>> ^longde:
Is that any surprise?
Jefferson Davis, General Lee, and G W Bush are still considered heroes here by many.


G W Bush when talking about Stalin? Really? Come on, hyperbole like that just causes ill informed people to ignore the real criticisms of Bush and co. as well. He and his administration authorized torture and to this day insist that they did not need to extend Geneva convention rights to prisoners. They aught to be in jail. Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler. He needs to be cloned and brutally murdered in the center of Moscow at the start of every year.

The amount of spin in 2:53 of video is astounding.

"Hurting America First" - Didn't it hurt America to start using torture in the first place? One of the key states to fight against the policies of Nazi Germany, the Stasi, the KGB and Khmer Rouge. One of the main founders and signatories of the Geneva convention?

"Showing military men and women in bad light" - Torture policy was top down not bottom up, we are to hold those who put these policies forward not those made to carry them out as orders. John Yoo, David Addington, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney. It was not a few bad apples.

"Voyeurism" - Was it voyeurism to cite 9/11 in almost every campaign speech during the elections? Was it voyeurism to acknowledge the victims of the holocaust? More diversionary spin. Such steps would assure these events will never occur again. One must see the mistakes of before to learn from them lest we repeat this again.

"Acts that have ended" - The acts were supposed to have ended with the Abu Ghraib scandal, but they didn't. It was a policy that was implemented and carried out before and after the scandal broke and would have kept going had the information not been leaked out.

"Hurting our National defense/Reason for suicide bombers" - The reasons for suicide bombing and attacks on America are plentiful for those who choose to do so. The way the statement is framed doesn't acknowledge that actually carrying out torture has been a great boon to creating more terrorists, or that its continual oppression and denial only furthers the case that America has a hypocritical stance. "It's bad when others do it, but its okay for us to do it."

"Replayed in the Arab world" - This is a lie. I live in the Arab world, we have enough of our own issues, the accusations of torture coming out were not surprising as the Arabs already know that Americans do not really care about the plight of the Arab people given the long history of political meddling in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine, Iraq and Iran.

"Hurt the military" - Again an example of attacking the grunts instead of attacking those who created and put this forward these policies.

"Reveal intelligence gather techniques" - There has not been a single document published by the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the US military nor any other intelligence gathering component of the US government that has showed unequivocally that torture had prevented attacks and or has made America safer in anyway. What it has do is cost America the moral standing, the support of the international world and created strained relations across the world providing fuel for terrorist organizations to attack the US more then ever.

Waterboarding seems more humane than homicide bombings, honor killings, cutting the heads off journalists and flying planes into buildings.

These disgusting subhuman terrorists deserve zero protection from any court of law, certainly not the ones in countries they seek to destroy.

Let any enemy nation declare these subhumans as their own soldiers. Then they'll finally be worthy of Geneva Conventions protection while their country of origin is erased from the earth.

good for shepard smith!
i totally agree.
the fact that this is even still being debated in the media makes my head hurt.
the fact is kids:
waterboarding =torture.
not only according to article 3 of the geneva convention,but our own federal interrogation laws.
fact #2=study after study has shown no discernable,factual or otherwise,information has been obtained through the use of these methods.
regardless of the flimsy claims by the executive branch.
we are america and we dont fucking torture...
well said mr smith..well said.

For the most part, I follow and agree with what Obama is saying, in that this has to be dealt with carefully and especially in a bipartisan fashion. However, I am not as sure I agree regarding where the guilt fully lies.

Guilt at the top of the chain of command, those giving the orders, is of no debate to me. Those people need to be punished (according to Rule of Law) as they gave criminal orders to those that performed the torture. On a side note, I hate the use of the words "enhanced interrogation"... fucking call it what it is.

At the same time, "I just following orders", the Nuremberg Defense, has been used many times in modern history as an excuse for doing the inexcusable. There is a reason why international law, such as the Geneva Conventions, exist. This is specifially why the Nuremberg Principle IV was written.

There are rules, even in war. This is a moral issue that deserves greater international public debate, and I think Obama may have spoken too early, essentially giving pardons to those on the frontlines, those that performed the actual torture.

The sad thing, is that if it was a weaker country (in other words, one that could not defend it's sovereignty, not a superpower) that performed these acts the debate would be alot shorter, and those involved could expect to be punished for their actions. This will not be the first time the US government says "screw you" to international law and decide to prosecute/pardon these people under their own system, which will be much more gentle.

That is a perpetual problem with international law and world courts... ultimately a country that exercises it's sovereignty to the degree of the US (China and Russia are included in this) can do whatever they want with little consequences in the short term, if ever. They have no obligation to international law or the world courts because they can do whatever they want. The illegal war in Iraq is a perfect example of this sort of violation. A justice system with no real accountability or support is in the end a failure.

In the end, I will be happy enough if the big players, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield answered for their crimes (not just related to torture, but going into Iraq, illegal wire tapping... the works). I just think it is too early to be dishing out pardons to anyone.

I was under the impression that the Geneva convention forbids the military using shotguns on personnel. Maybe that only applies to particular ammunition like buckshot though. Not that anyone gives a damn about the Geneva convention anymore anyways.

The Bush Administration and the Republican Party have single-handedly made us hated across the globe with their needless wars, bloodshed, coups and disregard for the Geneva Convention. Anti-war, pro-labor and respect for the world we live in is the mantra of the Democrat Party, and the Republicans could take a cue from some of our presidents: LBJ, JFK, Truman, FDR and Woodrow Wilson.

>> ^SpeveO:
Did your pride also swell when Canada let George Bush, unrepentant war criminal, tap dance across the border? Oh right, he's not a war criminal, he's a humanitarian who saved the Iraqi people from blah blah blah insert hypocrisy here.


I would in fact be quite happy if Canada would try him for crimes against humanity in allowing torture and refusing to abide by the Geneva Convention. Just note that the list of people I would want to be on the list with Bush is extremely long and extends to far more outside America than in it.

What, is anyone actually surprised that attacking Bush doesn't actually fly as a defense for even worse scum like Mr. Galloway?

Ya know what QM? You will never be a highdileeho.

My karma is different from his. I respect his decision to serve and he has to live with his life decisions like everyone else. Same with Corporal Twinkie, who is doing his brothers and sisters a grave disservice, even if he is sincere. If any of you think the war against this SCUM is anywhere near over, guess again. Jihadists don't give up until they're dead. Or you're dead. Or both.

He put his life on the line for his country, and will never have the same bloodthirst that you spout here.

My "bloodthirst" is mostly limited to jihadist fktards who want to kill Americans and other civilized peoples. That's the price I gladly pay for not being a moral relativist: recognizing there is real evil in the world, and that this world has real consequences for appeasement stupidity.

I'm a non-combat veteran...now, I don't know if that meets the high standards liberals set for everyone but themselves, and I've never had to shoot anyone, but the US GOV could've sent me into the fire and I would've gone. Unlike in Congress, military oaths to defend the Constitution mean something.

- Article 3 of Geneva conventions requires humane treatment of all persons held. Furthermore on June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution. International and American rights apply to them.

Well, guess what, the dumbshts in the legal system have been wrong plenty of times before. They tried this bullsht with captured Nazi spies, that is, attempting to give them Constitutional rights, but the country was more sane in the 1940s and instead they were dealt with properly.

"The ones that have been released quickly rejoin [...] their jihad."

National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, states that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all 18 people on the "confirmed" list have "returned" to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released.

Ah, so that's acceptable to you, those "small" numbers? How many a-holes did it take to bring about 9-11? Oh, that's right, that doesn't count, because the 9-11 jihadist scum were from Country X and not Country Z. Brilliant reasoning, libs.

The US looked for legal loopholes to justify its detention program at Gitmo, nor could it trail them as it had torture testimony which is inadmissible in a court of law.

Well, given the choice of calling this a real war against a real enemy or "Bush's Game" I'll gladly err on the side of real war. Let the animals run wild and free over some "clever" legal ACLU wrangling and before long you won't have a society to defend.

Wouldn't you rejoin? I mean if this group of jihadists captured you and put you in a shitty hole with crappy accommodations, when you were released wouldn't you come running back and join military...well you wouldn't cause you're a pussy, but somebody with balls would...

LOOKIT ME EVERYONE!...I'M TALKIN' TOUGH...ON THE INTERNETS. I CALL YOU NAME!

It's not some alien we're dealing with...it's people. So I don't know why you act so surprised when humans follow their own nature to feel hatred when they're mistreated.

I understand the "feelings" of Gitmo detainees and nothing they do surprises me. Go to any prison in America and you'll find plenty of the same resentment, since every one of those guys is ALSO not guilty! They'll tell you so! They were set up!

Why do liberals act surprised that there is real hatred towards jihadist animals sawing off heads, homicide bombing, beating women, honor killing, etc.

Liberals are always angry and ashamed of America first and "the oppressed" last. They just don't see this, the way a fish can't see the water. Maybe they're too fking far gone to notice, who knows. NYC could be suitcase nuked tomorrow and they'd use Gitmo to justify it.

"Gitmo detainees are not prisoners of war nor enemy combatants fighting under any nation's flag, so American and International rights don't apply to them."

- Article 3 of Geneva conventions requires humane treatment of all persons held. Furthermore on June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution. International and American rights apply to them.

"The ones that have been released quickly rejoin [...] their jihad."

National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, states that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all 18 people on the "confirmed" list have "returned" to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released.

The US looked for legal loopholes to justify its detention program at Gitmo, nor could it trail them as it had torture testimony which is inadmissible in a court of law.

More reading material - http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/article_2110.jsp and http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/02/12/detainees.documents/index.html

Assume you are the unitary executive of the US, and don't need to worry about Congress, the Constitution, the Geneva conventions, or deficit caps (i.e. pretend you're Bush, only smarter).

I would publicly execute the bankers convicted of fraud, nothing special, just a bag and bullet to the head. Their assets would be seized and given to charities to pass out to the needy. Government would be drastically reduced. No more welfare state. I believe people would step up and help their fellow man when government is not used as an excuse not to help. No more social engineering through legislation, do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, if you're hurting yourself don't expect the government to bail you out. Anytime the military is needed war must be declared by the congress. In fact no more standing army except for nuke guardians. Any invasion of the US would not last long, almost everyone should be armed. Balanced budgets, hard money, no more fractional reserve banking. Now that the power is back in the people's hands, it will be written into the constitution in lawyer speak so there will be no misunderstanding and no loopholes, no more power grabs by Presidents and no more fucking with the currency no matter how well intentioned. Then I'll return to plowing my fields.

Just another example of "Might Is Right".

White phosphorous was used by the US in Fallujah and it was used by Israel in Gaza.

Geneva Conventions only apply to rogue states.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I'm trying to poke and prod the insanity that allows some to ignore the atrocities Muslims have inflicted on the world throughout the centuries

Atrocities were committed by Christians and other religious dominations for centuries as well, you are connecting a religion with a political conflict. Islamic terrorism uses Islam simply as a tool not as a idealogical cornerstone.

in favor of exploiting and getting hysterical over what amount to minor infractions which likely saved innocent lives.

Minor infractions to someone who doesn't respect the moral and ethical standing of the US in the international arena. Americans won World War 2 and the Cold War because it did not succumb to the same thinking that drove oppressive regimes like that, the entire American ideology is built around Law and respect for Civil Liberties. You are supporting a means to a end that would basically bring down the America you seek to save.

When you let government nationalize once-free markets, you are giving up freedom for an assumed quality of health security.

This is just stupid Right wing alarmist rubbish, if the socialization of health care means that people do not receive health care please explain the high health rates amongst 'socialist' states like Japan, England, Canada and most of Europe. Thanks.

Health care is not a commodity thus you cannot create a free market around it, you can create a free market in it's provision but not in its supply. Corporations don't care about social health and welfare, they care about profits.

History does not support this conclusion. There have been over 12,000 attacks by Islamic terrorists since 9/11 and no news anywhere that Obama's election has given terrorists pause.

It's fucking January 24th 2009. How long has Obama been in power?

Call it a personality defect, but I feel nothing for people sworn to kill me for being an American or infidel.

Am muslim. I never really had the need to kill you because you are a kaffir. You are too amusing to be lost.

These scum are not part of a legitimate fighting force so they can't be sent home, nor do they qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions, which they ignore completely.

Under Geneva Conventions Article 3 they are covered for capture. The Geneva Conventions give no coverage in the face of crimes, thus your allegation that they are given blanket protection is ill informed.

It's only treason to question The One's judgment and secrecy here at liberalsift.

Says the person who would vehemently defend each and every decision that Bush would make, even claiming that questioning his thinking was treason, before reversing course and calling him a soft Conservative and a RINO half way through 2007.

You're having a conversation with yourself. You don't even listen to what people say right here in this thread.

To the contrary, I know EXACTLY what is being said here. I'm trying to poke and prod the insanity that allows some to ignore the atrocities Muslims have inflicted on the world throughout the centuries in favor of exploiting and getting hysterical over what amount to minor infractions which likely saved innocent lives.

Why do liberals act appalled when it is suggested they hate America? What other conclusion could anyone reach observing such fault-finding? What kind of madness prompts the victims of violence to ask "What did we do to make them hate us?"

Franklin was talking about limits on search and seizure, freedom of speech, and habeas corpus, not the freedom to have your medical treatment denied by pencil pushers, and I think deep down you know that.

What's the more likely scenario, black helicopters and stormtroopers or some bureaucrat deciding you go to the back of the waiting list for a heart transplant? When you let government nationalize once-free markets, you are giving up freedom for an assumed quality of health security. Per the quote, in the end you get neither.

By closing Guantanamo (on pretty much the first day of business no less), Obama has sent a clear message to the world, and "terrorists" will have a harder time recruiting to fight what they perceive as injustices--like torture.

History does not support this conclusion. There have been over 12,000 attacks by Islamic terrorists since 9/11 and no news anywhere that Obama's election has given terrorists pause.

Call it a personality defect, but I feel nothing for people sworn to kill me for being an American or infidel. These scum are not part of a legitimate fighting force so they can't be sent home, nor do they qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions, which they ignore completely. The best we can do for them is send them to Allah, postage paid.

Oh, and BTW, if criticism of Bush was anti-government and treason, any and all criticism of Obama is now anti-government treason.

It's only treason to question The One's judgment and secrecy here at liberalsift.

For now. :0)

Now take note, as I quote the Geneva conventions:

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

-Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Part III Article 17 paragraph IV