Bush Signs Terror Interrogation Law

[Jayhawkk]

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush signed legislation Tuesday authorizing tough interrogation of terror suspects and smoothing the way for trials before military commissions, calling it a "vital tool" in the war against terrorism.

Bush Signs Terror Interrogation Law

 

[Sendo]

Really this is pretty scary stuff. If you read the Bill carefully this is really an Anti-Bill of rights.

I really find this disgusting and I can't believe that it passed.

 

[DAdams91982]

Really this is pretty scary stuff. If you read the Bill carefully this is really an Anti-Bill of rights.

I really find this disgusting and I can't believe that it passed.

F*CK THAT. A way to bring people to justice that need it. F*CK these bastards lived better in our detention system than prior, and they killed american citizens on our own soil. Talk to someone who had family in one of the buildings.

Adams

 

[Rage (SoCal)]

Really this is pretty scary stuff. If you read the Bill carefully this is really an Anti-Bill of rights.

I really find this disgusting and I can't believe that it passed.

It's quite interesting what it actually does too. Any pending requests of any sort from terrorist suspects will be void now.

If the sh1t ain't hit the fan enough right now, Japan is now heavily considering acquiring nukes.

 

[glg]

Really this is pretty scary stuff. If you read the Bill carefully this is really an Anti-Bill of rights.

I really find this disgusting and I can't believe that it passed.

I agree. Big brother is here he just arrived 20 yrs late.

 

[wastedwhiteboy2]

our bill of rights should only apply to americans. screw the terrorists. Let the military do their job. red tape sucks.

 

[klugman]

our bill of rights should only apply to americans. screw the terrorists. Let the military do their job. red tape sucks.

You got that right brutha!!!

Also, did these f*cking animals give Nick Berg any rights???

 

[BigVrunga]

You got that right brutha!!!

Also, did these f*cking animals give Nick Berg any rights???

That's what Im saying.

Its understandable why people are alarmed by this though. This bill is to 'protect' us from terrorists. But its the government who defines what a 'terrorist' is. Its pretty clear right now that that's a extreme muslim-type - but what about 25-50 years from now? Maybe it will be someone who doesnt want to pay their taxes, or someone who verbally criticizes the government.

If they really wanted to take a hard line on terror and bring down radical Islam, there are more direct routes than this. A lot of the decisions made by this administration just reek of ulterior motives.

BV

 

[spatch]

I really find this disgusting and I can't believe that it passed.

I find it disgusting but wasn't surprised at all. It's one of those "yeah I heard about that... can you pass the salt" things.

Edit- i'm not disgusted with the law on paper, but this will lead to worse things down the road.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Maybe some of you need to read it before being disgusted.

DETAINEE BILL AT A GLANCE

Highlights of legislation on the treatment and prosecution of terrorist suspects the House approved Wednesday:

War crimes:

• The bill outlines specific war crimes. These include torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, rape and biological experiments. The law provides extensive definitions of each crime.

• The bill does not include a provision President Bush wanted interpreting U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions, the 1949 treaty that sets international standards on prisoner treatment. Also, the president would not be allowed to authorize any interrogation technique that amounted to a war crime.

But he can "interpret the meaning and application" of Geneva Convention standards applied to less severe interrogation procedures. Such a provision is intended to allow him to authorize methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts.

Court system:

• Establishes a legal system to prosecute "unlawful enemy combatants." An unlawful enemy combatant is defined as a person "who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents."

• The court would not be used to prosecute U.S. citizens or individuals who fight in foreign forces on behalf of a sovereign state. The phrase "purposefully and materially" is intended to clarify that a person must knowingly support terror networks to be deemed an unlawful enemy combatant.

• The individual must be selected by the government to be prosecuted under the court system, known as a "military commission." The commission can determine the punishment, including death.

Evidence rules:

• The agreement requires that a defendant be allowed to examine and respond to any evidence given to a jury. If classified information is needed for prosecution, an unclassified summary can be provided.

• When the government wants to protect classified information and an unclassified substitute is not available, the government could opt to drop the charges. Under the laws of war, the president would not be required to release the combatant.

• Defendants could be convicted on hearsay evidence so long as a judge finds it to be reliable.

• Coerced testimony would be allowed in narrow circumstances, generally if the statement was acquired before a 2005 ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and a judge finds it to be reliable. Bans coerced statements taken after the 2005 ban took effect if it violates constitutional definitions of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Habeas corpus:

• Bars defendants from protesting their detention or treatment in civilian courts.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

TIts pretty clear right now that that's a extreme muslim-type - but what about 25-50 years from now? Maybe it will be someone who doesnt want to pay their taxes, or someone who verbally criticizes the government.

It doens't apply to US Citizens.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

It's quite interesting what it actually does too. Any pending requests of any sort from terrorist suspects will be void now.

Thats flat out wrong.

They first go through a Combatant Review Tribunal to determine if he is an unlawful enemy combatant.

He has the right to appeal that status in the D.C Court of Appeals.

If the D.C Court of Appeals uphold the decision he has the right to petition the U.S Supreme Court.


Even after all that and the person is convicited he still appeals again through the same measures as mentioned above.

 

[jomi822]

legislation legalizing torture, not a good idea.

when is bush going to stop. it seems that as long as he says "it will protect american lives" you people will let him do anything.

how long before provisions like these dont apply to just non-U.S. citezens?

 

[Pioneer]

sounds good to me

 

[Dwight Schrute]

legislation legalizing torture, not a good idea.

when is bush going to stop. it seems that as long as he says "it will protect american lives" you people will let him do anything.

how long before provisions like these dont apply to just non-U.S. citezens?

Why don't you get a clue. It PROHIBITS TORTURE.

The senate is going to approve a bill that outlines torture as a war crime yet they are going to allow torture to obtain that information. Yeah, that would pass in a minute.

And who is "you people" ?

 

[jomi822]

Why don't you get a clue. It PROHIBITS TORTURE.

The senate is going to approve a bill that outlines torture as a war crime yet they are going to allow torture to obtain that information. Yeah, that would pass in a minute.

And who is "you people" ?

"The legislation also eliminates some of the rights defendants are usually guaranteed under U.S. law, and it authorizes continued harsh interrogations of terror suspects."

"He also insisted that the law authorize CIA agents to use tough _ yet unspecified _ methods to interrogate suspected terrorists."

In other words, torture. this is america and we need to be above the methods that other countries use, or in my opinion, at least not let people know publicly by passing laws that basically make it ok. i was raised to believe that america was above and beyond other nations in regards to how we handled war, since then, i have been let down. However this is a very large slap in the face.

"The legislation says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts. "

In other words, war crimes. bush can now do whatever he wants to terrosist detainees and violate the geneva convention. This really ruins what little of America's superior image there was.

By what ive said above you might think i am appalled that we are now torturing terrorists and taking away what little rights they had. Not true, i hope we torture them until they literally go insane. i believe they should beg for death after what we do to them behind closed doors at guatanamo. however, what i am appalled at is that we are making this so public. That is not a wise move at all, and does nothing for America's image.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Why don't you get a clue. It PROHIBITS TORTURE.

It prohibits torture but it also lets the president define torture and they would not give examples. One of the big up-in-the-air torture examples is water boarding. As an example.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

"The legislation also eliminates some of the rights defendants are usually guaranteed under U.S. law, and it authorizes continued harsh interrogations of terror suspects."

"He also insisted that the law authorize CIA agents to use tough _ yet unspecified _ methods to interrogate suspected terrorists."

In other words, torture. this is america and we need to be above the methods that other countries use, or in my opinion, at least not let people know publicly by passing laws that basically make it ok. i was raised to believe that america was above and beyond other nations in regards to how we handled war, since then, i have been let down. However this is a very large slap in the face.

"The legislation says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts. "

In other words, war crimes. bush can now do whatever he wants to terrosist detainees and violate the geneva convention. This really ruins what little of America's superior image there was.

By what ive said above you might think i am appalled that we are now torturing terrorists and taking away what little rights they had. Not true, i hope we torture them until they literally go insane. i believe they should beg for death after what we do to them behind closed doors at guatanamo. however, what i am appalled at is that we are making this so public. That is not a wise move at all, and does nothing for America's image.

You seriously need to get a grasp on reality. Harsh interrogations is NOT torture. There is a reason John McCain was involved to make sure that torture was NOT written into the act and why he didn't agree with the wording on the original draft.

I suggest you do some research on what the English, French, Israeli governments define as harsh interrogations because its MUCH worse than us. We are above and beyond the most lenient of nations on enemy combatants but that's not enough for you.

If the criteria is that we should be better than most countries when it comes to following the pertaining enemy combatants then we have achieved that already but you are so caught up in your anti-war, anti-bush attitude that you can't even read whats printed. You think harsh interrogations is torture. Sorry, its not.


"Pacifists emphasize the ideal while igoring the real"

Ben Franklin

 

[Dwight Schrute]

It prohibits torture but it also lets the president define torture and they would not give examples. One of the big up-in-the-air torture examples is water boarding. As an example.

No it does not. It lets him interpret them under the Geneva Convention which means he has to abide by them...which means no torture.

Ask John McCain if he would allow a bill to pass that included torture.

"• The bill does not include a provision President Bush wanted interpreting U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions, the 1949 treaty that sets international standards on prisoner treatment. Also, the president would not be allowed to authorize any interrogation technique that amounted to a war crime.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dwight Schrute]

So?

 

[Jayhawkk]

It's not allowed by the Military but it's allowed by the CIA still because of it's limbo into torture status. Which is why the defining and interpreting comes into play.

My point was that that this new signing leaves a lot 'open' for interpretation which can be dangerous long down the road. Maybe not in mine or your lifetime but someone's.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Ben Franklin.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

It's not allowed by the Military but it's allowed by the CIA still because of it's limbo into torture status. Which is why the defining and interpreting comes into play.

My point was that that this new signing leaves a lot 'open' for interpretation which can be dangerous long down the road. Maybe not in mine or your lifetime but someone's.

And can only be applied to a prisoner that is an enemy combatant that attmepted to and/or was involved in the killing of US troops or civilians.


Thats IF its included.

I think John McCain has a little better idea of what torture is than you or I and since he approved it after rejecting the first version then I am confident its fine.

Plus, I could less if they did waterboard Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Ben Franklin.

Adn what essential liberty have you given up?

 

[Jayhawkk]

I did want to add that I believe we need strict standards and effective ones to protect our people and those we consider allies but I don't think that taking the blind approach is the answer. it took centuries of hate to get where we are today. Do we think we can squash it with a sweeping bill or two? It's going to take time patience and unfortunately many more lives.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I did want to add that I believe we need strict standards and effective ones to protect our people and those we consider allies but I don't think that taking the blind approach is the answer. it took centuries of hate to get where we are today. Do we think we can squash it with a sweeping bill or two? It's going to take time patience and unfortunately many more lives.

Who is taking a blind approach?

I mean all I have seen is criticism and blame here and no alternatives at all.

 

[jomi822]

So?

that isnt torture bobo? again, i hope they are doing worse than that. i really dont know how you can read that article and not interpret it as a go ahead for torture on terrorist detainees.

"The legislation says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts"

It really doesnt get any clearer than that. where in this article does it say this legislation is preventing torture? I just cant see it. read the above quote and seriously consider my point of view, i have considered yours and i just can see it at all anywhere in this article. it really says the exact opposite

its not really a matter of if i support the war or bush, we shouldnt pass inflammatory legislation that will make america look like the bad guy.

 

[Jayhawkk]

I think John McCain has a little better idea of what torture is than you or I and since he approved it after rejecting the first version then I am confident its fine.

Plus, I could less if they did waterboard Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

I agree he does and many others do too. I also do not know John McCain or President Bush or President Clinton, before him. I refuse to blindly place my trust in men or women who I do not know. My trust comes from years of personal knowledge into a person not from their war history or their public achievements.

I don't think Bush is an evil person hell bent or killing the American people. But I also don't think any one person or groups of people always make the best decisions about everything.

My belief is to just keep an open mind. Keep myself informed and react accordingly. Maybe this Bill will be one that will go down in the history books as the sole reason terrorism was thwarted. Only time will tell but there's nothing wrong with questioning or clarifying the situation.

 

[Jayhawkk]

I mean all I have seen is criticism and blame here and no alternatives at all.

That's frustrating and I agree. I'm not blaming anyone though. I'm just seeing certain things that has caused me to raise an eyebrow over and get some better answers on. Nothing more.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

that isnt torture bobo? again, i hope they are doing worse than that. i really dont know how you can read that article and not interpret it as a go ahead for torture on terrorist detainees.

"The legislation says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts"

It really doesnt get any clearer than that. where in this article does it say this legislation is preventing torture? I just cant see it. read the above quote and seriously consider my point of view, i have considered yours and i just can see it at all anywhere in this article. it really says the exact opposite

its not really a matter of if i support the war or bush, we shouldnt pass inflammatory legislation that will make america look like the bad guy.

You do understand this legislations is nothing that any other coutnry has done and we have more leniency than any other country out there?

You keep saying this is bad but this is the same thing that has been going on since the Geneva Convention was enacted, only now its law so CIA officers can't be prosecuted by a country that doesn't recognize the Geneva Convention. You are so fast to criticize this administration (and I do too because their PR sucks) but this law hasn't approved anything that hasn't gone on for 50 years now and has been legal under the Geneva Convention.

You can't see where this legislation prohibits torture? Did you actually read it?

• The bill outlines specific war crimes. These include torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, rape and biological experiments. The law provides extensive definitions of each crime.


• The bill does not include a provision President Bush wanted interpreting U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions, the 1949 treaty that sets international standards on prisoner treatment. Also, the president would not be allowed to authorize any interrogation technique that amounted to a war crime.

Since torture is a war crime, and the Presidents interpretation is guided by the Geneva Convestion he CAN'T commit torture.

as stated here..."But he can "interpret the meaning and application" of Geneva Convention standards applied to less severe interrogation procedures. Such a provision is intended to allow him to authorize methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts.

International courts that sometimes do NOT recognize the Geneva Convention or have laws such as the mandatory wearing of veil by Muslim women. You automatiaclly assume since its against the law its torture and this is why is says "LESS SEVERE INTEROGATION PROCEDURE"

 

[Dwight Schrute]

That's frustrating and I agree. I'm not blaming anyone though. I'm just seeing certain things that has caused me to raise an eyebrow over and get some better answers on. Nothing more.

Problem is people complain and blame before they get answers or even read the legislation.

It amazes me to think people would believe John McCain would allow a bill to go through that could possible have torture. I guess when it coems to politics and some "agendas", common sense goes out the window for paranoia.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

"Pacifists emphasize the ideal while igoring the real"

Ben Franklin

Yes, and hegemony is maintained through a duality of force and consent, both of which this Administration has convinced the mainstream population are necessary.

The actual details of the bill do not bother me as much as it signals, in a sense, the final push of the mainstream to a political right which is conflated with a dangerously nationalistic identity. I cannot say its institution surprises me that much either in so far as state-endorsed torture by the United States has a storied history, not only perpetrated by the states, but in terms of 'education in interrogation' in such places as the School of the Americas. And essentially, I am neither appualed nor disgusted at its actual details, I simply recognize the danger in the premise of such a bill

Most right-wing pundants I imagine will attack me saying such things, or any opposition to this bill as 'anti-american' sentiments, or 'left wing socialism'. However, I do not support extremism in any sense whether it be radical or reactionary, both have an operational premise of the incringement on civil liberties, which, is what this bill is about on a base level. The specifics, can no doubt be argued as just another measure to instill another degree of security, safety, and justice. But the key issue, so aptly put, is pacification. In the West we seem all too tolerant, and moreover encouraging to the incringement of the civil liberties of those whose skin tones differs from ours. How can we be so sure that the current path we are on does not signal the same measures could be put into place domestically?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Yes, and hegemony is maintained through a duality of force and consent, both of which this Administration has convinced the mainstream population are necessary.

The actual details of the bill do not bother me as much as it signals, in a sense, the final push of the mainstream to a political right which is conflated with a dangerously nationalistic identity. I cannot say its institution surprises me that much either in so far as state-endorsed torture by the United States has a storied history, not only perpetrated by the states, but in terms of 'education in interrogation' in such places as the School of the Americas. And essentially, I am neither appualed nor disgusted at its actual details, I simply recognize the danger in the premise of such a bill

Most right-wing pundants I imagine will attack me saying such things, or any opposition to this bill as 'anti-american' sentiments, or 'left wing socialism'. However, I do not support extremism in any sense whether it be radical or reactionary, both have an operational premise of the incringement on civil liberties, which, is what this bill is about on a base level. The specifics, can no doubt be argued as just another measure to instill another degree of security, safety, and justice. But the key issue, so aptly put, is pacification. In the West we seem all too tolerant, and moreover encouraging to the incringement of the civil liberties of those whose skin tones differs from ours. How can we be so sure that the current path we are on does not signal the same measures could be put into place domestically?

Tell me what is "radical" about this bill?


And I don't think you've seen the polls recenetly but the administration hasn't convinced anything to anyone.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

How can we be so sure that the current path we are on does not signal the same measures could be put into place domestically?

The Constitution.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Tell me what is "radical" about this bill?


And I don't think you've seen the polls recenetly but the administration hasn't convinced anything to anyone.

I said the practical implications of the current bill are not what necessarily bother me, but the greater push of the mainstream towards a radical right.

I have seen George Dubya's approval polls, but I have also seen extremely disturbing polls from the United States where over 40% of the population are still under the impression Iraq had something to do with the attacks of Sep.11. Like I said, the duality of force and consent can be dangerous things to the civil liberties of all people

 

[Mulletsoldier]

The Constitution.

And? This administration has shown the willingness and, maybe more appropriately put, the anxious desire to 'interpret' the Geneva Convention. Why not the Constitution in the interests of 'national security' at a certain point?

I am only saying that the larger trend of which this bill is a part of is what fundamentally stikes me as dangerous. It does not bother me if the actual perpetrators of the Sep.11 are lit on fire and left to rot, what does bother me is the attitude of consent which would allow such causing the same activities to be imposed on completely innocent people.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I said the practical implications of the current bill are not what necessarily bother me, but the greater push of the mainstream towards a radical right.

I have seen George Dubya's approval polls, but I have also seen extremely disturbing polls from the United States where over 40% of the population are still under the impression Iraq had something to do with the attacks of Sep.11. Like I said, the duality of force and consent can be dangerous things to the civil liberties of all people

Those polls ask if they were "involved" which is open to so many interpretations its the reason why the poll exists. Most poll questions that are put forth are generalized for a reason, to use against the other party for political points. They are rarely specific.

I don't see this mainstream right movement at all. The Republicans are going to swept out of office November 8th unless some sort of miracle happens. Current polls today show people trust Democrats with national securtity over Republicans now which frankly confuses the hell out of me. The media is predominantly liberal so I don't see this mainstream push at all.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I don't think this is an issue of political partisan but dominant cultural ideals. Even the allowance of such a bill to pass without resistance shows two things: widespread and recognized ignorance of the masses, and a well documented push towards a trend of nationalism which has many prejudices inherent. Beginning with Sep.11, and I think you would agree, the moral fundamentalist movement in the United States has never been stronger. Right wing politics and right-wing religion are on the verge of being synonymous. In fact, George W. even initially called the attack on Afghanistan "Operation Infinite Justice" along with his call for a 'crusade'. When I say right I refer to neither Democrats or Republicans, quite frankly they both disgust me, but more the culture of 'right'.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

*partisan politics, sorry in that first sentence

 

[Dwight Schrute]

And? This administration has shown the willingness and, maybe more appropriately put, the anxious desire to 'interpret' the Geneva Convention. Why not the Constitution in the interests of 'national security' at a certain point?

I am only saying that the larger trend of which this bill is a part of is what fundamentally stikes me as dangerous. It does not bother me if the actual perpetrators of the Sep.11 are lit on fire and left to rot, what does bother me is the attitude of consent which would allow such causing the same activities to be imposed on completely innocent people.

The Consitution is interpretted everyday. Its the reaosn The Supreme Court exists. There is a reason there are Amendments. You could have made the same arguement about gun control.

Why the Geneva Convention? Because its vague and this is the first time in history we have dealt with so many enemy combatants that are not associated to a government run state and it really wasn't set up for that purpose.

I understand what you are stating but in terms of american history these bills don't support the fears you are expressing.

Everyone is so quick to hop on the "rights" arguement when none of your right within this bill are in question.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

The Consitution is interpretted everyday. Its the reaosn The Supreme Court exists. There is a reason there are Amendments. You could have made the same arguement about gun control.

Why the Geneva Convention? Because its vague and this is the first time in history we have dealt with so many enemy combatants that are not associated to a government run state and it really wasn't set up for that purpose.

I understand what you are stating but in terms of american history these bills don't support the fears you are expressing.

Everyone is so quick to hop on the "rights" arguement when none of your right within this bill are in question.

I will concede that the policies and historical construction of the Geneva Convention are outdated and are in need of interpretation. I however, do not feel that they should be fundamentally altered, or the ability therein, should be given to any individual for the purpose of achieving political goals.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I don't think this is an issue of political partisan but dominant cultural ideals. Even the allowance of such a bill to pass without resistance shows two things: widespread and recognized ignorance of the masses, and a well documented push towards a trend of nationalism which has many prejudices inherent. Beginning with Sep.11, and I think you would agree, the moral fundamentalist movement in the United States has never been stronger. Right wing politics and right-wing religion are on the verge of being synonymous. In fact, George W. even initially called the attack on Afghanistan "Operation Infinite Justice" along with his call for a 'crusade'. When I say right I refer to neither Democrats or Republicans, quite frankly they both disgust me, but more the culture of 'right'.

Serisouly Mullet, many of these points are just flat out wrong which in your case would be welcomed.

The trend of nationlism is bascially over in terms of what is was in 2001-2002. The Republicans are getting voted OUT. You still have the traditional base but the 80% that supported the war is almost completely gone.

The religious right are at odds with traditional conservatives. They are more in line with neo-cons which the polar opposite of secualr progressives and/or liberal. Its almost 3 seperate entities in the Rebublican party and the same goes for Democrats.

I don't see some mainsteam right wing push at all, in fact its quite the opposite.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I will concede that the policies and historical construction of the Geneva Convention are outdated and are in need of interpretation. I however, do not feel that they should be fundamentally altered, or the ability therein, should be given to any individual for the purpose of achieving political goals.

It wasn't. In fact, the bill is reinforced by them but when a certain guideline prohibits "embarrassment or humiliation" the interpratation has be there because different cultures have very different meanings on what is considered embarrasing or humiliating.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence to achieve political ends, which essentially the 'interpretation' of the Geneva by this Administration would do. So, when the United States is the target of such activities there exists a huge retalitory outcry, which this bill is fundamentally part of, but these retalitory activities are justified under the name of 'national security interests'. I am not trying to be trendy by consigning to a 'rights argument', I think I am being a human being who refuses to be convinced of state endorsed torture and terrorism. As I said, the trend of Nationalistic propaganda and policy was almost instant after the attacks and the effects of this trend are still, obviously, manifesting themselves. As I have already stated I do not think the bill in and of itself is the necessary danger to civil liberties, though it does impede them to an extent, it is the movement it is apart of.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence to achieve political ends, which essentially the 'interpretation' of the Geneva by this Administration would do. So, when the United States is the target of such activities there exists a huge retalitory outcry, which this bill is fundamentally part of, but these retalitory activities are justified under the name of 'national security interests'. I am not trying to be trendy by consigning to a 'rights argument', I think I am being a human being who refuses to be convinced of state endorsed torture and terrorism. As I said, the trend of Nationalistic propaganda and policy was almost instant after the attacks and the effects of this trend are still, obviously, manifesting themselves. As I have already stated I do not think the bill in and of itself is the necessary danger to civil liberties, though it does impede them to an extent, it is the movement it is apart of.

And your movement is almost nonexistant and will be voted out November 8th which then you can welcome in the secualr progressives and liberals who influence the Democratic party.

Your definitions are extremely distorted. Harsh interrogation doens't influence a political agenda.


This is not a retaliatory outcry, it is putting into law that which alsready happened in the last 50 years. In fact, its LESS HARSH than what we have done in the past.

Your thinking is backwards here.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Serisouly Mullet, many of these points are just flat out wrong which in your case would be welcomed.

The trend of nationlism is bascially over in terms of what is was in 2001-2002. The Republicans are getting voted OUT. You still have the traditional base but the 80% that supported the war is almost completely gone.

The religious right are at odds with traditional conservatives. They are more in line with neo-cons which the polar opposite of secualr progressives and/or liberal. Its almost 3 seperate entities in the Rebublican party and the same goes for Democrats.

I don't see some mainsteam right wing push at all, in fact its quite the opposite.

Flat out wrong why? Because you do not agree with the ideology behind them?

You are invariably reconciling politics and ideologies where in this case they do not need to be. As a citizen of the States your epistemology is fundamentally different than mine in so far as what you consider to be "right wing". Really, in the States there is only the right and the far-right, exhibited by your statement that the Democrats exemplify the left. Nationalism is not necessarily conflated with either one of the United States' partisan political parties, the point is the dominant cultural ideals of the citizens of the United States began to, and still are shifting to further and further to the right irregardless of what dumbass is piloting the ship.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Flat out wrong why? Because you do not agree with the ideology behind them?

You are invariably reconciling politics and ideologies where in this case they do not need to be. As a citizen of the States your epistemology is fundamentally different than mine in so far as what you consider to be "right wing". Really, in the States there is only the right and the far-right, exhibited by your statement that the Democrats exemplify the left. Nationalism is not necessarily conflated with either one of the United States' partisan political parties, the point is the dominant cultural ideals of the citizens of the United States began to, and still are shifting to further and further to the right irregardless of what dumbass is piloting the ship.

Becuase you don't seem to grasp the point the the religious right and the traditional conservative party are NOT ONE. In fact, it will be the lowest turnout from the religious right in protest of the way traditional conservatives run Congress.

Your whole arguement is based on the idea that this is some sort of movement and its NOT and the polls favor Deomcrats in almost every category down the line.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

And your movement is almost nonexistant and will be voted out November 8th which then you can welcome in the secualr progressives and liberals who influence the Democratic party.
Your definitions are extremely distorted. Harsh interrogation doens't influence a political agenda.


This is not a retaliatory outcry, it is putting into law that which alsready happened in the last 50 years. In fact, its LESS HARSH than what we have done in the past.

Your thinking is backwards here.

As I said in the above post, if you consider the Democratic party of the United States to be 'liberally influenced' than it is your thinking, not mine which is backwards in this case. The fact that the Democrats will be voted in November has more to do with this mismanagement, fully and completely, of a socio-economic crisis than dominant ideals. They will be voted out because they were misinformed, disorganized, and mismanaged, not because the public has in any way reversed their trend towards moral fundamentalism and Nationalism.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Really, in the States there is only the right and the far-right, exhibited by your statement that the Democrats exemplify the left.

Umm..there is the base, liberal left merged with secular progreessives which all make up the Democratic party. I said the Republican partt was almost 3 different entities as well AS WERE THE DEMOCRATS.