(January 8, 2014 at 6:13 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(December 19, 2013 at 11:57 am)Kitanetos Wrote: If Bush was not held accountable for war crimes, why should Obama?

Yes, presidents should be held accountable for war crimes, but we live in a country where they are not.

It is a high crime under the US Constitution to not uphold treaties (these are equivalent to US federal laws) and among those we have a commitment to prosecuting war crimes, such as torture, which waterboarding is clearly defined to be under different treaties we have signed. So every President who ignores the criminality of his (or her) predecessor is actually committing a criminal act in-of-itself.

Would you please directly link to a treaty that the USA has signed which clearly defines waterboarding as torture..and no I will not look it up myself the onus is on you.

(December 27, 2013 at 4:01 pm)Blake the Heretic Wrote:

(December 26, 2013 at 2:01 pm)là bạn điên Wrote: It is the third highest selling political magazine in the USA.


You don't read much or research at all on the matter so what is your impression based on?

There are hundreds of potential threats daily

.

Why don't you know these things? You are very opinionated and yet don;t seem to bother about reading stuff up.

AQ attacked the USA in Bush's first year, well before he enacted any strongMiddle Eastern Policy. The Invasions were a result of that. Radicals seem to imply that the 9/11 attacks were a result of the USA attacking Afghanistan.


Glad it makes you happy

There has been no diplomatic solution. Syria is in a bloody civil war with hundreds of thousands dead, the vast majority of whom were killed by conventional means. This killing is still going on. All that has been removed was a vastly smaller number of deaths from poison gas. If that is a 'solution' to the war then you have some strange ideas.

Highest selling usually goes hand in hand with corporate influence into content. Besides since when did popular demand dictate accuracy of information? If quality was determined by popularity Miley Cyrus and One Direction would be heralded as the greatest musicians in history.

Actually I read into the matter daily, and at this point I've read at least several hundred articles ( and I mean read, not glance at the headline ) on this particular matter.

Clearly we're doing a better defensive job then, and if we set the priority from offense to defense we might be able to get somewhere. Besides, we'er not in a good economic position to be doing this kind of warfare, it's breaking the country just as much as anything else we do.

I don't know much about Clinton because I was 5 maybe 6 years old when he was in office. Most children don't follow politics. I know he played Sax and was responsible for NAFTA that's about it. Oh and he got a BJ in the oval office.

No, 9/11 happened because of our previous war involvements in the area, combined with unwillingness by our government to take their threat seriously.

Yes, there is still Civil War. Allow to to rephrase since clearly I have to be 100% specific for you: Obama wasn't interested in a diplomatic solution for the nations who were considering intervening war style, however, Putin found one that kept America out of a war they couldn't afford right now. Better?

---

(December 26, 2013 at 2:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I heard Clinton speak at a luncheon in Westbury, NY. He discussed that "opportunity." The intelligence was that he was located in one of two compounds but that both contained unknown numbers of civilians and the risk of massive civilian casualties was too high.

Of course, that was before 9-11. Sadly, now, I think we would fire anyway and not give a shit how many innocents had to die in the process.

We have fallen a long way off our moral high horse.

Wasn't war at one point a last resort for America? I remember from history in both World Wars we waited as long as we could before getting involved. I think we were isolationists at the time. Still, war shouldn't be the go-to for politics it should be the 'last resort'

Not at all. They only were reluctant at wars where their victory was not ensured. During their so-called isolation, they fucked with the Latin American nations.

If you don;t know much about Clinton ad yet spout off as if you know anything about US politics then you are deluded indeed. I know rather a great deal about Jefferson yet was not alive when he was alive...strange that.

Yes...when Germany declared war on the US on 12-11-41 it greatly simplified things for Roosevelt who had a whole country which for the preceding 4 days was ripping mad at Japan and didn't give a single fuck about Germany.

Since that day, there hasn't been a war that we tried to avoid. If we weren't fighting directly ourselves we were always supporting some group of scumbags somewhere.

(January 9, 2014 at 1:43 am)là bạn điên Wrote: Would you please directly link to a treaty that the USA has signed which clearly defines waterboarding as torture..and no I will not look it up myself the onus is on you.

"The federal Anti-Torture Act; the federal War Crimes Act which, even as amended by the Military Commissions Act, bans acts such as waterboarding; federal criminal assault laws, which, under the PATRIOT Act, apply to all assaults by or against Americans on or in overseas facilities designated for the use of the federal government; the McCain Amendment in the Detainee Treatment Act; the Senate-ratified Convention Against Torture; and the Senate-ratified Geneva Conventions (particularly Common Article 3, which prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees).

"While we support legislation to put the entire government, rather that just the Defense Department, under the Army Field Manual on Interrogations, waterboarding has long been a crime," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Other than administering electric shocks or using the rack, it is hard to find a more clear- cut form of torture than waterboarding."

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/a...al-governm

(December 19, 2013 at 10:50 am)Manowar Wrote: This guy has killed innocent men, women and children with his drones. I think a few days ago a wedding party in Yemen was bombed by accident.
He should be held accountable.

manowar

I think bush started it all Lol

(January 10, 2014 at 2:28 am)xr34p3rx Wrote:

(December 19, 2013 at 10:50 am)Manowar Wrote: This guy has killed innocent men, women and children with his drones. I think a few days ago a wedding party in Yemen was bombed by accident.
He should be held accountable.

manowar

I think bush started it all Lol

I hope that is sarcasm.

(January 10, 2014 at 2:32 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(January 10, 2014 at 2:28 am)xr34p3rx Wrote: I think bush started it all Lol

I hope that is sarcasm.

Not entirely. Bush was a war freak.

(January 10, 2014 at 2:41 am)xr34p3rx Wrote:

(January 10, 2014 at 2:32 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I hope that is sarcasm.

Not entirely. Bush was a war freak.

Yeah but completely irrelevant to this thread.

---

The problem is that each administration is afraid to prosecute the former out of fear of political retribution later on. What does that say about their attitude toward the rule of law as it applies to them? Senator Obama promised the end of Scooter Libby justice..yet that is what his administration has been in summary, now adopted by their "liberal" loyalists. So dissapointing. And it started by him not prosecuting the Bush administration. The buck needs to stop here. I mean "retroactive immunity" for telecommunication companies that violated federal statutes? Are you fucking kidding me?

---

Are you aware that the 2012 NDAA, which Obama signed, codified "indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA's dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally."
https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/ndaa

(January 10, 2014 at 2:20 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(January 9, 2014 at 1:43 am)là bạn điên Wrote: Would you please directly link to a treaty that the USA has signed which clearly defines waterboarding as torture..and no I will not look it up myself the onus is on you.

"The federal Anti-Torture Act; the federal War Crimes Act which, even as amended by the Military Commissions Act, bans acts such as waterboarding; federal criminal assault laws, which, under the PATRIOT Act, apply to all assaults by or against Americans on or in overseas facilities designated for the use of the federal government; the McCain Amendment in the Detainee Treatment Act; the Senate-ratified Convention Against Torture; and the Senate-ratified Geneva Conventions (particularly Common Article 3, which prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees).

"While we support legislation to put the entire government, rather that just the Defense Department, under the Army Field Manual on Interrogations, waterboarding has long been a crime," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Other than administering electric shocks or using the rack, it is hard to find a more clear- cut form of torture than waterboarding."

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/a...al-governm

So there is no international agreement that specifically prohibits waterboarding. the ACLU does not get to decide what is or is not legal. the USA has Judges for that.