CIA Interrogation Torture in the Bush Years

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
OreIda		#181	[-]
Posts: 1272 (04/23/09 1:17 PM) Hey! I kinda like it here! Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	TobaccoRhoda wrote: UT OH. Nancy Pelosi just said the intelligence committee wasn't briefed on the use of waterboarding. It's all news to her. Intel inside, idiot outside.
ACG2003		#182	[-]
Posts: 1909 (04/23/09 1:19 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Well...let's just run out and let those terrorists know that we're trying to get a warrant to tap their phone line. Sometimes, you just can't get one in time, so you have to use other means. They're terrorists anyway....they don't deserve the same rights as someone who is a citizen of this country.....or if you're are a citizen helping those assholes then honestly, you should have any rights either. Don't expect you to agree, but that's what makes this country great.....we can have and voice our opinions.
youfist		#183	[-]
Posts: 2882 (04/23/09 1:20 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	LOL at this whole new spin. Obama has a shitty 'US apology' tour in central America, a terrible G-20 and now his israeli spin doctor (Rham Emanual) is trying to get 'Bush' back in your dumb sheeple faces/dome piece. and you are falling for it
blockhose		#184	[-]
Posts: 4374 (04/23/09 1:21 PM) Treadmill martyr Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	blockhose wrote: Wait a gull darn minute... a politician is full of shit???? There goes my world view. TobaccoRhoda wrote: It also was completely useless. :single t.ear
Veelicious		#185	[-]
Posts: 5401 (04/23/09 1:21 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	B DeBrun wrote: Veelicious wrote: A/C privilege doesn't protect attorneys. I thought you needed to add "if they don't break US laws or ethical standards of the bar associations they are members of.... " to the end of that sentence. When did that change? I'm sure there are legal precedents around this basic concept, so what are the exceptions? It doesn't protect attorneys. It protects clients. It's the clients privilege to waive.
Je Fa		#186	[-]
Posts: 1947 (04/23/09 1:22 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ACG2003 wrote: Well...let's just run out and let those terrorists know that we're trying to get a warrant to tap their phone line. Sometimes, you just can't get one in time, so you have to use other means. They're terrorists anyway....they don't deserve the same rights as someone who is a citizen of this country.....or if you're are a citizen helping those assholes then honestly, you should have any rights either. Don't expect you to agree, but that's what makes this country great.....we can have and voice our opinions. So you're playing off the 1st amendment against the 4th amendment. Are you in favor of repealing the 4th amendment? Because that's the only way we could wire tap American citizens without a search warrant.
ohboy		#187	[-]
Posts: 4177 (04/23/09 1:23 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	yeah, wanting to make sure we're not blindly following bad government policy made without proper oversight makes us sheep. gotcha. on wire-tapping, there is good and bad wire-tapping. too bad we can't trust the government to do it right, limiting it to legit targets. but we can't. so we have a messy system where we have to discuss it all, and one branch of government provides oversight of another. if they're doing their job. so maybe sometimes we have a congressional commission on torture, and maybe sometimes we hold some administration officials accountable. just keeping things in balance.
Bonestripper		#188	[-]
Posts: 1246 (04/23/09 1:26 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	We should just ask them 3 times
blockhose		#189	[-]
Posts: 4376 (04/23/09 1:27 PM) Treadmill martyr Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Ever notice how righties loathe the gov't when it comes to their money, but when it comes their privacy - the gov't is A-OK? Maybe if they move the wiretapping people into the finance positions, the GOP would embrace a pro-tax platform. At least that way, the IRS would know who's cheating the gov't!
Bonestripper		#190	[-]
Posts: 1247 (04/23/09 1:29 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	yeah, wanting to make sure we're not blindly following bad government policy made without proper oversight makes us sheep. gotcha So your pro protesting as long as you agree with the protest right?
ACG2003		#191	[-]
Posts: 1910 (04/23/09 1:30 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Je Fa wrote: ACG2003 wrote: Well...let's just run out and let those terrorists know that we're trying to get a warrant to tap their phone line. Sometimes, you just can't get one in time, so you have to use other means. They're terrorists anyway....they don't deserve the same rights as someone who is a citizen of this country.....or if you're are a citizen helping those assholes then honestly, you should have any rights either. Don't expect you to agree, but that's what makes this country great.....we can have and voice our opinions. So you're playing off the 1st amendment against the 4th amendment. Are you in favor of repealing the 4th amendment? Because that's the only way we could wire tap American citizens without a search warrant. Let's just say that I'm glad that I'm not the one having to make those types of decisions. I would hate for any American's rights to be violated, but sometimes things may need to be done to ensure everyone's safety. I don't know all the ins and outs with the wire-tapping, but I don't really think they were going after the average joe blow........I think they were looking at specific people who were probably already suspect in areas of this nature. I don't know....I think the President (past & present) and those who work with him have to sometimes make unpopular decisions to ensure the protection of this Nation and it really bothers me that so many people (although it's their right) want to always question their motives. We're not privy to the info that they get etc. etc.
ohboy		#192	[-]
Posts: 4178 (04/23/09 1:37 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Bonestripper wrote: yeah, wanting to make sure we're not blindly following bad government policy made without proper oversight makes us sheep. gotcha So your pro protesting as long as you agree with the protest right? i'm all pro-protest. but that does not mean that i in any way forgo my right to make fun of the nutjobs and the dorks while they're making asses of themselves. ACG2003 wrote: They're terrorists anyway. yeah, that's the thing -- who says? Last Edited By: ohboy 04/23/09 1:40 PM. Edited 1 times.
factoryhurl		#193	[-]
Posts: 7436 (04/23/09 1:44 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	liz cheney is a miserable c.unt. just like daddy.
kutabeach		#194	[-]
Posts: 2234 (04/23/09 2:03 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Bonestripper wrote: We should just ask them 3 times and throw doggie doo on their shoes.
frisbeehead		#195	[-]
Posts: 15035 (04/23/09 2:05 PM) Make it a funny one! Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I luv the "enhanced male enhancement interrogation techniques" spin phrase.
Je Fa		#196	[-]
Posts: 1950 (04/23/09 2:06 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	you mean euphemism
blockhose		#197	[-]
Posts: 4383 (04/23/09 2:07 PM) Treadmill martyr Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ohboy wrote: ACG2003 wrote: They're terrorists anyway. yeah, that's the thing -- who says? The same people who say how much taxes we should pay? Oh wait - those are the bad people. I keep forgetting.
B DeBrun		#198	[-]
Posts: 19944 (04/23/09 2:10 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Veelicious wrote: B DeBrun wrote: Veelicious wrote: A/C privilege doesn't protect attorneys. I thought you needed to add "if they don't break US laws or ethical standards of the bar associations they are members of.... " to the end of that sentence. When did that change? I'm sure there are legal precedents around this basic concept, so what are the exceptions? It doesn't protect attorneys. It protects clients. It's the clients privilege to waive. Mea culpa. I meant to add in "if the client will not waive.." to give it the full context. So the question remains, if the client will not waive, what then?
Screerider		#199	[-]
Posts: 24301 (04/23/09 2:14 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	What would Jack Bauer do?
Je Fa		#200	[-]
Posts: 1951 (04/23/09 2:17 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	B DeBrun wrote: Veelicious wrote: B DeBrun wrote: Veelicious wrote: A/C privilege doesn't protect attorneys. I thought you needed to add "if they don't break US laws or ethical standards of the bar associations they are members of.... " to the end of that sentence. When did that change? I'm sure there are legal precedents around this basic concept, so what are the exceptions? It doesn't protect attorneys. It protects clients. It's the clients privilege to waive. Mea culpa. I meant to add in "if the client will not waive.." to give it the full context. So the question remains, if the client will not waive, what then? We're the client, at least as far as the Justice Dept. goes. I suppose the white house counsel is a different story.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

CIA Interrogation Torture in the Bush Years

Quick Reply