Home

Bush is Blackmailing the National Security of Every American

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 6:59am.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

It’s as clear as day.

For political gain and to extend his unprecedented grab for unilateral power at odds with our Constitution, Bush is blackmailing the national security interests of the United States.

This is not an alarmist claim by BuzzFlash; it is a fact.

The President of the United States is holding the security of every American as a hostage in a game of chicken.

For more years than we can remember, the Geneva Convention has guided the conduct of civilized nations in matters of war. America has abided by the treaty without dissent or difficulty. In fact, we prided ourselves on implementing the standards spelled out by the Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners of war.

But Bush is now saying, that suddenly for him, the Geneva Conventions do not provide "clarity."  This, of course, is the Rovia/Luntz use of framing to make a betrayal of the American people by the Bush Administration look like a reasonable act. The Geneva Conventions have provided uncontested "clarity" through multiple Republican and Democratic administrations, but all of a sudden they have become "vague" to Bush, even though not a word in them has been changed.

So Bush went to Capitol Hill this past week -- as the Washington Post said in an editorial -- as the first president of the United States to lobby for torture.

Here is where the blackmailing of our national security comes in – and for anyone to blackmail this nation in regards to our safety is a criminal offense.

Bush is threatening to close up the CIA unit involved with terrorist interrogations if he doesn’t get the authority to thumb his nose at the Geneva Conventions. In short, he is blackmailing America.

He is telling us that he will not allow the CIA to interrogate prisoners -- within the bounds of the Geneva Convention -- who might yield information, unless they can be tortured. Bush is thus blackmailing all the residents of America by telling us that he will shut the CIA out of all detainee information gathering unless he can use barbaric methods.

This is isn’t a threat being made against Osama bin Laden. This is Bush threatening the American people, and endangering our lives.

It is one thing to be an immoral incompetent. It is another to side with anyone who would do America harm by blackmailing the American public about an issue that has never been a problem in all previous administrations – and that makes all of them -- that have abided by the Geneva Convention.

When a president of the United States blackmails the citizens of his own nation, it is time for him to be impeached and tried for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Bush is brutally attacking the likes of Colin Powell and John McCain on this issue -- men who actually know combat -- and don’t wish to see our soldiers subjected to the torture that Bush wants to continue using. Of course, how could we ask enemies to abide by the Geneva Convention, when Bush is abandoning it in the name of torture?

In this case, the blackmail Bush is using against the American people is just flat out treason.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

Bookmark/Search this post with:
buzzflash buzzflash | delicious delicious | digg digg | technorati technorati
Technorati Tags:

» login or register to post comments | printer friendly version

Bush Encourages The Torture of USA Soldiers

Submitted by greenback on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 11:10pm.
There can be no mis-interpetation of Bush's measure to obliterate Article III of the Geneva Convetion, his new rule would encourage all nations to do as they want with captured soldiers. So when we have Special Ops, or any of our soldiers caught where they are not supposed to be, say North Korea, it appears Bush wants them to abuse and torture our American heroes. All Americans should be disgusted by this small man's ignorance and his torture fantasies. Stand him in front of the White House and let all Americans line up to spit in his face.
» login or register to post comments

Outrages upon human dignity

Submitted by tom coombs on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 9:42pm.
From the rose garden via the new york times... Mr. Bush argued that the convention’s language was too vague and is proposing legislation to clarify the provisions. “What does that mean, ‘outrages upon human dignity’?” he said at one point. Mr Bush look in the mirror, you are an outrage upon human dignity. Hey Democrats, throw this line back in his face. Which part of the article doesn't he get? We kmow he's mastered "outrages", it must human dignity that he doesn't understand
» login or register to post comments

Bush demand for specificity in torture

Submitted by nhogan571 on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 8:41pm.
NormaH It is clear to me that the reason Bush is requiring (as an excuse) Congress to state particularly what is and is not torture is that under leagal rules, if a particular torture is not mentioned, it is not actionable. They cannot cover everything these evil people can think up. He is just looking for a loophole in the law.
» login or register to post comments

Bush Uses Torture Not To Gain Info But To Incite Terrorism

Submitted by crackerjack on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 4:51pm.
What other reason could there be? To head off another 9/11? Unlikely since only a month before that catastrophe our president, while he still had time to abort it, booted an intelligence officer out of his office for having advised him that al Qaeda was preparing to fly airplaines into US skyscrapers. But let's give our president the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's now hell-bent on ferreting out every tidbit of information possible out of prisoners so as to prevent another 9/11. And say he succeeds to the extent that there are no more acts of terrorism against America or any of its allies, which, of course, is a best case scenario. Will that cool down the hate and fear that incites violent extremism in the Arab/Islamic world? Not unless at the same time he brings our troops home from Iraq and demands justice for the Palestinian people. Which, of course, he'll never do. Which means that, while, on the one hand, the CIA, by its torturing of prisoners, may or may not be preventing acts of terrorism, on the other hand our president by perpetrating wars (ie acts of state-terroris) in the Middle East will end up stoking the very fear and hatred that incites some people there to commit terrorst acts, one or more of which might be directed at America. So even if the CIAs torturing of prisoners results in the above mentioned "best case" scenario" the violence and terrorism isn't going to stop because, for such to happen, there has to be troops out of Iraq now and justice for the Palestinians. So whether President Bush knows it or not, the CIAs torturing of prisoners isn't going to stop terrorism, even in a "best-case" scenario. And, damn it, the odds are that whether or not the CIA uses torture on its prisoners, America is going to get hit again. Which he's willing to risk, being that without his war to incite terrorism, fear wouldn't be stalkng our land and, absent fear, he won't be able to panic us into electing him and his Republican stooges; whereupon he's sure to be impeached. And immediately thereafter (count on it), he'll be on his way to The International Court of Criminal Justice at The Hague, where he'll be tried for his crimes against humanity. Oh happy day!
» login or register to post comments

Moral Clarity

Submitted by klarose on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 1:38pm.
The Geneva Convention articles have clarity, all right, moral clarity. The people working in this administration have absolutely no moral clarity; in fact, I'm beginning to wonder if they have any morals at all, period.
» login or register to post comments

Neocon Island

Submitted by iantuttle on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 2:12pm.
I’d like to see a new reality TV show, perhaps called “Neocon Island.” Here all the neocons are gathered. The toture they employ on others is now employed on them. The object of the game is to see who can hold out the longest. I bet the “bubble-boy” is the first to crack. Only then would get at the real truth.
» login or register to post comments

Bush said, "Were it not for

Submitted by The coffee invi... on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 1:24pm.
Bush said, "Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland." The implication being that if Congress fails to legalize torture, the US will be attacked again. Of course, this is the same rationale for the NSA program and the Patriot Act. This goes back to 9/11 and the failure of the Kean/Hamilton Commission to do an honest investigation. That failure meant that Bush could make these unproven claims and get away with it. Put another way, did 9/11 happen because Bush 1)didn't have the Patriot Act 2)couldn't torture prisoners 3)didn't have domestic spying programs? Or did 9/11 happen because Bush is a corrupt, unqualified President who ignored warnings from foreign leaders, ignored CIA warnings, ignored the August PDB, clamped down on FBI investigations into Saudi linked terrorism, went on vacation in August 01 and then sat in a classroom doing nothing while the attacks took place? The lack of Congressional oversight should be a huge tipoff. If these terror tools are so effective then why is Bush so reluctant to have Congress review them?
» login or register to post comments

ANY CAPABLE INVESTIGATORS; WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS

Submitted by Kathy on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 1:19pm.
MAYBE SOMEONE WILL FOLLOW MY ADVICE. DO A THOROUGH INTERNATIONAL BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION ON THE ULL DANCE PROFESSORS. AND PARTICUARLY LOOK INTO THE YEAR OF 1990. WAS BUSH SR PRESIDENT AT THIS TIME? WAS BUSH SR PRESIDENT WHEN THE PROFESSORS CAME HERE IN OR ABOUT 1986? WHAT WERE THE ARRANGEMENTS THE US MADE WITH THEM OR RUSSIA? IT APPEARS THAT SOMEONE IS ALLOWING RUSSIAN DANCERS TO USE AMERICANS SOCIAL TO GET MEDICAL CARE. IF THAT PRIVELAGE BECOMES THREATENED, THEN THEY ARE THREATENING TO ATTACK AMERICA. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. IN RUSSIA, BALLET DANCERS ARE SEEN IN A MUCH MORE IMPORTANT LIGHT THEN IN AMERICA. AT ONE TIME, THE MEN RUNNING FOR OFFICE-OR EVEN THEY JUST WANTED TO BE JUDGES IN A LEGAL COURT-THEY HAD TO PROVE THEY WERE PROFICIENT AT BALLET. THEY COULD NOT RUN FOR PRESIDENT, CONGRESS, SENATORS UNLESS THEY AUDITIONED AS A BALLET DANCER-LOOK IT UP IF YOU THINK I AM LYING. THIS MEANS THE MEN. THEY WERE NOT AUTOMATICALLY CONSIDERED GAY=THAT IS ONLY AMERICA'S ATTITUDE. IF WE HAVE TERRORISTS, ITS RUSSIA. AND SOMEHOW SAUDIA ARABIA MUST BE ASSOCIATED WITH RUSSIA OR A PART OF RUSSIA. BUSH IS COMING OUT WITH THE MOST SHOCKING THINGS HE CAN TO REDIRECT EVERYONES FOCUS.
» login or register to post comments

ANY CAPABLE INVESTIGATORS; WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS

Submitted by Kathy on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 1:19pm.
MAYBE SOMEONE WILL FOLLOW MY ADVICE. DO A THOROUGH INTERNATIONAL BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION ON THE ULL DANCE PROFESSORS. AND PARTICUARLY LOOK INTO THE YEAR OF 1990. WAS BUSH SR PRESIDENT AT THIS TIME? WAS BUSH SR PRESIDENT WHEN THE PROFESSORS CAME HERE IN OR ABOUT 1986? WHAT WERE THE ARRANGEMENTS THE US MADE WITH THEM OR RUSSIA? IT APPEARS THAT SOMEONE IS ALLOWING RUSSIAN DANCERS TO USE AMERICANS SOCIAL TO GET MEDICAL CARE. IF THAT PRIVELAGE BECOMES THREATENED, THEN THEY ARE THREATENING TO ATTACK AMERICA. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. IN RUSSIA, BALLET DANCERS ARE SEEN IN A MUCH MORE IMPORTANT LIGHT THEN IN AMERICA. AT ONE TIME, THE MEN RUNNING FOR OFFICE-OR EVEN THEY JUST WANTED TO BE JUDGES IN A LEGAL COURT-THEY HAD TO PROVE THEY WERE PROFICIENT AT BALLET. THEY COULD NOT RUN FOR PRESIDENT, CONGRESS, SENATORS UNLESS THEY AUDITIONED AS A BALLET DANCER-LOOK IT UP IF YOU THINK I AM LYING. THIS MEANS THE MEN. THEY WERE NOT AUTOMATICALLY CONSIDERED GAY=THAT IS ONLY AMERICA'S ATTITUDE. IF WE HAVE TERRORISTS, ITS RUSSIA. AND SOMEHOW SAUDIA ARABIA MUST BE ASSOCIATED WITH RUSSIA OR A PART OF RUSSIA. BUSH IS COMING OUT WITH THE MOST SHOCKING THINGS HE CAN TO REDIRECT EVERYONES FOCUS.
» login or register to post comments

Bush Will Arrange an Attack on the USA Once Congress Votes

Submitted by incontext on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 1:05pm.
Of course, Bush plans to be 'right' about his illegal torture program preventing attacks on US soil. After Repubs and Dems vote against his proposed 'get-out-of-jail-free card,' he'll give bin Laden a call instructing him it's time for another attack. Punishment of the USA is what Bush is all about when he doesn't get his way.
» login or register to post comments

Immunity from prosecution

Submitted by RDUhrich on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 12:14pm.
It's important to note that the legislation the Bush was pushing to get Congress to "clarify" the Geneva Convention interrogation guidelines also included provisions to grant immunity from prosecution to those who have violated the anti-torture standards. This would include Bush and all his administration as well as the Military and CIA who have been directed to use whatever methods necessary. This is a tacit admission that their behavior has been not only illegal but also treasonous and impeachable. It is amazing that Republican Senators McCain and Warner have suddenly found a conscience in resisting Bush's pressure to pass this legislation.
» login or register to post comments

Bush Blackmail

Submitted by lizziewho on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 11:47am.
I sensed from listening to him that he has been warned by the CIA that they will refuse to do any more interrogation if they are not protected so that he has no choice but to try to blackmail all of us as you said by closing down this unit. These CIA agents can see prosecution in the future by virtue of their President's command and it looks like he has figured out that his day to be prosecuted is looming also. lizziewho
» login or register to post comments

Rules of War

Submitted by Greshwort on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 11:06am.
Greshwort ..."the Geneva Convention has guided the conduct of civilized nations in matters of war." I have wondered all my long life how "war" and "rules" and "civilized" could be used in the same sentence. Civiliation's biggest oxymoron is the Rules of War. This is Orwell-speak.
» login or register to post comments

How stupid are we?

Submitted by zorro on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 11:46am.
The president needs the tools to fight terrorists. Are we to treat those murderers in the same manner as John Mark (Jon Benet's supposed murderer) with wine and fine cuisine and flying first class? The muslim terrorists will exploit our inabilities to detect them as they did on 9/11. It is the stupidiest idea ever to tie down the very people that are on the frontlines who protect all of us idiots every day. A sad day indeed!
» login or register to post comments

Open sphincter, insert head!

Submitted by marlow on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 8:18pm.
Your basic problem Zorro (tGb), is that your head is so far up your ass you can suck your own pancreas. The president needs tools, huh? here's a shot from the past, ass boy: "We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures. Here ya go again, Frodo: Taggants value disputed Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree. "What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said. The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800. "The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said. Hatch blasts 'phony' issues Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get." Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue." "If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders. CNN 7/30/96. Funny, Zorro(tGb) how a Ref*ckituplican president gets everything he wants while the Dem president gets blocked at every turn. What is that pearly white substance dripping from your chin? And why does it smell like oxycontin?
» login or register to post comments

Then you're in agreement with W

Submitted by zorro on Sun, 09/17/2006 - 7:46am.
So, you're in agreement with Clinton and with what W is trying to do. Finally, someone on this post who's got it right. Please dispense with your insults because it does nothing for addressing issues. :)
» login or register to post comments

Speak for youself. Your incorrect presumtions are what is sad!

Submitted by Kevin Schmidt S... on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 12:53pm.
Bush most certainly does very little to effectively fight terrorism. For the benefit of the country, he needs to resign immediately , Cheney too, and Rumpsfeld, and Rice, and Gonzales. Resign now, or be impeached next year. Most military experts agree that what Bush wants will only make the situation worse, not only for fighting the real war on terrorism, but also for our Constitution, the supreme law of the land. We can have a strong defense as well as a strong Constitution. Without our Constitution, America no longer exists as the land of the free. A sad day indeed!
» login or register to post comments

And yours are correct?

Submitted by zorro on Sun, 09/17/2006 - 1:07pm.
Your presumptions are correct? What are the authoritative sources of your convictions, some liberal newspapers? Or is Dan Rather with his bogus word processing font? Clinton should have resigned, he did so much damage to this country. I bet you can't even name 3 things he did to directly benefits you in those 8 years of do nothing administration like not getting Bin Laden on at least 3 occasions. Yes, you are INCORRECT yourself on your presumptions.
» login or register to post comments

Really?

Submitted by zorro on Sun, 09/17/2006 - 9:21am.
We have not had any terrorist attacks against U.S. interests in 6 years. Please explain what W did to achieve that. Finally, a worthy prez with courage to do what's needed.
» login or register to post comments

So how are you going to fight terrorism?

Submitted by zorro on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 3:00pm.
Will you cancel the Patriot Act? How do you extract the information from captured terrorists before we experience a nuclear detonation? You worry about the Constitution, exactly what is it that W took away? Will we have or need a constitution if we no longer exists as a nation. Explain to me what would be done by the next "hopefully" democratic president. Just being angry will not fix our problems that the europeans and other nations have with terrorism.
» login or register to post comments

I'm getting sick of this...

Submitted by marlow on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 8:41pm.
You fight terrorism first of all by using your brains, if you have any. When military action is appropriate you use it, preferably against the country that actually did you harm. When intelligence is useful, you use it; you don't throw it out if it disagrees with your beliefs. When law enforcement is required, you listen to what they say and you don't tell them to stand down. If you think a citizen is planning a terrorist attack, you GET A F*CKING WARRANT and INVESTIGATE (the shiny new FISA warrants are even available retroactively, Suzy, so there's no time delay!). If you capture someone who you think knows something, you don't put an alligator clip on his penis and his head in a bucket of water, unless of course you'd like to see the same thing happen to our troops in any number of kill monkey's upcoming wars (I just bet you'll be signing up for one of those, Zorro, and that's why I asked you why you hate hate the troops, by the way). Ben Franklin tried to warn idiots such as yourself that freedom should NEVER be exchanged for promises of security; but maybe he was just an al Qaeda sympathizer too. Bitch.
» login or register to post comments

Me too...

Submitted by zorro on Sun, 09/17/2006 - 8:02am.
Clinton did not use the military when he could have on several occasions and that's why we have all of this bullshit. It is probably good that you're not an intelligence officer because you'll be wining, dining, holding hands going to the movies with the terrorists. Exactly what freedoms are you losing. Did the FBI rampage through your house? Or wiretap your your phone? What did you lose? You and the rest of us have no privacy since we pay mortgages. They know everything about you, how much you make, spend and what illnesses you have. What privacy and freedoms are you protecting?
» login or register to post comments

Dereliction of Duty

Submitted by marlow on Sun, 09/17/2006 - 1:05pm.

You're such a coward zorro. Your treachery to the proud traditions of your country reeks. It's unbelievable. Your slop does'nt even rate a response. Your assertion that we need to tear up the bill of rights to fight terrorism is sickening. I would rather die, a FREE AMERICAN in a FREE AMERICA with my rights intact then live a long prosperous life in the pathetic little Nazi Amerika you people are trying to build. Take note of that, friend, I'll make things difficult for you. Pick a better namesake; "Private Pussywillow" sounds more appropriate for you. Freedom isn't lost, little tory, when the FBI busts down your door; it's lost when they are given PERMISSION to bust down your door, when they are given PERMISSION to tap your phones without a warrant, when they are given PERMISSION to arrest you without charges and PERMISSION to torure you, something you'll no doubt remember when a Democrat occupies the White House again. Hopefully you don't hold any office which requires the least smidgen of courage or principle. There, I've insulted you, pussywillow, and I will continue to do as a PROUD and FREE AMERICAN, and as long as I can go on a wingnut website and find myself labelled as an al Qaeda sympathizer or a communist. Go back to Little Green Footballs, fill your belly with David Horowitz' pearly white essence, commune with your fellow traitors, I promise I'll leave you alone there.

Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty or give me death!"

Nathan Hale (executed for his efforts, can you comprehend that, tory?): "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country."

Benjamin Franklin: "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Franklin Roosevelt: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"

Kool-Aid swilling wingnuts such as Zorro: "I'm so scaowed! Pweez, take my rights, I WASN'T USING THEM ANYWAY, take my Constitution, let me merge with the Great Leader and feel secure in his flightsuited, stocking-stuffed glory! Do whatever you want! I don't want to die!! BWAAAAAAH!"

» login or register to post comments

Dereliction of Duty

Submitted by marlow on Sun, 09/17/2006 - 12:20pm.

You're such a coward zorro. Your treachery to the proud traditions of your country reeks. It's unbelievable. Your slop does'nt even rate a response. Your assertion that we need to tear up the bill of rights to fight terrorism is sickening. I would rather die, a FREE AMERICAN in a FREE AMERICA with my rights intact then live a long prosperous life in the pathetic little Nazi Amerika you people are trying to build. Take note of that, friend, I'll make things difficult for you. Pick a better namesake; "Private Pussywillow" sounds more appropriate for you. Freedom isn't lost, little tory, when the FBI busts down your door; it's lost when they are given PERMISSION to bust down your door, when they are given PERMISSION to tap your phones without a warrant, when they are given PERMISSION to arrest you without charges and PERMISSION to torure you, something you'll no doubt remember when a Democrat occupies the White House again. Hopefully you don't hold any office which requires the least smidgen of courage or principle. There, I've insulted you, pussywillow, and I will continue to do as a PROUD and FREE AMERICAN, and as long as I can go on a wingnut website and find myself labelled as an al Qaeda sympathizer or a communist. Go back to Little Green Footballs, fill your belly with David Horowitz' pearly white essence, commune with your fellow traitors, I promise I'll leave you alone there.

Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty or give me death!"

Nathan Hale (executed for his efforts, can you comprehend that, tory?): "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country."

Benjamin Franklin: "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Franklin Roosevelt: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"

Kool-Aid swilling wingnuts such as Zorro: "I'm so scaowed! Pweez, take my rights, I WASN'T USING THEM ANYWAY, take my Constitution, let me merge with the Great Leader and feel secure in his flightsuited, stocking-stuffed glory! Do whatever you want! I don't want to die!! BWAAAAAAH!

» login or register to post comments

Rights for AQ?

Submitted by zorro on Sun, 09/17/2006 - 1:01pm.
Our troops find a piece of paper with a phone number on a body of a terrorist or in a cave; we need a warrant to find Abu al-Muja (fictional name) in your neighborhood? When were your rights ever trampled? Or you just making up the shit as you go along because you're a pissed off a--hole? Again specifically, how were you violated by the govt.? I believe that this administration is working diligently to protect all of us and unfortunately people like you. :)
» login or register to post comments

whatever

Submitted by marlow on Sun, 09/17/2006 - 1:08pm.
You would believe that, eggsucker. That's your problem.
» login or register to post comments

your attacking a strawman

Submitted by euthyfro on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 5:29pm.
there are no "international terrorist organisations" out to kill your kidz. Al Qaedi is a drug cartel set up by the CIA, who introduced the idea of "radical violent islam" to them in the 1st place when they where forming the mujahadeen. i wonder why afghanistan is producing more opium now, after we invaded it then ever b4 in it's history. or why mohammed atta, a suposedly devote muslim, spent so much time at strip clubs and doing blow w/the owner of that florida flight school. i only wish bush will hold 2 his threats & close the whole thing down. END THE WAR END THE CIA END THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL INTELLIGENCE OLIGARCHY END CAPITALISM!
» login or register to post comments

This is the nail in the GOP majority coffin

Submitted by Kevin Schmidt S... on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 11:05am.
Bush just handed the majority in the House of Representative and most likely the Senate over to the Democrats on election day this coming November. Can there be any doubt now that this election will be based on national and not on local issues? I can't imagine how the Democrats could screw this one up. Bush has committed yet another impeachable offense. This time however, it is obvious to anyone with an IQ of a chimp, that Bush is a danger to every American both at home and abroad and a danger to our Constitution, the supreme law of the land that defines us as the USA.
» login or register to post comments

Am I missing something here?

Submitted by BigHeavingSigh on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 10:02am.
Because this sounds like a win-win to me. GWB is threatening to have the CIA stop torturing prisoners if Congress won't agree to let him keep on having the CIA torture prisoners? What's not to like? And as most of those prisoners have been held for 4 years or longer, what possible information could they have that would be of any value TODAY??? The clock is running down, and GWB is running scared. He is desperately trying to save his own ass, and it's not looking too good for him either. At this point he will do anything he thinks he needs to, to save himself. This is only the beginning. His carefully created 'reality' is crumbling all around him, he is clearly at the end of his mental rope. Not a good thing, not at all.
» login or register to post comments

Good point!!

Submitted by Zee (not verified) on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 11:34am.
Worth highlighting: as most of those prisoners have been held for 4 years or longer, what possible information could they have that would be of any value TODAY???
» login or register to post comments

A simple formula

Submitted by Vierotchka on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 9:42am.
Since Bush proclaims to be such a good Christian, he should be reminded that one of the "pillars" of Christianity and its teachings is the Golden Rule - Do onto others as you would have them do onto you - and thus he should treat detainees in the manner he would want American detainees to be treated in other countries. It is as simple as that, if Bush and his clique really are the Christians they claim to be.

Vierotchka

» login or register to post comments

What's Obvious

Submitted by Gonnuts on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 9:37am.
That we are even having this discussion about torture is unconscionable. How anyone can argue for torture is something that I simply can't phantom. How a president of this country can advocate such is stomach-turning, bone-headed, immorally, disgustingly, stupid! And then to actually say that if you don't get the right to torture you'll take your ball and go home, ending the game altogether? Christ! Can we impeach now?
» login or register to post comments

If I may...

Submitted by Vierotchka on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 9:56am.
I think you meant "fathom", not "phantom". :)

Vierotchka

» login or register to post comments

Ah, right

Submitted by Gonnuts on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 10:21am.
... should stop writing before my first cup of coffee - thanks
» login or register to post comments

Geneva Convention

Submitted by tom coombs on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 9:22am.
Geneva Convention hey buzz...we've got to protect our troops and stop little georgie messing with the geneva convention .the rest of the world now, thanks to george, cheney and rummy, sees america as a nation of terrorists.(and why not?..the electorate keeps voting them in). american soldiers are going to be subjected to some heavy duty interrogations if georgie alters article three of the geneva convention. what information could american soldiers give? they don't know when the next civilian is going to kidnapped and disappeared to some dark prison. they don't know when the next civilian household will be attacked, children raped and witnesses killed. of course a little waterboarding might loosen their lips and get them to admit to anything. these poor bastards wouldn't even be in this situation if georgie hadn't used his preemptive strike to start an illegal war. little georgie is scared of press conferences. he'd piss himself if he was led into an interrogation chamber. yet by changing the rules of the geneva convention he's exposing american troops to retaliatory torture. hey george there might come a time when you lose your crown and the cia might want to ask you some questions. think about it.
» login or register to post comments

Blackmail -- or insurance?

Submitted by bob5540 on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 8:27am.

There's one thing I'm personally certain of. This isn't about giving the CIA the tools it needs. This president hasn't let the law hinder him in the past, so why should he in the future?

But there are a lot of CIA and other people who are looking at the political landscape and seeing that they might not have the protections after January that they've supposedly enjoyed until now. The Chief Protector and his #2 may themselves be in some jeopardy. You may have read that many CIA operatives are buying liability insurance these days. So what this is really about is covering everybody's legal backsides before it is too late.

The CIA has long operated (at times) outside international law. It's done in secret, and we all just pretend not to know. The same is true of Mossad and other secret services. Once in a while we get caught at it, and Congress steps in and/or the president apologizes. Then we go back to secrect ops. I'm not arguing whether that's good or bad.

Ostensibly, Bush is asking Congress to openly legitemize future actions that are presently outside the international law. Still, I am not arguing whether that's good or bad -- but if you really want to know: It's bad because it's unnecessary, and because it gives other nations and entities the excuse to do the same, openly and with impunity.

What I am actually saying is this: The president's real goal is to cover some butts for things that have already happened, to retroactively protect people who have broken the law and who are afraid their acts will be discovered and prosecuted -- if the Democrats get subpoena power.

So, what we have here is Bush pushing something that's quite unnecessary and puts our soldiers and operatives at greater risk, just keep himself and his cohorts out of jail. That I object to.

bob at 55-40

» login or register to post comments

The Constitution specifically prohibits that

Submitted by Vierotchka on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 9:51am.
What I am actually saying is this: The president's real goal is to cover some butts for things that have already happened, to retroactively protect people who have broken the law and who are afraid their acts will be discovered and prosecuted -- if the Democrats get subpoena power.

You cannot apply new laws to actions and crimes committed before that new law comes into effect. I do believe the US Constitution specifies this in Section 9:

    The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

    No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Vierotchka

» login or register to post comments

EX POST FACTO

Submitted by Anon A Mouse on Mon, 09/18/2006 - 5:19pm.
That only means that you cannot prosecute someone for doing something that was not illegal at the time they committed the act. It does not work the other way around. You cannot prosecute someone for doing something that is no longer illegal even if it was illegal at the time.

Ex1: If I post nasty things about W on the Internets today, and tomorrow they pass a law that says I can't do that anymore, they can't prosecute me unless I do it again after the law has been passed.

Ex2: If I commit an armed robbery today and tomorrow they make armed robbery legal, then they can't prosecute me even though what I did was illegal at that time.
» login or register to post comments

I agree

Submitted by cagey on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 9:16am.
For the Bush crowd profit and self-protection trump the phony ideology they preach, which is just a cover for their crime sprees anyway. They lost the protection of the SCOTUS on this issue, so they have to get another protection scheme into place.
» login or register to post comments

Spoiled Brat

Submitted by Captain Jessie on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 7:47am.
According to child psychologists, temper tantrums range from whining and crying to screaming, kicking, hitting, and breath holding. In Bush's case, being told "No" results in screaming, kicking and threatening. He has been so used to his rubber-stamp congress giving him his way that he refuses to accept defeat in a mature manner. That's because he has always been a spoiled little brat. According to his mother, Bush seemed to get his way while growing up. Some may see a President in the White House, but I clearly see a three-year-old spoiled child.
» login or register to post comments

I Agree

Submitted by scullygrrrl on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 11:30am.
Bush is acting just like a spoiled child who's being threatened with losing his favorite toy; an apt metaphor since his favorite toys are fear, suffering and death. This is a VERY sick man. The rest of the world has known it for some time now. However, I'm afraid even this won't wake up those Americans who seem to have the attention spans of gnats. If it doesn't hit them in their wallets, they don't notice. Add to that a symbiosis with the mainstream media and "Houston, we have a problem."
» login or register to post comments

I agree...

Submitted by laurietrup on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 9:32am.
I thought the same thing when I witnessed his near-meltdown at yesterday's press conference.
» login or register to post comments

And the Matt Lauer interview

Submitted by Zee (not verified) on Sat, 09/16/2006 - 11:40am.
Did you see the way Bush crowded his personal space, poked his finger at him repeatedly, motor-mouthed his way through Matt's dogged questioning of his torture policy? I'm surprised Matt didn't ask him to stop. I doubt he'd tolerate such invasive and assinine behavior from anyone else. Anyone who can't see that Bush is a mentally and developmentally disturbed being is blinded by cult-partisanship, delusion, or both.
» login or register to post comments