Bush still has option for torture

[scout]

Bush signed a waiver giving him the option to commit torture.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...w_torture_ban/

You have to wonder how far this President will go as he spys on Americans (says only outside of US), his people out a CIA agent (says he'll fire anyone connected), invades a country because of WMD (says it was faulty intelligence), and now appears to be ready to torture again after Congress bans the practice. Would you buy a used car from this guy?

[Patters]

The only thing separating Bush and Cheney from the likes of Saddam is our Constitution, and they seem to be doing what they can do get around that. I think Bush and Cheney are sadists.

[Harry Boy]

Originally Posted by Patters

The only thing separating Bush and Cheney from the likes of Saddam is our Constitution, and they seem to be doing what they can do get around that. I think Bush and Cheney are sadists.

The hate is building and the Liberals are RUNNING scared.

You people consider slapping somebody's face torture. Many of "your people" seem to think Castro is a "Great Guy", check into his background.

Things are really getting bad for the "whiney knee jerk liberals" when they start comparing Bush to Saddam.

What really gets to you is, he could care less what the Haters think of him.

[Pujo]

Originally Posted by Harry Boy

The hate is building and the Liberals are RUNNING scared.

You people consider slapping somebody's face torture. Many of "your people" seem to think Castro is a "Great Guy", check into his background.

Things are really getting bad for the "whiney knee jerk liberals" when they start comparing Bush to Saddam.

What really gets to you is, he could care less what the Haters think of him.

Who's running and where to? What does that even mean? It sounds like you have a deck of phrases and you just pull one out at random every time you post.

[PatsWickedPissah]

Originally Posted by Patters

The only thing separating Bush and Cheney from the likes of Saddam is our Constitution, and they seem to be doing what they can do get around that. I think Bush and Cheney are sadists.

More over the top leftist hysteria

[wistahpatsfan]

From the cited article:
..."But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack."...

Torture in warfare is wrong as it puts our troops in increased jeopardy should they be captured. The military has also taken to referring any enemy combatants as "terrorists" because they use crude weapons and don't have uniforms.

But I'll tell you one thing honestly as a parent: If I have a guy in the basement who says he knows about a plot to blow up my city, he doesn't leave until we find out who, what, where, when and how - and it better be quick.

[PatsWickedPissah]

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

From the cited article:
..."But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack."...

Torture in warfare is wrong as it puts our troops in increased jeopardy should they be captured. The military has also taken to referring any enemy combatants as "terrorists" because they use crude weapons and don't have uniforms.

But I'll tell you one thing honestly as a parent: If I have a guy in the basement who says he knows about a plot to blow up my city, he doesn't leave until we find out who, what, where, when and how - and it better be quick.

Ah, the Jack Bauer clause. Gotta have it.

[Pujo]

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

From the cited article:
..."But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack."...

Torture in warfare is wrong as it puts our troops in increased jeopardy should they be captured. The military has also taken to referring any enemy combatants as "terrorists" because they use crude weapons and don't have uniforms.

But I'll tell you one thing honestly as a parent: If I have a guy in the basement who says he knows about a plot to blow up my city, he doesn't leave until we find out who, what, where, when and how - and it better be quick.

1. The ticking time-bomb scenario, assuming the US had a VERY GOOD (watertight) reason to believe there was actually an immenent threat and the detainee knew the specifics, would be the only justifiable use of torture.

2. There is a bigger distinction between terrorists and soldiers than uniforms and equipment. Soldiers are only supposed to engage other soldiers in combat, and try as hard as they can to avoid civilian deaths. Terrorists go after civilians.

By the way, you should all see the movie The Seige with Denzel Washington. It's not a great movie (not bad, though), but parts of it are VERY realistic and involve terrorism and use of torture by the military.

[wistahpatsfan]

Originally Posted by Pujo

1. The ticking time-bomb scenario, assuming the US had a VERY GOOD (watertight) reason to believe there was actually an immenent threat and the detainee knew the specifics, would be the only justifiable use of torture.

2. There is a bigger distinction between terrorists and soldiers than uniforms and equipment. Soldiers are only supposed to engage other soldiers in combat, and try as hard as they can to avoid civilian deaths. Terrorists go after civilians.

By the way, you should all see the movie The Seige with Denzel Washington. It's not a great movie (not bad, though), but parts of it are VERY realistic and involve terrorism and use of torture by the military.

I agree totally with point 1

The combatants I refer to ARE those who attack military targets and police (paramilitary).

[Pujo]

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

I agree totally with point 1

The combatants I refer to ARE those who attack military targets and police (paramilitary).

Attacking police stations is a form of terrorism, not combat. Police are a civil defense force.

It's tough to know for sure what type of people we're fighting. If you listen to our child-president, our army is completely benevolent and popular, and every person we fight against would blow up a nursery if they only got the chance. But, if you listen to some true blame-America-first'ers, Iraq was a civilized, humanitarian nation until American savages came in there, raped their women, and burned the country to the ground. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, though I certainly hope we're on better moral footing than it seems right now.