>> ^quantumushroom:
AG Eric Holder tried and failed to prosecute waterboarding as torture. It goes something like this: Navy SEALS are waterboarded as part of their training, with the goals of building resistance and familiarity with enemy forces that might do it. Navy SEALS were not waterboarded with the goal of inflicting permanent damage. The Sheikh subjected to waterboarding was ALSO not being injured with a goal of inflicting permanent damage; his waterboarding was done to gain valuable intelligence.
Is there a liberal with the nerve to tell the survivors and families of victims of a terrorist attack, "Sorry, since we don't torture captives, we had no way of knowing about the imminent attack."? Because that's the true result to which s/he should be held accountable.
Liberalism thrives on justifying anti-common sense from the darker edges of morally gray areas. It's preposterous to me that on this one issue (torture), the liberal movement, as it were, claims to be rocksteady, while at the same time unlawfully bestowing legal protections reserved for legitimate soldiers on savages fighting under no country's flag, who violate all the rules of warfare.
Despite what moral relativists claim, it is entirely possible for a human being to commit savage acts which forfeit all his rights to humane treatment, the protection of laws, and life itself.

It's easy to understand why the "liberals" feel the way they do about torture when you take the number of innocent people that were tortured and you put yourself in their situation. You're minding your own business and you get picked up, without habeas corpus being extended to you, and are interrogated ruthlessly for information that you do not have. Not only is this wrong and archaic, it may "make" enemies that were indifferent before. If you were picked up by a bunch of Muslim extremists, would you not be willing to do whatever it took to get back at that group? Now imagine if your only education told you that every Muslim extremist represents the ideals of a certain country. You'd wanna want to be a part in hurting that country.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'arrest, unconstitutional, habeas corpus, statist, authoritarian, liberty' to 'sam dodson, arrest, unconstitutional, habeas corpus, statist, authoritarian, liberty' - edited by kronosposeidon

ya beat me to it RASCH!
the debate if torture is a political right or wrong,or if its its even justified
is IRRELEVANT.
let me say that again for those who got their intellect from a cracker jack box.
the debate on whether torture is righteous,or a political ideology is IRRELEVANT.
RASCH is correct.according to article 3 of the geneva convention,and CIA,NSA and fbi legal guidelines,waterboarding is considered TORTURE,therefore it is against the LAW.not just international law,but national.
dont like the law?then CHANGE it.
but bybee,addington and woo did not do that did they?
they created retro-active legislation that RETROACTIVELY gave immunity to those who were the architects of the iraq war.
if the bush administration was so righteous in the iraq war and its prosecution,why would they have senior white house legal counsel create laws to grant immunity..retroactively?
answer=because the prosecution of the "war on terror" was an illegal war,using illegal "interrogation techniques".
in the aftermath of world war 2,three japanese interrogators were executed.
their crime?...waterboarding.
which court prosecuted these japanese interrogators?....american.
there IS NO ARGUMENT....waterboarding is against the LAW..period.
so for those who feel they can turn this into a political diatribe are just being weak-minded,or even worse...tools for an establishment who left their ideologies a long time ago.
while bansheex may be corrct that in the past it was the democracts who were the chickenhawks,it is BESIDE THE POINT,and has no relevance to the current argument.
and QM's argument is just one big red herring,and avoids the real point in order to push his "i hate libs" polemic.
this IS NOT A POLITICAL TALKING POINT.this is about the honor of the USA and how we,as a nation,are all equal UNDER THE LAW.
jesse ventura put it perfectly,and i agree,i dont care if it was a repub,or a dem that knew about this,and either by action OR inaction allowed this perversion to go on.ALL of them should be held accountable.
this new development with the additional abu ghraib pictures NOT being revealed has me fuming.it smacks of political hubris.my guess is that some
prominent politicians will be exposed as having known about these abuses and let it slide for political expediency.i find this VERY distasteful.
no-one should be above the law.
and waterboarding is torture,it was developed for the sole purpose of producing a "false confession" and did nothing to gather or obtain pertinent information,but did a great job in making our country seem the hypocrite and made or soldiers far less safe.
and QM..please read up on the legalities please.the "national flag" defense was a construct by the bybee/addington crew to do exactly what you did here..
defend torture,and was corrected in 2006.that argument can no longer be used.
somebody else mentioned "citizen rights"..yeah..ok...
go check out MCA of 2006,patriot act 1& 2,victory act 1& 2.
all they have to do is deem you an "enemy combatant" and your whisked away to "secret rendition" club med.there was a post here a few weeks ago about a 16 yr old who was brought in under the patriot act,he lost all rights as a citizen.no habeas corpus,no rights of redress,the state does not have to produce evidence under the vague banner of "national security".
this whole things stinks to high heaven,reeking of political malfeasance and abuse.the worst thing is how it indirectly puts our soldiers in a much worse situation than before.and for what?...nothing,absolutely nothing.
i didnt serve my country to watch a bunch of gray haired chicken hawk pussies,who didnt have the balls to sign up when called, but now are all trash talking tough guys,who put MY kids in danger.
bunch of panty-waist,pussy fags.
im done...there is no argument.
against the law..period.
either change the law,or shut the fuck up.
better yet,put your money where your mouth is,and go sign up for the army.
lets see you trash talk then.
fucking pussies.
/rant OFF
thanks for tuning in to:enoch's cathartic rant.

>> ^PoweredBySoy:
What kind of bullshit news piece is this? Completely one-sided. I'd like to hear the FBI's side of the story, the evidence in hand, what Ashton actually did, etc... and then judge from there.


thats the POINT!
with habeas corpus ashton would have the RIGHT to hear what evidence the FBI had against him.
the PATRIOT ACT gives the FBI authority to negate habeas corpus,strip ashton of that fundamental right,deem him "enemy combatant" and hold him indefinately.
all without EVER having to reveal the "evidence" in the name of "national security".
are ya skrrd yet?
dont worry..
him will be...
him will be.


lets hope this works out.
maybe if enough attention is brought to bare,
these abominations of "fear" legislation will be recinded.

oh dear,
this is an instance where the years of my ranting and railing against such despicable legislation and their inherent consequences would never be fully realized.
patriot act 1 & 2
victory act 1& 2
military commissions act..to name a few.
xax is right,when a nation surrenders freedoms in exchange for safety,
they lose both.
habeas corpus was a british law dating back to 1250 a.d.
a powerful,fundamental right of a citizen to face his accusers and ask "why"?
under the new legislation thinly disguised as the made-up "war on terror",fundamental freedoms are suspended.
all the state has to do is deem you "enemy combatant".
how many wingnuts attacked me for writing that very line?
all because they were too lazy to read,and thought media personalities spoke true i.e hannity,limbaugh etc etc.
he is only a boy for christ sake!
i dont even know what to say......
im just gonna go break down in a corner and weep like a lil girl.
shame...tragic shame...

oh...and a note to any hannity/limbaugh lovers who feel they need to defend their heroes honor,and blast this 16 yr old...
do yourself a favor...dont.
im in no mood to deal with "teh stupit".
i wont play nice..
because this is just wrong on so many levels..too many.

>> ^evan:
If I'm not mistaken, and correct me if I'm wrong (I know and hope you will)...but the right to habeas corpus under what legal document, exactly? As far as I'm aware, that only applies to Americans

Under the US Constitution. Article I, section 9, expressing limits on what the legislature can do:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Nothing about where or to whom it applies, but there is the "public safety" escape clause (altough rebellion and invasion would be slightly harder arguments). It was certainly intended to apply to non-citizens on US soil, but non-citizens held overseas by a military court in an undeclared* military action are in a grayer zone.

The same section (article I, section 9) also prohibits ex post facto laws, titles of nobility, and duties on goods sent from state to state.

* The military action is not a declared war, but is "authorized" in some manner never described by the constitution

Your video, Colbert: Obama Denies Habeas Corpus, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^Memorare:
shhhhh, you're not supposed to point out blatant hypocrisy when it's Bama!

No, man, we do.
We lefties are funny like that.


Aye, I don't think right wingers get the idea that lefties won't cling to someone (even if you disagree with their politics) like they do because they'd rather appear loyal than acting on their conscience.

So, to clarify, if someone promises you good stuff, then doesn't deliver, we'll criticise them. Regardless of patisan bias.

You're Wrong.

>> ^evan:
correct me if I'm wrong

If I'm not mistaken, and correct me if I'm wrong (I know and hope you will)...but the right to habeas corpus under what legal document, exactly? As far as I'm aware, that only applies to Americans.

I'm all for granting POWs and "detainees" habeas corpus, but if what I think I know is true, there's no legal basis for it, and the DOJ might be fighting it on purely legal grounds. Of course, if they're doing that and Obama's not out front going "yes, but...we're going to grant them this instead", then the criticism, I feel, might be valid.

>> ^Memorare:
shhhhh, you're not supposed to point out blatant hypocrisy when it's Bama!


No, man, we do.

We lefties are funny like that.

Some prefer a political and economic leader who spends his time studying, reading, and writing about politics and economics rather than following the latest pop culture...

I guess thats why you vote for people like Obama who exploit pop culture to manipulate your feelings and actions; and then expand the wars overseas, fail to legalize drugs, support the RIAA levying $150,000 fines for mp3s, fail to support habeas corpus, fail to take a stand against torture, fail to stop millions going to CEOs, etc. etc.

If you want someone to laugh at Sacha Cohen with you, try finding people in your town rather than the voting booth. Obama doesn't give a shit about you or your life, but you may be able to find a few in your town who do.

I cannot say how Obama should be a fascist, but it's pretty easy to say that about Bush:
Patriot Act
removal of Habeas Corpus for certain people
war crimes

These are all bad things and Bush did 'em all.

>> ^blankfist:
Sure he would, rougy. Abe Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, spent money before Congress appropriated it, and imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial. (cited) In a large way, his presidency mimics that of George W. Bush. He was the first Republican.


Hmmm...seems that whole "slavery" thing would not have sat well with the country club set. You know...workers having rights and all that. What was that catchy name he gave it?

The Emancipation Proclamation?

What was that all about? Liberation and fairness or some such progressive nonsense?

Emancipation! Ha! A real slave would emancipate himself, then buy a cotton field, and buy more slaves! And the beauty of the free market would continue unabated! As God intended!

And what of his anti-capitalistic tendencies? Especially regarding the Mexican-American war and the spread of slavery into the new territories. Think of the capital gains, lost, lost now forever!

Maybe he was a Marxist?

Sure he would, rougy. Abe Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, spent money before Congress appropriated it, and imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial. (cited) In a large way, his presidency mimics that of George W. Bush. He was the first Republican.

The first Democrat was Andrew Jackson and equally a terrible president. He was racist and signed in the Indian Removal Act which lead to the trail of tears. The Cherokees, instead of fighting, took the government to the Supreme Court and won, but Jackson didn't care about that. He said, the court "has made [their] decision, now let [them] enforce it!" (cited)