Welcome to PatsFans.com

Obama sides with Bush -- reneged on another campaign promise

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Feb 14, 2009.

  1. mikey

    mikey Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

  2. Harry Boy

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

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,858
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +296 / 1 / -9

  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,646
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    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.
  4. KontradictioN

    KontradictioN Do you even lift? PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    26,505
    Likes Received:
    354
    Ratings:
    +898 / 17 / -24

    No Jersey Selected

    Egyptian torture? Acid sand and scarabs? Mummification while alive? I think I like it!
  5. Harry Boy

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

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,858
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +296 / 1 / -9

    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 sh!t beat out of them every day by the Skin Heads.

    UNCLE TEDDY WATERBOARDS WITH HIS CAR
  6. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    37,703
    Likes Received:
    258
    Ratings:
    +477 / 2 / -10

    #87 Jersey


    Harry you forgot that they would lop off the guys schlong and stick it in his mouth.
  7. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0


    WRONG...

    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...

    Newshoggers.com: Obama's Rendition Program, No Torture Included
    Section 4(b):

    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: Feb 14, 2009
  8. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
  9. Harry Boy

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

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,858
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +296 / 1 / -9

    I can't talk like that anymore the democrats will have me banned.
  10. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    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...

    Rendition isn't illegal extraordinary rendition...
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2009
  11. Harry Boy

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

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,858
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +296 / 1 / -9

    They should send them down to Alabama and let the KKK take a whack at them.
  12. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Yes I saw, that is why I ended my post by saying it was legally right but morally no better depending on where we do allow legal rendition. This was the key:

    "do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."

    Now how will that work in practice? Does that mean we will not return criminals to their country of origin if we know or suspect that that country tortures people? We won't send any of the gitmo detainees back to the Saudis? The Egyptians? What about the Israelies? How about Pakistan? China? Russia? Does that clause mean that we will risk strategic alliances or creating international incidents in order to protect individuals from torture? That we will refuse to turn over criminals to their own country? If so I think that is a very principled stand and should be applauded, even if I don't think it practical. More likely I think all it means is that if there's no proof they're going to be tortured we ship 'em out and wash our hands. Maybe I'm wrong though. Is there a defined list somewhere of nations that people can not be turned over to? Something from the UN? Maybe I'll have a look and see.

    At any rate I'll point out again that we're on the same side of the debate about the extraordinary rendition program and secret detention centers. They are a black mark on the USA.
  13. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I re-read my post and just wanted to point out again what a big step in the right direction the end of extraordinary rendition is, and say that the original story (that he's somehow keeping the policy intact) was twisted to make it sound different from what it really was, which is totally wrong and something I did not comment on the first time around.

    Cheers.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>