poo", when the truth is you merit what I said. I've never really understood why working men would be rightists. Maybe you buy all the "freedom" bullshit and don't see the harm in it.
I left Putin off my list because it wasn't exhaustive and all the people I named are either no longer in power or Bush.
No boo hoo, I was saying you were reacting not so much to me as to a number of so-called right-wingers you interact with, who have all mashed together in your head. This is partly because you bought into that Left vs Right b.s. paradigm, partly because you can't be arsed to tell people apart, I don't know, whatever. You are right, though, I see there is no harm in Freedom. Freedom is universal, and is not freedom if it does not apply to everyone. Therefore, as you continually fail to see, my freedom does not include the freedom to restrict anyone else's. Of course, you're concern re libertarians is of insufficiently restricted commerce. But there is nothing wrong with paying some bloke less than he wants to paint my house, if it turns out he will do it for what I am paying anyway. The harm would be in forcing him to do it -- just as the harm would also be in forcing me to pay more if, without such coercive aid, paying more isn't necessary. :-)
1. You do not understand that you are fairly typical of rightwingers on the web. You think your thinking is special but it's just the same apologia for greed and nationalism that I read a lot.
2. The harm that you don't see in freedom is that free capital can destroy people's lives. You see enriched elites and think that things have improved in places like Chile or Russia. I see the people below the poverty line. Do you have any idea what happened in those places, Don? I strongly suggest you read Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein and get a little bit of a clue.
3. Furthermore, you just don't seem to understand that freedom expressed by someone with connections or military backing can take what you might consider more equitably to belong to others. A nation's resources do not belong to the greediest, most powerful or wealthiest, Don. They belong to all. Freedom without a level playing field is just a way to privilege the already privileged further. Of course, you are privileged, and do not understand that you could become not so privileged in a moment. Read Naomi Klein. When you read the numbers of middle class people who slipped below the poverty line in some countries maybe it will strike you. Middle class people, Don, like you.
4. You do not understand coercion, Don. Like most rightwingers, you think it is only a question of violence. But there are many ways to coerce a person to do something.
Post a Comment
<< Home