She slipped! Just like when Hussein Obama said that his religion was Islam!!1

6/8/2010 11:12:46 AM

JUST LIKE WHEN BUSH ADMITTED PERSONALLY COMMITTING WAR ATROCITIES IN THE WARSAW GHETTOS

6/8/2010 11:14:57 AM

are you kidding me? My brother was waterboarded in his special forces training back in the '90s

6/8/2010 2:17:58 PM

^
You do know that when you consent to harm, it's no longer a crime. (we don't arrest boxers for boxing)
I'm just sayin'...
Consensual waterboarding? training...
Non-consensual waterboarding? torture...

6/8/2010 2:30:58 PM

Also, there's a slight difference between your friends, ones that you trust not to hurt you, waterboarding you when you have access to a dead man's switch...

...and being taken captive by a foreign occupying force, flown across the world to a black prison on an island, and waterboarded by strangers in balaclavas who tell you that they're going to kill you if you don't talk.

6/8/2010 2:35:55 PM

wtf does baklava have to do with GWB?

6/8/2010 2:51:06 PM

^either that comment is proof that you just spout bullshit to get a rise out of people, or it is proof that you are record breaking levels of retarded.

a balaclava is a ski mask.

baklava is delicious.

6/8/2010 10:11:55 PM

^ i know where i'd place my bet.

6/8/2010 10:12:41 PM

Quote :

"you can't be a war criminal if your side wins the war."

6/8/2010 10:18:49 PM

So um...Obama has set a concrete timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq right?

Oh no wait, he's just as happy as Bush to take the reigns and lead the unjustified war based on lies

But I get called out for claiming theres not that much of a difference between politicians of different parties

6/8/2010 10:22:15 PM

They're both war criminals.

6/8/2010 10:37:19 PM

Quote :

"Obama has set a concrete timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq right?"

Anything more concrete (or hasty) than the current SOFA would be foolish. There's no way Obama would risk ruining the greatest American foreign policy achievement in the Middle East just to pander to the idiots at MoveOn.org.

[Edited on June 9, 2010 at 9:35 AM. Reason : ]

6/9/2010 9:35:33 AM

@McDanger

Quote :

"Criminals go to prison, right? Isn't this the "personal responsibility" that the right always crows about? How about taking responsibility for lying not only to the entire country, but to the military servicemen who have died? "

There you go again arguing something that indy already acknowleged is not going to happen. You can say it til you are blue in the face, but it wont change anything - so let it go?

Quote :

"Some things should be complained about. If being led to an unbelievably long, expensive war on fabricated "evidence" is not worth complaining about, what is?"

If you want to complain about your ideals that's fine - if you want to argue over something that you admit yourself will never change then I find that a bit silly - but then I generally find all liberals to be a bit silly.

Quote :

"At the very least he should be recognized for what he is. At the very most he should be in prison with many members of his administration and Congress. That'd suppose we were a country of principles and greatness, though. "

So then you agree that if we get him a miss america sash that says war criminal - it will make you happy on a minimum basis? I guess we can refer back to my statement above about you being silly.

On a side not about puting a former president or congress in prison - if you have ever had any sort of law class you know that this is simply not an option unless you want to tie the hands of every other future president.

6/9/2010 3:36:47 PM

Maybe their hands should be tied if they can't handle the responsibility without ruining our country

6/9/2010 3:39:47 PM

ITT McDanger confesses to being a naive and foolishly idealistic college kid

6/9/2010 3:42:35 PM

If our war criminal presidents were punished for committing war crimes, this may reduce the ability of our presidents to commit war crimes in the future!!!!

6/9/2010 4:19:43 PM

Quote :

"It's not a war crime if your side wins"

If our war criminal presidents were punished for committing war crimes, this may reduce the ability of our presidents to commit war crimes win the war in the future!!!!

6/9/2010 4:29:05 PM

for you McDanger
http://www.justice.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm

Quote :

"In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."

That same undermining of capacity would extend if it was done to a former president. Everyone would walk around on egg shells if the precident was set. Though it is not a law it is pretty much universally agreed that the same outcome would result and therefore it is not done.

Quote :

"ITT McDanger confesses to being a naive and foolishly idealistic college kid"

6/9/2010 4:42:56 PM

Quote :

"Maybe their hands should be tied if they can't handle the responsibility without ruining our country"

i think bush and cheney are horrible people and really fucked us good. but the precedent of sending the previous administration to prison is fucking dangerous. conservatives wanted to hang clinton just for getting his dick wet, imagine what they would do to obama (for anything, really). there are countries out there who prosecute their leaders for war crimes, and their governments are just as corrupt (if not moreso) than ever, because previous presidents live the rest of their days in exile.

that's not to say that pressure shouldn't be put on presidents to follow international law, but that pressure falls on the citizens to be better informed and not have the wool pulled over our eyes while our leaders abuse their powers. it's not really a solution i'm happy with, but i don't really see a better alternative.

6/9/2010 5:00:34 PM

People placing elites above the law ITT

[Edited on June 9, 2010 at 5:15 PM. Reason : can former presidents get speeding tickets?]

6/9/2010 5:14:03 PM

Quote :

"That same undermining of capacity would extend if it was done to a former president. Everyone would walk around on egg shells if the precident was set. Though it is not a law it is pretty much universally agreed that the same outcome would result and therefore it is not done."

What kind of fucked-up logic is that? If the president doesn't want to get charged with a crime, then he shouldn't commit one. While I don't think prosecuting trumped up political charges is worthy of being pursued, legitimately illegal acts can and should be addressed in a structured court of law. You're arguing that neocon "unitary executive" bullshit again, wherein the president can do whatever the fuck he wants so long as he's "protecting the nation." The president is not above the law, and executive privilege doesn't get him out of it.

Prove to me that we've become a nation of means and not laws, because that's precisely what you're suggesting.

[Edited on June 9, 2010 at 5:24 PM. Reason : ly]

6/9/2010 5:23:40 PM

^i agree with all of that. but i still think it sets up the path for unstable governments. just look at latin american governments (peru, more specifically: do a quick wiki scan of alan garcia and alberto fujimori), where the sitting president ends up in exile after his/her term is over. i think the ideal of upholding the law (which is important) realistically backfires and each president ends up grabbing more power than they should and then just flee the country when they are done.

it's sad to argue this, but i really think that obama, in the interest of self preservation alone, would be politically wise to let history cast judgment on the previous administration.

[Edited on June 9, 2010 at 5:54 PM. Reason : ]

6/9/2010 5:51:59 PM

Quote :

"because that's precisely what you're suggesting"

I'm not suggesting any of that - i'm stating it as fact. Take a law class if you don't believe me.
There is nothing "neocon" about it

Quote :

"The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."

This is the past, present, and future interpretation of our constitution. This is not new.

If the president is not removed from office for his actions then no action will be taken once he is out of office because of the precident it would set for all future presidents.

I'm sorry that you don't have a clue what's going on. I feel for you, I really do.

6/9/2010 11:59:22 PM

Eventually it won't be up to "us" or our constitution.

6/10/2010 12:50:50 AM

hahaha maybe maybe not, but our military will be hella weak before any foreign entity gets enough nerve to capture and "prosecute" one of our former presidents

6/10/2010 8:48:21 AM

... um, I don't think anyone was suggesting that.

6/10/2010 9:12:01 AM

Haha, the next GWB or the current Cheney just may get Pinoche'd. Who knows, Int'l law is new, and it has been slowly growing its teeth since WWII.

6/10/2010 9:19:52 AM

^^ your reading comprehension could use some improvement

6/10/2010 9:27:05 AM

^ your civility could, as well.

6/10/2010 9:31:42 AM

i mean a dude could squash that nonsense quick

hand on the back of the neck

boom

6/10/2010 12:50:59 PM

Secret service ITT

6/10/2010 1:18:49 PM

How in the world did that post end up in this thread?

6/10/2010 1:21:45 PM

Quote :

"hahaha maybe maybe not, but our military will be hella weak before any foreign entity gets enough nerve to capture and "prosecute" one of our former presidents"

Dumb comment.

Let's stop treating the President like he's above any of us. He's just another citizen. He's not above the law, he's supposed to oversee the enforcement of the law. Of course, because of that, presidents tend to "look out for their own," so nothing ever happens. Maybe we'll start holding politicians accountable one of these days, but I'm not holding my breath.

6/10/2010 2:10:42 PM

Quote :

"Let's stop treating the President like he's above any of us. He's just another citizen"

Just another citizen with a $200k/year pension and Secret Service protection for the rest of his life

Yeah, we're all equal

6/10/2010 2:23:03 PM

^^ note that I didn't say what I thought should happen, I pointed out what would happen.

therefore, my comment was not dumb. Your comment on the other hand gets low marks on account of naivety and poor reading comprehension

6/10/2010 2:27:50 PM

^^I'm not saying that the President actually is treated as an equal. Presidents are treated like royalty, and in a very real way, they are above the law.

^I've read the whole thread, and no one is talking about allowing a foreign government to come in and charge the President with a crime, and there's nothing to suggest that would ever happen. We're talking about charging current or past presidents with crimes under our own justice system.

6/10/2010 4:48:00 PM

^ o rly?

Quote :

"Eventually it won't be up to "us" or our constitution."

Quote :

"Haha, the next GWB or the current Cheney just may get Pinoche'd. Who knows, Int'l law is new, and it has been slowly growing its teeth since WWII."

in short, stfu.

6/10/2010 4:57:01 PM

Good one dude. GO USA!!! WE WILL NEVER HAVE TO ANSWER TO ANYBODY EVER!!!!!! USA IS THE BEST!

6/10/2010 6:13:46 PM

In MOST cases, why should we have to answer to anyone else? Sovereignty?

We get criticized when we get in the business of other countries. If the criticism is justified, why should they get in our business?

6/10/2010 6:21:40 PM

well because... we're evil

6/10/2010 6:33:56 PM

^^For the same reason all countries shouldn't sit around and watch human rights violations happen without doing anything. It would be nice if we could take care of the problem ourselves, but we're dealing with the same stubborn congress that won't ratify reasonable treaties that would hold us accountable for the atrocities that we commit. I just think it's only a matter of time before the world REALLY gets sick of our bullshit. Solinari and the like are just naive and think we're more powerful than we really are. Eventually our president won't be able to order our troops to murder and torture people for bullshit reasons without being held accountable by one international body or another.

[Edited on June 10, 2010 at 6:36 PM. Reason : ]

6/10/2010 6:34:14 PM

Well for starters, the UN is relatively spineless. They don't have the force, or the balls, to do anything as of June 10, 2010.

6/10/2010 6:47:47 PM

Quote :

"Solinari and the like are just naive and think we're more powerful than we really are. Eventually our president won't be able to order our troops to murder and torture people for bullshit reasons without being held accountable by one international body or another."

Nice job playing with tenses.

"we are" vs. "eventually"

6/10/2010 6:53:06 PM

^^ It has more of a spine now than it did 30 years ago. None of us can tell the future, but it's much more likely then not that if we pull another Iraq again anytime (relatively) soon, the UN and other international bodies will grow "spine," "teeth," and whatever body parts it needs to in order to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

^ Nice job addressing the issue, cum catcher.

6/10/2010 7:27:46 PM

Quote :

"the UN and other international bodies will grow "spine," "teeth," and whatever body parts it needs to in order to make sure that it doesn't happen again."

ROFL, you do realize that the US pretty much bankrolls the UN and provides a large majority of its troops, right?

6/10/2010 7:29:42 PM

Please elaborate on your point, make sure it has something to do with what I posted though.

6/10/2010 7:32:05 PM

Quote :

"if we pull another Iraq again anytime (relatively) soon, the UN and other international bodies will grow "spine," "teeth," and whatever body parts it needs to in order to make sure that it doesn't happen again."

good luck convincing US troops serving under the UN to enforce UN sanctions against the US

good luck convincing the US congress to continue funding the UN after UN passes economic sanctions against the US

[Edited on June 10, 2010 at 7:36 PM. Reason : s]

6/10/2010 7:32:59 PM

I never once said anything about UN troops going anywhere. What the fuck are you talking about?

6/10/2010 7:35:02 PM

What is the UN going to do considering how many of their resources they depend on the US for?

6/10/2010 7:58:51 PM

Could you please read my posts. I'm not talking about today's spineless UN, I'm talking about the potential of the UN or any other international body in the future if the US continues to act the way it does. No, we are not the most powerful regime ever to rule the world. If we fuck up like this again, perhaps a group of states will put together a new international body whose sole purpose is just to fuck with the United States. Who knows. I'm just saying that eventually it won't be up to "us" or our precious constitution.

6/10/2010 8:06:18 PM