Should we impeach President Bush?
moultano
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<a href="http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Today-Lauer-Bush.mov" target="_blank">http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Today-Lauer-Bush.mov</a>
Would any reasonable person believe that waterboarding <i>doesn't</i> qualify under "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment"? Under the laws of the United States of America, that makes it a war crime.
Would any reasonable person believe that waterboarding <i>doesn't</i> qualify under "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment"? Under the laws of the United States of America, that makes it a war crime.
Comments
Problem is, Kerry was worse <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
And god knows who's gonna run next election.
He's got short of two and a half years left. Even if we DID impeach him, and it actually passed (in spite of all the people who scream that Republicans have taken over the country and still expect that somehow an impeachment trial will actually be fair), then who'll take the reigns then? Cheney? Good GOD people, I love Bush and even <b>I</b> don't want Cheney in office! Think, people. THINK.
And even if we decide Cheney is better in the chair than Bush is, he'll have to reorganize his cabinet, take check of everything, get up to speed on the new things he may be preview to, and start making decisions to counter-act everything that has fallen to pieces in the country because of the impeachment BEFORE he can ever pick up the reigns as the real president. He may be in action in 3 or 4 months. Impeachment trials taking their precious time, Cheney could be in office for a whole year, and we may be worse for wear because during all this time we'd be pretty damn vulnerable to whatever sort of attack anyone else would want to hurl at us be it politicial, military, or otherwise.
Of course this is all proceeding under the assumption that the Geneva Convention is followed by ANYONE who signed it. Dollars to donuts says it's not - hell the discipline any respectable military uses to train it's own can probably be classified as torture. "Let he who is without guilt cast the first stone," eh?
Not to mention that punishment MUST be unordinary and MUST be a little inhuman or it serves no purpose, but I guess that's more of a personal opinion.
In the end, I'm sure alot of people salivate for this sort of thing: it's a fitting end to alot of unnecessary drama created around a man who really hasn't done anything worse than anyone else has ever done. Leading a country and deciding the fates of people's lives is a really damned hard thing to do, I imagine.
But, no, obviously, I DON'T think Bush should be impeached. I think it would be a waste of time, effort, and resources on pushing out a man who's gonna be out of office in 2 years anyway. Hell - write your next candidate for president and ask that they campaign with a promise of bring Bush up on war crime charges if you want. After he's out of office it'll cost alot less to try him. I'm sure if the Republicans can puppeteer an attack on American soil, two subsequent wars, and clandestine operations of money making overseas, then someone has to be able to make a trial for Bush happen post-term. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
I could go on and on about how a 17 second pause upon hearing the news of 9/11 while in front of a group of gradeschool children may not be a bad thing (shaddup Bill Maher), or pointing out how it was, in fact, the Clinton adminstration who hyped up the internet economy before it crashed, reduced our military, and ###### off alot of mid-eastern nations with slap-of-the-wrist cruise missile attacks that killed more good civilians than terrorists, but I'll subside.
Impeachment trials taking their precious time, Cheney could be in office for a whole year, and we may be worse for wear because during all this time we'd be pretty damn vulnerable to whatever sort of attack anyone else would want to hurl at us be it politicial, military, or otherwise.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that's where the American media shines through in style! Go go Fox news. Instill as much fear as possible into the population and you can get away with anything.
As for impeaching Bush (I first looked up the requirements for impeachment), I think it's really not worth it. You impeached Clinton, and look who got in <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> With the 2 party system in the US, it leaves little choice for replacement and just isn't worth it.
And that's where the American media shines through in style! Go go Fox news. Instill as much fear as possible into the population and you can get away with anything.
As for impeaching Bush (I first looked up the requirements for impeachment), I think it's really not worth it. You impeached Clinton, and look who got in <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> With the 2 party system in the US, it leaves little choice for replacement and just isn't worth it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not fear so much as not letting your guard down. How many terrorist attacks in how many countries which were part of the coalition into Afghanistan? Lots. And that's just the serious stuff, what people obviously think of when they read my statement.
I'm also talking about more ribbings from those dirty French, for example <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> (Nah, really... the French are good folk). "Oh, loooook! Those idiot American's finally impeached the tyrant. Too bad they can't even handle that right! See how long it's taking them to get him out of office? American's are SOOOOOO stupid! HAHAHAHA!" etc.
Personally, I don't wanna hear any more of that than I have to. Actually, I'm a little sick of everyone saying we're paranoid and it's desirable just let other countries do whatever they want. (Now, THAT sounds a little closer to appeasement than what people have been casing us with along the same lines) We don't live in mortal fear of terrorist attacks; if we did, we would leave the house for anything. But we do. We go about our lives as we always have, we're just more apt to believe it when people say something <i>could</i> happen.
But we're getting off topic.
And, comp, impeachment would mean that ###### Cheney was in charge if it succeeded. We <b>did</b> impeach Clinton, but he didn't get ousted. Not quite the same thing, and definately not as disruptive as the real McCoy would be to our nation.
We should impeach him for not simply bombing the crap out of the Iraq military, for sending troops over without adequate body armor and vehicular armor, and for being an overall idiot.
Problem is, Kerry was worse <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
And god knows who's gonna run next election.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It always amazes me how Kerry is "worse" when the man was not even given a chance to act as President.
Honestly... how you can you _possibly_ know that? Crystal ball anyone ?
<!--quoteo(post=1567151:date=Sep 20 2006, 07:09 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Sep 20 2006, 07:09 PM) [snapback]1567151[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I don't know, but it always strikes me as interesting that people start to play the "impeachment" card near the end of a president's last term. Cept in the case of Nixon, but come on. That WAS Nixon to be honest.
He's got short of two and a half years left. Even if we DID impeach him, and it actually passed (in spite of all the people who scream that Republicans have taken over the country and still expect that somehow an impeachment trial will actually be fair), then who'll take the reigns then? Cheney? Good GOD people, I love Bush and even <b>I</b> don't want Cheney in office! Think, people. THINK.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well perhaps it would send a message to the next corrupt smug bugger in office to behave? Just a thought.
It always amazes me how Kerry is "worse" when the man was not even given a chance to act as President.
Honestly... how you can you _possibly_ know that? Crystal ball anyone ?
Well perhaps it would send a message to the next corrupt smug bugger in office to behave? Just a thought.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kerry crapped out on Vietman in a few months with 3 (count em, THREE) purple hearts for injury in combat. If you actually did something to earn those commendations, it would take you as long as he was in theater to recover from the wound that bought you one of them.
This is all in my honest opinion and makes him a soundrel. I'd take a fellow who joined up with the air guard and went drunk and awol any day over a guy who was really a coward and then pretends that his "service" grants him a commission as president. That's my right as a voter.
[edit]The cost of TWO impeachment trials would be even worse for us. I can tell you with as much certainty that I can muster that Cheney will not be slowed by any "message" an impeachment of Bush would send. The impeachment would probably make him happy.[/edit]
For me, impeaching him would be a matter of principle. There are so many of his actions that are either extra-legal or quasi-legal, and protected from prosecution only by the Republican congressional majority, the classification of evidence, and the rhetoric of the war on terror. I think we are at the point that at the very least subpoenas need to be issued.
Regardless of whether any of his actions were the tactically smart thing to do, many appear to violate the law in such a way that they would be exposed if subjected to legal scrutiny in the court system. I firmly believe that respecting the law is a higher calling than protecting us from terrorism.
This is all in my honest opinion and makes him a soundrel. I'd take a fellow who joined up with the air guard and went drunk and awol any day over a guy who was really a coward and then pretends that his "service" grants him a commission as president. That's my right as a voter.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand that logic at all, how can you possibly claim that Kerry was a 'coward' especially in light of your support for Bush, who we all know, has a terrible military record. You said it yourself, Bush was a <b>deserter</b>.
Anyway back to the issue, Clinton was impeached for far less, so i say go for it, even though it would take god knows how long to pass.
I don't understand that logic at all, how can you possibly claim that Kerry was a 'coward' especially in light of your support for Bush, who we all know, has a terrible military record. You said it yourself, Bush was a <b>deserter</b>.
Anyway back to the issue, Clinton was impeached for far less, so i say go for it, even though it would take god knows how long to pass.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
AWOL doesn't imply desertion. And he was in the air guard, like I said. A far cry from a nastey little river delta were men actually depend on you. Either way, it can be said that both candidates were in it simply to enter politics with military service under their belt. The only difference between them is that Kerry wanted to be another personification of the "Kennedy style," the good old Navy officer/gentlemen. He was far from it and once he was knee deep in the dung, he ran away.
Bush probably just got drunk and decided he didn't want to report in for his air guard duty. This is irresponsibile, yes. But it also outlines a period in his life where he clearly admits he had a problem and is trying in earnest (at least that's what he <i>says</i>) to correct and learn from it.
Going AWOL from a national air guard unit that meets only certain times in the year and was never activated for combat service is slightly different from ducking out of performing a vulenteered combat term as a commissioned officer of the United States Navy. At least that's how I feel about it, and I'm sure alot of other people do, too. "Trying" to fight and then chickening out when people depend on you is far worse than never being there at all. It means you're a quitter. I could point to Kerry's "flip-flop" record for further evidence of his non-stick-to-itiveness, but apparently, we're not allowed to play that card.
And Bush, following his un-accounted for 1-year absense from duty (this is misleading because 1 year for a guard unit isn't really a whole year of service but a minor fraction of that. "Weekend Warriors" ring a bell?), Bush got back on the horse and performed alot of extra service, so it seams. This indicates an ability to stay the course, even knowing you messed up big time. That goes a long way for me.
Then there's also the bit were Kerry flaunted his "military service." That's what really breaks the bone for me. You could be Audie Murphy running for office and if you flaunted your service to the army I would be upset about it, but someone with Kerry's track record has absolutely NO buisness naming off commendations as justified reason for office.
The ones who's military record really does make that difference are the ones who stay quiet about it, because the service has taught them what it means to sacrifice. And that virtue of sacrifice is what makes them a good civic leader. Flaunting your ability to sacrifice automatically negates that you have any ability at all, because such vanity is the opposite of sacrifice.
About kerry's military records vs bush. According to kerry's doctor, he has atleast suffered 1 injury (a shrapnel in the thigh). So that would <i>indicate</i> that his claims are not completely bogus.
Kerry crapped out on Vietman in a few months with 3 (count em, THREE) purple hearts for injury in combat. If you actually did something to earn those commendations, it would take you as long as he was in theater to recover from the wound that bought you one of them.
This is all in my honest opinion and makes him a soundrel. I'd take a fellow who joined up with the air guard and went drunk and awol any day over a guy who was really a coward and then pretends that his "service" grants him a commission as president. That's my right as a voter.
[edit]The cost of TWO impeachment trials would be even worse for us. I can tell you with as much certainty that I can muster that Cheney will not be slowed by any "message" an impeachment of Bush would send. The impeachment would probably make him happy.[/edit]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, the thing is though, only one candidate actually made it over to Vietnam, regardless of Kerry's bravery or lack thereof that's a fact. Bush stayed behind in relative safety.
From what I can tell you are bothered by the fact that Kerry tried to use his service as a selling point whereas Bush did not. Fair enough.
However, I ask again, how you can possibly know that Kerry would have been a worse president? Again, that is in my opinion just not possible and not fair to Kerry, as he was never given that chance.
As far as impeachment goes: How do you justify not wanting Kerry for president based on principle and yet throw principle out the window when you are quite happy with Bush remaining president ?
<!--quoteo(post=1567427:date=Sep 22 2006, 04:19 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Sep 22 2006, 04:19 PM) [snapback]1567427[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I could point to Kerry's "flip-flop" record for further evidence of his non-stick-to-itiveness, but apparently, we're not allowed to play that card.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's settle this 'flip-flop' business once and for all shall we ?
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
Well, the thing is though, only one candidate actually made it over to Vietnam, regardless of Kerry's bravery or lack thereof that's a fact. Bush stayed behind in relative safety.
From what I can tell you are bothered by the fact that Kerry tried to use his service as a selling point whereas Bush did not. Fair enough.
However, I ask again, how you can possibly know that Kerry would have been a worse president? Again, that is in my opinion just not possible and not fair to Kerry, as he was never given that chance.
As far as impeachment goes: How do you justify not wanting Kerry for president based on principle and yet throw principle out the window when you are quite happy with Bush remaining president ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If a man knows he can't handle combat, and chooses not to enter it, I got no problem with that. He can even screw up real bad an try to make ammends. I can't expect the impossibile out of a leader, and with the media so quick on their game these days, it's not as easy to hide blemishes as it once was.
Given the choice between a man who ran from combat and a man who didn't go in, I take the man who didn't go in. This point's explained above in my last post.
I can't <b>know</b> that Kerry would have been worse than Bush. But I can <b>think</b> he would have been. And I can think that thought really hard and as far as I'm concerned I can think it so hard that it becomes my reality. This is called voting. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> In a storybook world anyway.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Let's settle this 'flip-flop' business once and for all shall we ?
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Conceded this is a flip flop. But if it's the only one you can scrape up, then it's a pretty poor showing. Here's ten of <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml" target="_blank">Kerry's good ones</a>
More, two quotes from bush before a major policy switch, two after. Policies do change, and we're not always preview to all the facts as to why they changed. Why did we go into Iraq? Why has the president changed reasons many times? Most would say this is because we didn't have any reason to begin with other than lining his pockets with gold.
I don't personally believe that any man could wield the power of the United States in such a manner. Instead, consider the possibility that there is a valid tactical or strategic reason for the invasion of Iraq, even as considered before; say it's just a based of democratic influence to help Isreal win over some hearts down there. Even if the president admitted his true reasons, no one would believe or like even though he believes them in <i>our</i> best interests. He needs to lie to us to keep us happy. It's what politicians do.
This is a possible explanation, is it not? Compare this one to the one presented early in which Bush has to somehow bribe or extort many other politicians and military leaders to keep them from blowing the whistle on him, somehow orchestrate 9/11 possibly, worked covertly with Tony Blaire or whoever else may be involved in such a conspiracy. Consider <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor" target="_blank">Occam's Razor</a>.
If you believe it, <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />, it at least says the simpler explanation is most likely.
I'm not so concerned about the practical effects on day to day operations of impeaching him. The government is a pretty big machine, and most of it will keep doing what it does while everyone else is distracted. God knows the military might do a better job without the whitehouse involved.
For me, impeaching him would be a matter of principle. There are so many of his actions that are either extra-legal or quasi-legal, and protected from prosecution only by the Republican congressional majority, the classification of evidence, and the rhetoric of the war on terror. I think we are at the point that at the very least subpoenas need to be issued.
Regardless of whether any of his actions were the tactically smart thing to do, many appear to violate the law in such a way that they would be exposed if subjected to legal scrutiny in the court system. I firmly believe that respecting the law is a higher calling than protecting us from terrorism.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gotta quote myself here to try to get this back on track. Like it or not, Bush is president, and Kerry isn't, and debating who would have been better doesn't change the fact that our current president shows nothing but contempt for the law.
I'm a lot more interested in what we should do now than what we should have done 2 years ago.
...
Conceded this is a flip flop. But if it's the only one you can scrape up, then it's a pretty poor showing. Here's ten of <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml" target="_blank">Kerry's good ones</a>
More, two quotes from bush before a major policy switch, two after. Policies do change, and we're not always preview to all the facts as to why they changed. Why did we go into Iraq? Why has the president changed reasons many times? Most would say this is because we didn't have any reason to begin with other than lining his pockets with gold.
....
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, and I agree that Kerry has flip-flopped as well. I just think it is again not fair to label him as having a 'flip-flop' record when pretty much _everyone_ changes their position on issues; and as you said perhaps being aware of facts that we are not privy too. I'm sure we could fill 20 pages of back and forth comparing Bush and Kerry's flip-flops. So to call a politician a 'flip-flopper' seems rather redundant?
At any rate, you are free to vote for the candidate of your choice naturally. I find it interesting though to try and understand the reasoning thereof.
Back on Topic: Should Bush be impeached? I say yes, to try and preserve any shred of credibility that still remains with the White-House.
We should impeach him for not simply bombing the crap out of the Iraq military, for sending troops over without adequate body armor and vehicular armor, and for being an overall idiot.
Problem is, Kerry was worse <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
And god knows who's gonna run next election.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Likely it wasn't the fault of the president that the troops went over without adequate body armor... I mean it's not like he goes to the general and says "Get our boys over there, and make sure you take the good stuff away from them first so they're using crap"
Also: Neither bush nor Kerry were bad candidates. Americans really drive me nuts, it's like you're hoping for these super hero humans to suddenly appear on the scene and make things better for you in one foul swoop, yet you still judge these guys based on 1-2 minute media clips you see that instantly convince you that you understand their character, history, and abilities in full. Kerry was an incredibly intelligent person, and I continuously hear people refer to him in extremely retarded discussionary termology like "good" "bad" "better" "worse". Worse at what? Use your brain here, you can't realistically analyze a person's potential into a value statement based on what really is nothing more then a hunch.
Should you impeach the president? Well, what's his agenda and what is he willing to sacrifice to attain it? Bush made some stupid moves but has he legitimately broken the laws of the united states and the basic principles of working towards good ends? Is he sacrificing things that aren't appropriate in the pursuit of his goals, and are his goals valid and helpful to the world and the united states? I think I really need to be a little more objective then most will on this one and say I don't really know enough, and I'm not willing to make a decision based on how the guy looks on TV and how much that makes me like/hate him.
Anyway, I really don't see a point in impeachment or censure right now. They'd take way too long (woot, bureaucracy!), and they'd be a waste of money. So you impeach him, and then in October of 2008 he's kicked out...that gets you what?
That money could be better spent building a time machine so that I could vote in the 2000 election. Sure, Gore wouldn't be in any Futurama episodes, but that's okay. My only real concern is a rather famous (but also rather unknown, wherever that puts us) quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, David Hume or Richard Jackson:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Despite the rather strange effects of basing your politcal philosophy on something from the 18th century, I'm kind of angry at the recent degradation of American security and liberty with no benefit. I'm also disappointed in the majority of this generation, as they lack any political awareness and seem to be afflicted with a serious case of xenophobia. The inability of my generation to actually vote is also disheartening, as I'm sure it wont end well in about 20-30 years. Unless there's some magical threshold at which a switch clicks in peoples' minds telling them they should probably vote.
"America has spoken, and they want four more years of ######bag!"
[edit] I'd like to take this time to point out that censoring a word that actually is a physical object (although honestly, I've never heard it used in that sense) and a word that is shown on US network television <i>boggles</i> my mind. I wasn't aware that some small minority of the earth's populace had elevated it it to "ber swear" level.[/edit]
impeach him, he still won't get removed.
I didn't vote for him, but he is still president and that was my logic until a couple of months ago
but anyone who referes to the constitution that they are sworn to uphold and protect as a "God damned piece of paper" should get drug in the street and shot.
Forget anything with the "war" or policy or anything.
No president should be able to get away with a remark like that.
As a comedy aside, in 15-25 when young Afghans & Iraqis, whose only memory of the US is that they bombed the hell out of them are signing up & creating more terrorist supprting regimes, (because that's how the current ones formed folks, we caused it the first time too) allow me to be one of those stood in line saying I told you so.
Would it change anything? Then why bother.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, but out of principal he probably should get the same type of impeachment Clinton got, I was never a fan of Clinton, but the general public was mostly opposed to his impeachment and it was still handed to him for his "misconduct". Maybe Bush shouldn't be removed from office, but he should get a slap on the wrist and be forced to apologize to the public.
Would it change anything? Then why bother.
As a comedy aside, in 15-25 when young Afghans & Iraqis, whose only memory of the US is that they bombed the hell out of them are signing up & creating more terrorist supprting regimes, (because that's how the current ones formed folks, we caused it the first time too) allow me to be one of those stood in line saying I told you so.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you implying that it's not because they hate our freedom?
Are you implying that it's not because they hate our freedom?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Given that I haven't seen any populace <u>asking</u> us to "free" them...I'm gonna say they don't.
He's a retard. The sad part is how much of our populace still seems to LIKE the guy. Then again, I suppose retards will eke to their own.
On another note, anyone else see Idiocracy before Fox buried it? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> The parallels are striking.
He should have been impeached a few years ago, when he started his illegal war and then browbeat the Senate into declaring it legal, with threats of being labelled un-patriotic. At this point Cheney would be worse, and even if both of them were ousted, their cronies are too deeply entrenched.
He's a retard. The sad part is how much of our populace still seems to LIKE the guy. Then again, I suppose retards will eke to their own.
On another note, anyone else see Idiocracy before Fox buried it? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> The parallels are striking.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gee, Tale, thanks for calling me an idiot. Really appreciated. I see the same evidence you do, I just come to a different conclusion. We still live in a democracy, right?
And if you believe your senators simply bended to the will of a president on a simple threat of being labeled un-patriotic, it's probably time to vote for stronger senators.
/offtopic
[edit]Sorry, I misread. I'm not an idiot. I'm a <i>retard</i>. Let's get back on topic, shall we?[/edit]
Of course this is all proceeding under the assumption that the Geneva Convention is followed by ANYONE who signed it. Dollars to donuts says it's not - hell the discipline any respectable military uses to train it's own can probably be classified as torture. "Let he who is without guilt cast the first stone," eh?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Dollars to donuts" isn't a good enough justification for accusing the world of war crimes, and neither is it a good enough reason to excuse us. If you have a case that most nations don't follow the geneva conventions, present it. Currently, it is still a war crime under the laws of the United States to violate them.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not to mention that punishment MUST be unordinary and MUST be a little inhuman or it serves no purpose, but I guess that's more of a personal opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This doesn't make any sense to me. Of course if you are going to torture someone, you should use effective torture. That isn't any argument at all for torturing in the first place.
"Dollars to donuts" isn't a good enough justification for accusing the world of war crimes, and neither is it a good enough reason to excuse us. If you have a case that most nations don't follow the geneva conventions, present it. Currently, it is still a war crime under the laws of the United States to violate them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Disclaimer: This is my hardline, <i>objective</i> opinion on what's going on. It doesn't mean I practice or condone torture, but the understanding of its uses and inevitability are not mutually exclusive of my stance on the matter.
We americans are repulsed by torture. We consider it inhuman, and we, as americans, are above inhuman acts. Well we aren't. And torture is as much a human trait as love or indifference. What's happening today is that a concentrated group of individuals have taken the initiative and remained on the offensive, occupying a morale high ground from which they launch attacks on people who have using torture in its most effective manner.
Torture is not a good way to gain information. People will say anything after a certain threshold is reached. False confessions, sure, but those only serve it's true purpose: intimidation. People can drone on about the "spirit of freedom" as much as they want. "You can't kill ideas," and so forth.
But just ask Stalin. If one person rises against you, kill that person and 10,000 people like them. People will stop rising against you. We're nothing more than animals in this regard. Most of the population can be kept in line by the Alpha member exercising force. It's the difference between an obediant child and a "delinquent" one, between an orderly football team and one that gets alot of penalties.
The realization and respect of consequences is what drives and motivates people. The morale code of the Alpha member is the what sets up those consequences. I can go on for awhile here, but the best explanation of this idea I've ever seen is Starship Troopers (the book, <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />). The point is will that can be broken. It's been done before and it'll be done again many times.
That's what torture is good for: breaking wills. In that sense, all the media exposure of Gitmo only surved to cement whatever work was going on there. Unless you're a sadist, mass indimdation torture doesn't do any good unless people <i>know</i> about it.
But let's step back, Wikipedia defines torture as:
<!--QuoteBegin-'Wikipedia'+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE('Wikipedia')</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterrent or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is pretty broad. For example, one could argue than the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Paris_suburb_riots#The_event_that_triggered_the_riots" target="_blank">2005 French Riots</a> were caused by torture because of the allegedly adverse treatment of minorities in France. (<a href="http://hispanicpundit.com/2005/11/22/europe-vs-usa-in-treatment-of-minorities/" target="_blank">Here's a nice onesided article about this</a>)
Or that <a href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/germ-j03.shtml" target="_blank">this recent peice on the German military</a> is torture. True, it probably is, but torture with a purpose. The soldiers in that exercise know what it's like to be a PoW now. Incentive to try hard <i>not</i> to get captured? A fair assessment. It also lets them know what to expect if they ever are captured; maybe saves their lives. But that's all speculation.
The point I'm trying to get across is, it's the meanlingless torture of sadists we should really be concerned with getting rid of. Beyond that, torture is going to happen anyway, and it's something you just have to accept. I mean, most of us were tortured as children by the older children. Some of the psychological torment we go through in the early years is most obscene, don't you agree? But, in most cases, we're better for it. We either learn to shrug off the attacks, or we break down and are destroyed.
And don't go saying "well that's different." It is not. Psychological pain is just as real as physical pain; we just fear physical pain more. I don't want to be tortured just as much as the next guy, but I realize that it's not something you can just wave a magic wand and rid yourself of, and I hope that if I ever am tortured in some grevious fashion that I'll be able to face it with dignity. That's all I can really say.
<!--quoteo(post=1568411:date=Sep 28 2006, 11:39 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Sep 28 2006, 11:39 PM) [snapback]1568411[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This doesn't make any sense to me. Of course if you are going to torture someone, you should use effective torture. That isn't any argument at all for torturing in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the punishment for a crime is not sufficiently un-natural (that is, not an "every-day" thing), will there be consequence enough for the person who suffered the punishment not to do it again? Jail time is essentially an adult's "time out chair." This may be sufficient for small crimes, but I know spending 40 years in prison for something would probably just make ME bitter and spiteful.
Getting flogged in public for the same crime may be more traumatic, but it's over quickly, and I damn sure would think twice the next time I thought about breaking the law. It's humilating, it's damaging, it's <b>intimidating</b>.
Take Bush for instance. We impeach him, it takes over a year. It works, and he's ousted and shamed. Then he's brought up on criminal charges which he evades somehow (possible, if not likely). Slap on the wrist. If he's found guilty of war crimes, then flogged in front of the whole nation, that would be a good reason for him not to torture anyone anymore. Except that by torturing him you're effectively the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
[edit]Grammar and spelling idiocies[/edit]
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ</a>
Jesus goddamn christ I hate spin-doctoring, warmongering, Bush-loving republicans.
(Republicans who hate Bush get my <3 though, for having at least two brain cells to rub together.)