ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
President Barack Obama may have rode into the White House on a wave of change, but in a recent lawsuit regarding “extraordinary rendition” the President has taken the exact same stance as former President George W. Bush.
.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
They don't care, he's their politically correct poster boy and he speaks good english from a teleprompter, Helen Thomas is 88 years old, she had three orgasms when he gave his first press conference.
Obama is a Chicago Bull***** Artist.
__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
Re: Obama sides with Bush -- reneged on another campaign promise
It does seem odd that Obama would take this stand, given his good stands on matters such as Gitmo and torture.
Given that the administration actually sided with Bush, and didn't ask for an extension (so as to get more time to consider the issues), my guess is they are objecting to turn over evidence because of secret deals the Bush administration made with other nations. For instance, if Bush made a deal with Egypt to conduct torture, it might not serve our interests to have that deal exposed.
Re: Obama sides with Bush -- reneged on another campaign promise
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patters
It does seem odd that Obama would take this stand, given his good stands on matters such as Gitmo and torture.
Given that the administration actually sided with Bush, and didn't ask for an extension (so as to get more time to consider the issues), my guess is they are objecting to turn over evidence because of secret deals the Bush administration made with other nations. For instance, if Bush made a deal with Egypt to conduct torture, it might not serve our interests to have that deal exposed.
Egyptian torture? Acid sand and scarabs? Mummification while alive? I think I like it!
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Obama sides with Bush -- reneged on another campaign promise
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontradictioN
Egyptian torture? Acid sand and scarabs? Mummification while alive? I think I like it!
Me to, Saddam used to cut out their tongues while they forced their family to watch, then after the tongue was out they would Sodomize the guys wife and kids and make him watch while waving his tongue in front of him (bush put a stop to that)
I agree with closing Gitmo it's a disneyland for soccer playing muslims, they should be doing time in in Colorada Maximum where they will get the ***** beat out of them every day by the Skin Heads.
UNCLE TEDDY WATERBOARDS WITH HIS CAR
__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
Re: Obama sides with Bush -- reneged on another campaign promise
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Boy
Me to, Saddam used to cut out their tongues while they forced their family to watch, then after the tongue was out they would Sodomize the guys wife and kids and make him watch while waving his tongue in front of him (bush put a stop to that)
Harry you forgot that they would lop off the guys schlong and stick it in his mouth.
Look closer... Obama's version is VERY different from Boy George's...
Obama's demands the notification of the Red Cross, and any other human rights group that demands access to detainees and their well-being... Bush's didn't have to tell anyone...
International Committee of the Red Cross Access to Detained Individuals. All departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with notification of, and timely access to, any individual detained in any armed conflict in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States Government, consistent with Department of Defense regulations and policies.
Last edited by PressCoverage; 02-14-2009 at 05:04 PM..
Re: Obama sides with Bush -- reneged on another campaign promise
So the red cross can see them while they're in our custody, but we may still after that send them off to places we know will torture them, is that correct? If so is that a big improvement from the previous program? If the concern is keeping people in our custody away from torture then it is not. If the concern is making sure our hands are clean but maybe we still get info from the torture in the end then it is better. I think its good that we're effectively ending extraordinary rendition, and closing secret detention centers around the world (which were a scary concept) but if we still ship people out and they get tortured and we get the intel I don't see that from a moral standpoint as any better. Legally yes, morally no.
Re: Obama sides with Bush -- reneged on another campaign promise
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stokes
So the red cross can see them while they're in our custody, but we may still after that send them off to places we know will torture them, is that correct? If so is that a big improvement from the previous program? If the concern is keeping people in our custody away from torture then it is not. If the concern is making sure our hands are clean but maybe we still get info from the torture in the end then it is better. I think its good that we're effectively ending extraordinary rendition, and closing secret detention centers around the world (which were a scary concept) but if we still ship people out and they get tortured and we get the intel I don't see that from a moral standpoint as any better. Legally yes, morally no.
Perhaps you didn't read the link I just provided. Note the quoted parts from Obama's executive order, recognizing and pledging adherence to the Geneva Convention and the Convention Against Torture...