Welcome to PatsFans.com

Bush still has option for torture

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by scout, Jan 4, 2006.

  1. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,715
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +44 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    Bush signed a waiver giving him the option to commit torture.
    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_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?
  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,050
    Likes Received:
    185
    Ratings:
    +259 / 10 / -11

    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.
  3. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,156
    Likes Received:
    192
    Ratings:
    +657 / 2 / -9

    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.
  4. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    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.
  5. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,675
    Likes Received:
    630
    Ratings:
    +1,701 / 19 / -12

    Disable Jersey

    More over the top leftist hysteria
  6. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    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.
  7. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,675
    Likes Received:
    630
    Ratings:
    +1,701 / 19 / -12

    Disable Jersey

    Ah, the Jack Bauer clause. Gotta have it.
  8. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    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.
  9. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I agree totally with point 1

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

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    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.
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2006
  11. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,156
    Likes Received:
    192
    Ratings:
    +657 / 2 / -9

    The Far Left Liberal Democrats,
    The madder they get, the nastier they get, the more panic they show, and the jealousy that they can't hide. The hate in the liberal media, they try and try to destroy this man Bush but nothing works for them, they have a new one every day, they say to themselves, "we got him now" but it always fizzles out.
    That is what "RUNNING SCARED" means, their hatred isn't working.

    Dan Rather is going insane.
    The NY Times is falling apart.
    Al Gore talks to himself
    John "Fonda" Kerry still doesn't know what hit him
    Hollywood has gone back to making "animal movies" they gave up
    Bush has turned Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer into old whailing Hags

    No matter what they throw at Bush he just grins and plows ahead.

    You ask where are they running to? They are running towards CHANGE, many democrats themselves now know that Radical Far Left Liberalism is destroying their party, soon they will demand change if they are to survive.
  12. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    This is big talk from a man who's party has only a slim majority. From how you put it, you'd think 3/4 of congress was Republican and Bush had a 95% approval rating. Political tides shift, and I guarantee you both the right and left will rise, fall, and rise again at points in the future

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>