karmakramer Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 You obviously don't know awepittance that well :) haha got me on that one also: photos are starting to leak... NSFW http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ublication.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmakramer Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Fun quote from Bush in October 2003 'In a free Iraq,'' he said, ''there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.'' lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted May 22, 2009 Author Share Posted May 22, 2009 The New Yorker's Amy Davidson compares Obama's detention proposal to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Johns Hopkins Professor Hilary Bok (aka Hilzoy) of The Washington Monthly writes: "If we don't have enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we don't have enough evidence to hold them. Period" and "the power to detain people without filing criminal charges against them is a dictatorial power." Salon's Joan Walsh quotes the Center for Constitutional Rights' Vincent Warren as saying: "They’re creating, essentially, an American Gulag." The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch says of Obama's proposal: "What he's proposing is against one of this country's core principles" and "this is why people need to keep the pressure on Obama -- even those inclined to view his presidency favorably." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EDGEY Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 They did a little piece on the Daily Show last night, showing Obama and Bush speech similarities, it was amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted May 22, 2009 Author Share Posted May 22, 2009 'i love it when obama does bush covers' -john stewart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theSun Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 they shouldn't want to release them because it's embarrassing. the information obtained by torture isn't even fucking allowed to be used in court cases now. now maybe we can treat our fellow humans in a humane manner, instead of sinking to the level of the grade school bullies and making our enemies stand in a puddle of their own piss. personally, i'm against torture of any kind, in any situation, not just because it's inhumane but because it's useless (and misleading) for information gathering purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmakramer Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 The New Yorker's Amy Davidson compares Obama's detention proposal to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Johns Hopkins Professor Hilary Bok (aka Hilzoy) of The Washington Monthly writes: "If we don't have enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we don't have enough evidence to hold them. Period" and "the power to detain people without filing criminal charges against them is a dictatorial power." Salon's Joan Walsh quotes the Center for Constitutional Rights' Vincent Warren as saying: "They’re creating, essentially, an American Gulag." The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch says of Obama's proposal: "What he's proposing is against one of this country's core principles" and "this is why people need to keep the pressure on Obama -- even those inclined to view his presidency favorably." Yep saw this yesterday, its bullshit and Obama is fucking up. I am pretty pissed. I still stand by the decision to not release the photos yet, but I owe you an apology Awe, you were right, he is continuing Bush/Cheney policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rambo Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 all you do is look at the people who back the candidates in the elections, that's what tells the real story. Check Obamas backers, all the rest is just noise. I'm sure Obama has very little scope in what he can actually do. So there's nothing to be pissed with Obama for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted May 22, 2009 Author Share Posted May 22, 2009 I'm sure Obama has very little scope in what he can actually do. So there's nothing to be pissed with Obama for. i don't get this assertion, so Obama can have the sweeping executive powers to hold people indefinitely, which he used to instate a new system of law to try these 'terrorist' suspects in but i can't get pissed at him for it? i mean if you are implying someone else is pulling his strings and i should get pissed at them instead i guess i see what you are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rambo Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I'm sure Obama has very little scope in what he can actually do. So there's nothing to be pissed with Obama for. i don't get this assertion, so Obama can have the sweeping executive powers to hold people indefinitely, which he used to instate a new system of law to try these 'terrorist' suspects in but i can't get pissed at him for it? i mean if you are implying someone else is pulling his strings and i should get pissed at them instead i guess i see what you are saying. Yeah that's what i'm saying. I think his hands are tied. He'd have never got to be president otherwise, as no-one would even know who he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joyrex Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EDGEY Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I think they should just release the damn photos to a. kill the drama (with the attention span of people, it'll be forgotten in 3 days), b. uphold the freedom of information act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 the guy in the second half John Turley knocks it out of the park. he too was a constitutional lawyer like obama is. good sign that the generic left media (msnbc maddow,olberman et al) is this quickly butting heads with Obama's policies. The republicans would never do this under Bush this quickly edit: she's a lesbian isn't that craaaaazy? hence her rabid stance on the war in afghanistan .. no matter the number it annihilates .. obviously i thought she was selling that war to consolidate her position as well ... but still .. yaknow .. burkaz et al ... chick hate for said .... justify the full pan fry of every and all that die ... bitch ... ... turly is cool yeah ... hits the right spots ... but still .. ultimately obama is either paranoid that they'll shoot him if he doesn't navigate around prosecution of torure .. retooling the economic system .. all the important little ditties ... or ... he's just a grasping cunt that doesn't give a fuck ... hence his raving at the anti guantanamo peeps .. during the white house visit ... either way you're fukt an qold havf voeted green .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hahathhat Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 maybe we might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Sensi Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 The only change I've witnessed by Obama and his administration is the changing of names. The War on Terror is now Overseas Contingency Operations. The War on Drugs is getting a name change as well. We're not going to stop the war on drugs, we're going to change the fucking name. I hate the fact that we use "war on x" for everything, but this pisses me off more because people are buying into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted May 22, 2009 Author Share Posted May 22, 2009 I think they should just release the damn photos to a. kill the drama (with the attention span of people, it'll be forgotten in 3 days), b. uphold the freedom of information act. Seymore hersh of the New Yorker (the guy who broke the abu garib story) claims that some fo the photos may show children and iraqi prisoners being raped or sodomized with foreign objects. if this is true it explains why Obama couldn't do it, it would have been an utter shit storm, but personally i want to see an utter shitstorm. American exceptionalism needs to end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted May 22, 2009 Author Share Posted May 22, 2009 I still stand by the decision to not release the photos yet, i have to ask and don't take this the wrong way but previously to 1 week ago Obama was going to release these photos much to the chagrin of neoconservatives everywhere. Did you at that period in time agree with his decision to release the photos or were you still opposed to the release of them (and in the process disagreeing with Obamas original position) If you changed your mind coincidentally at the same time Obama did, what was it that changed your mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmakramer Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 The only change I've witnessed by Obama and his administration is the changing of names. The War on Terror is now Overseas Contingency Operations. The War on Drugs is getting a name change as well. We're not going to stop the war on drugs, we're going to change the fucking name. I hate the fact that we use "war on x" for everything, but this pisses me off more because people are buying into it. The war on drugs isn't just a name change... its admitting that criminalizing drug users is the wrong way to go... its a pretty big step that should lead to more reform. The way I think this is going to go down though is California is going to legalize marijuana which will push Obama's hand... We'll see though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted May 22, 2009 Author Share Posted May 22, 2009 , but I owe you an apology Awe, you were right, he is continuing Bush/Cheney policies. unfortunately he's going even further than Bush in regards to holding people without a trial Bush never made the case that without providing any evidence that we had the right to hold people indefinitely without trial, even though he was faking it with show trial kangaroo courts at least he was trying to formulate some kind of charade or appearance of justice. and whats strange is so many damn people seem to be fooled by his speech yesterday. He spent about 50% of it bashing the prior administration's policies, and then with extreme skill and cleverness proceeded to lay out his own policy in dealing with detainees and it was almost identical to Bush. The speech writers of obama are extremely crafty. They make platitudes to the left on one hand and in the other continue down the same bush path. Its word smithing to the extent a magiciain would use slight of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EDGEY Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I think they should just release the damn photos to a. kill the drama (with the attention span of people, it'll be forgotten in 3 days), b. uphold the freedom of information act. Seymore hersh of the New Yorker (the guy who broke the abu garib story) claims that some fo the photos may show children and iraqi prisoners being raped or sodomized with foreign objects. if this is true it explains why Obama couldn't do it, it would have been an utter shit storm, but personally i want to see an utter shitstorm. American exceptionalism needs to end Well, like any other evidence in crime, it should be illegal to profit from, this includes "news" media, as they generate an income from ad revenue. Sensationalizing the story to profits' end (by "putting on a good show") should be considered a crime. Quite simple really, release the photos to the national archives, and let those who wish to seek them out, do so, and those that profit from their exploitation should be punished. I'm sure some criminologist out there could come up with something equally fair to uphold the freedom of information while removing the sensationalism, without imposing upon personal freedoms to information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmakramer Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 , but I owe you an apology Awe, you were right, he is continuing Bush/Cheney policies. unfortunately he's going even further than Bush in regards to holding people without a trial Bush never made the case that without providing any evidence that we had the right to hold people indefinitely without trial, even though he was faking it with show trial kangaroo courts at least he was trying to formulate some kind of charade or appearance of justice. and whats strange is so many damn people seem to be fooled by his speech yesterday. He spent about 50% of it bashing the prior administration's policies, and then with extreme skill and cleverness proceeded to lay out his own policy in dealing with detainees and it was almost identical to Bush. The speech writers of obama are extremely crafty. They make platitudes to the left on one hand and in the other continue down the same bush path. Its word smithing to the extent a magiciain would use slight of hand. yeah very true... its fucking my mind right now actually... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted May 22, 2009 Author Share Posted May 22, 2009 yeah very true... its fucking my mind right now actually... its fucking my mind big time that not since FDR during the 'emergency' of world war 2 did we have an official law on the books where we could indefinitely hold people in jail without any evidence of wrong doing that could or would hold up in a criminal court only because we 'suspect' they are going to cause harm to our country. It's a perfect loop hole to cover up embarrassment and manufactured evidence to prop up the war on terror. I never would have suspected it would be Obama who would codify this into the law books, especially since he at one time was a constitutional law professor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Sensi Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 The war on drugs isn't just a name change... its admitting that criminalizing drug users is the wrong way to go... its a pretty big step that should lead to more reform. Changing the name isn't a big step. It isn't anything at all. I'll start taking them seriously when they reform their policies on drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted May 22, 2009 Author Share Posted May 22, 2009 The war on drugs isn't just a name change... its admitting that criminalizing drug users is the wrong way to go... its a pretty big step that should lead to more reform. Changing the name isn't a big step. It isn't anything at all. I'll start taking them seriously when they reform their policies on drugs. exactly, this is so far the biggest noticeable hypocrisy about Obama, he labels something different but takes zero action on the matter. I feel like this has already caught up with him to bite him in the ass, it's a terrible strategy that will not hold up for much longer. people on the left are too smart (or at least i hope they are). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I think they should just release the damn photos to a. kill the drama (with the attention span of people, it'll be forgotten in 3 days), b. uphold the freedom of information act. Seymore hersh of the New Yorker (the guy who broke the abu garib story) claims that some fo the photos may show children and iraqi prisoners being raped or sodomized with foreign objects. if this is true it explains why Obama couldn't do it, it would have been an utter shit storm, but personally i want to see an utter shitstorm. American exceptionalism needs to end an utter shitstorm would refocus the media on the issue and the previous administrations culpability ... it's obvious stuff .. hence the not releasing ... we know the way wakbama swings .. if i was targeted by as a .. i would just come out and say it .. what does he have to lose .. so that's why i think that he's the latter .. used the left and now even the weak flatter don't matter .. lets bomb our alumni chapter ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.