No principles left: Obama caves on all the fundamentals he once opposed

The saddest Daily Show clip ever. Guantanamo? Still open. Extraordinary rendition? Still going. Habeas corpus? Denied. Whistleblowers? Prosecuted. Executive power? Just recently, a Presidential order to simply kill a particular person wherever he’s found.

This was change? What’s left?

And to make it worse – Americans are consigned (by apathy and national pride) to a permanent two-party system where it is impossible for anyone but the old evil and incompetent parties to win.

It’s incredibly depressing.

ELSEWHERE: On the freedom from oppression front, there is some good news out of Iceland, as they pass what are described as “the world’s strongest press and whistleblower protection laws”.

UPDATE: The second part of last night’s Daily Show, about the recent discovery of vast mineral wealth under Afghanistan, is also fairly depressing:

Citizens of Afghanistan, you know those stories about poor people whose lives are difficult and then they hit the lottery, and for some reason their lives REALLY turn *****? That’s you. You think your country’s war-torn now? This is what it’s like when we DON’T want what’s underneath you. Up till now we’re just motivated by revenge. But Greed? That is a whole new ballpark my friend…

And the Fox News guy who asininely suggested that “now they can pay for the war perhaps” gets the retort he deserves.

Advertisements

77 responses to “No principles left: Obama caves on all the fundamentals he once opposed

  1. Splatterbottom

    It is truly funny that this most leftist of presidents, this alien in the White House, is being hammered by the left. It shows how far out of touch the left really is, as it bleats and brays for Obama to disappear further up his own suppository repository, that stinking brown domain that is the spiritual home of all leftists.

    Knowing that they can’t actually win an election, because most people like them even less than they like major parties, they pathetically whine about the electoral system. The only known system that would produce a president further to the left of Obama is one where only party members can stand for president. Truly amazing!

  2. What percentage of Americans do you think oppose the above things, SB? Who oppose extraordinary rendition, who oppose holding people indefinitely without charge in places like Guantanamo, who believe in the long-established principles of Habeas Corpus?

    I’m presuming it’s more than none, which is precisely the number of major parties in the US that now stand against those things.

    PS A preference voting system would at the very least give US voters a choice.

  3. “It shows how far out of touch the left really is, as it bleats and brays for Obama to disappear further up his own suppository repository…”

    I don’t know whether they are bleating and braying, but they are certainly complaining that he is doing the exact opposite of what he promised he would do if elected. That seems like a reasonable complaint.

    These were central planks of his election platform. If folks didn’t want him to do the things that he said he would do once elected president, how did he get voted in?

  4. Wow, WSJ criticises Obama. Shocking stuff.

    Imagine if I went to a right wing message board and linked to an article from Green Left Weekly criticising Bush. Would that be a sensible thing to do? A productive use of my time?

  5. “It is truly funny that this most leftist of presidents,

    More leftist than FDR?

    Besides, relative to Bush, Reagan et al he may well be a leftist but the reality is that he is firmly right of centre something that is lost on the wingnuts who occupy the extreme right.

    “that stinking brown domain that is the spiritual home of all leftists.

    Well even if it were true, that the spiritual hole of the ‘leftists’ is an arsehole (which isn’t true, just another piece of ridiculous hype on your part) you’d still be wrong because Obama is not a leftist. Do you try your best to be consistently wrong? If so, congratulations, you’re doing a great job. Go on SB have another cry about ad-hominem attacks just to remind us all that as well as being consistently wrong you’re also a hypocrite….

  6. Splatterbottom

    Jeremy you are complaining that no one wants to vote for parties preaching the above views. It is perfectly open for other parties to offer an alternative. It is just that most people won’t vote for them. That is hardly a cause for complaint.

    Buns, the alternative tactic is for leftists to attach themselves like leeches to a major party in the hope of subverting their policies to leftist ends. Even then, the risk is that those parties will be responsive to the electorate and moderate the hard-line dogmas the cuckoos have laid in their nest.

  7. Splatterbottom

    Buns, I’ve never seen evidence of any productive use of your time here. Masturbation is not an efficient means of reproduction.

    RobJ Obama is to the left of most other presidents. Whether he is to the left of FDR, or Dhimmi Carter for that matter, is moot.

  8. Blast Tyrant

    Jon Stewart’s an idiot for a number of reasons, but to not see this coming? Seriously, what did he expect from Obama?

    Rob, FDR wasn’t really that much of a leftist either. He was forced into a lot of his policies and the concessions granted to workers by worker militancy.

    “Besides, relative to Bush, Reagan et al he may well be a leftist but the reality is that he is firmly right of centre something that is lost on the wingnuts who occupy the extreme right.”

    You forget Rob, SB isn’t on the extreme right – he transcends those petty left – right boundaries and is actually a “pragmatist”, apparently…

  9. “It is perfectly open for other parties to offer an alternative. It is just that most people won’t vote for them.”

    No, it’s that their system means that if you take your vote away from the major party you dislike the least and vote for a 3rd party, you actually help the major party you dislike the most.

    That’s what happens when you don’t have a preference voting system.

  10. “Buns, I’ve never seen evidence of any productive use of your time here. Masturbation is not an efficient means of reproduction.”

    Uh-huh. Grow up, childbrain.

  11. “Jeremy you are complaining that no one wants to vote for parties preaching the above views. It is perfectly open for other parties to offer an alternative. It is just that most people won’t vote for them. That is hardly a cause for complaint.”

    People did vote for them, though. In the US Presidential election of 2008. Remember that? That’s kind of the point of this thread. He promised to do certain things if elected. People voted for him, knowing what his positions were on those things. Then once elected, he did the opposite of what he promised in relation to those matters.

    Seriously, which part of this is controversial or hard for you to understand?

  12. Splatterbottom

    Yes Jeremy, most people will not vote for them. The current system effectively provides a run-off between the two most popular alternatives. Extremists with no chance of winning can hardly complain. Either they convince enough people they are better than the other two choices, or they are consigned to bitter sniping from the sidelines.

    I see you are still at it, buns. You need to get a grip, but not like that.

  13. mondorock00

    Jeremy you are complaining that no one wants to vote for parties preaching the above views.

    Jeez SB – you’re not getting any smarter over time are you?

    Jeremy’s clearly arguing that Obama was voted in as a direct result of preaching the above views – i.e. he’s arguing the opposite of what you accuse him of. He’s arguing that Obama is a disappointment because he has betrayed those who voted for him by not actually delivering on any of his promises.

    Come on SB. Pay attention to what’s actually being said for once in your life instead of simply indulging your arse fixation.

    By the way – do you ever stop to consider the cognitive dissonance required for you to simultaneously argue that Obama is the most leftist US President ever and that the voting population won’t support politicians who espouse left-wing policy?

  14. “is moot.”

    That you’re wrong (again)? Yes, I agree.

  15. “Either they convince enough people they are better than the other two choices, or they are consigned to bitter sniping from the sidelines.”

    Third parties in the US don’t just have to convince their voters of that. They have to convince their voters that enough other people are going to vote for them so it won’t matter that the least-objectionable big party loses their vote.

    Tactical votin: heard of it? It’s a bastardisation – the antithesis, in fact – of representative democracy.

    We don’t have to worry about it here, and can vote for the representative closest to our views without helping the one furthest from them. We can do that because of preferential voting.

    Say 60% of the US electorate is conservative. The “evil leftist” 40% votes for the Democrats. The conservative vote is split 21-39 between the Tea Party and the Republicans. Guess what happens in FPP? The evil leftists win despite 60% of the population hating them more than any other candidates.

    That’s not democracy. That’s FPP.

  16. “Guantanamo? Still open. Extraordinary rendition? Still going. Habeas corpus? Denied. Whistleblowers? Prosecuted. Executive power? Just recently, a Presidential order to simply kill a particular person wherever he’s found.”

    Makes you think doesn’t it that there’s a hell of a lot more going on behind the scenes than we’re privy to.

  17. “By the way – do you ever stop to consider the cognitive dissonance required for you to simultaneously argue that Obama is the most leftist US President ever and that the voting population won’t support politicians who espouse left-wing policy?”

    I’m not sure trolls spend much time making sure they are internally consistent. His intent is to annoy teh leftists, for whom he has held a life-long obsessional hatred. Making sense would be a bonus.

  18. Makes you think doesn’t it that there’s a hell of a lot more going on behind the scenes than we’re privy to

    Indeed – although probably not in the way that you mean.

  19. Splatterbottom

    Mondo: “Jeez SB – you’re not getting any smarter over time are you?

    Hi Mondo. I missed you too.

    “By the way – do you ever stop to consider the cognitive dissonance required for you to simultaneously argue that Obama is the most leftist US President ever and that the voting population won’t support politicians who espouse left-wing policy?”

    Maybe the point I’m making is that even though Obama is far to the left, it is hilarious that he is still being attacked from the fanatical fringe in the belief that people actually want him to behave in an even more left-wing manner.

    Obama has, apparently, tried to close Guantanamo Bay but ran into problems in doing so. It seems to me that it is a good thing that someone is carefully considering the alternatives rather than just bulldozing ahead with it.

    Any parent knows about the desire of children for instant gratification, and should therefore be familiar with the behaviour of spoilt middle class leftist brats. The best thing to do is ignore them as they hold their breath and turn blue.

    And I wouldn’t worry too much about Obama if I was a lefty. He is doing a great job of destroying the US’s international credibility with friend and foe alike.

  20. “the fanatical fringe”

    I did ask, but you’ve declined to answer – just what proportion of Americans do you think oppose the things mentioned in the post that Obama promised to change?

    “in the belief that people actually want him to behave in an even more left-wing manner.”

    If people didn’t want him to do those things, then why’d he promise them, and why’d they vote for him after he made those promises? If they’re so “fringe”.

  21. “Indeed – although probably not in the way that you mean.”

    And what’s the way you think I mean?

  22. confessions

    It’s been 17 months since Obama was sworn into office. In that time he’s had to deal with a recession, a hostile opposition (including a hillbilly uprising who think any tax paid is akin to communism), and now this oil spill. He’s managed to achieve a major campaign promise of health reform.

    I think a reality check is in order. It’s ridiculous to expect that Obama can do a 180 on the Bush years in just 17 months. And with such a hostile opposition, which includes the media.

  23. Splatterbottom

    Jeremy: what proportion of Americans do you think oppose the things mentioned in the post that Obama promised to change?

    I assume that there would be different percentages for the various issues, but I don’t detect any massive outcry, more the occasional bleatings of the disappointed base. I don’t think it is valid to assume that everyone who voted for him agrees with the everything in his platform.

  24. I have felt sorry for Barack Obama almost from the time he got elected.

    He wanted to do so much, but has faced so much opposition from “God’s Own Party”, it has been a Herculean task for him to even accomplish what he has – at ever stage being blocked, forced to compromise, just to get anywhere.

    Our Kevin’s has his own troubles, but I don’t envy Obama his opposition.

    (Isn’t it wonderful! Idealism cannot stand against entrenched old-fashioned political bloody-mindedness.)

  25. ” good news out of Iceland”

    i doubt they understand what they are taking upon themselves

  26. “He is doing a great job of destroying the US’s international credibility with friend and foe alike.”

    No, he isn’t. W already did that.

    Indefinite detention, denial of habeas corpus, torture, summary execution of US citizens not convicted of any crime… Yes, who but the lefty lunatic fringe would oppose these staples of the US justice system? How quickly right wing pants-wetters embraced these and managed to make them the norm.

  27. Splatterbottom

    Buns, a lot of your ignorant comments stem from a failure to understand the nature of asymmetric warfare, and how rules need to be adapted to handle it. Enemy combatants should be held until the conflict ceases. Habeas corpus has never applied to prisoners of war. How quickly lefty pants-wetters jump onto any band-wagon to weaken western civilisation even if it means replacing it with Islamofascist tyranny.

  28. Ah yes, the rule of law. What a fringe lefty “band-wagon”.

  29. “How quickly lefty pants-wetters jump onto any band-wagon to weaken western civilisation even if it means replacing it with Islamofascist tyranny.”

    Are you really this paranoid? And so lame. I’m either with us or I’m with the terrorists, right? The rule of law isn’t a lefty bandwagon, bozo.

    We’re not talking about prisoners of war. We’re talking about terrorism suspects swept up off the street anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield. They’re not prisoners of war. They’re entitled to habeas corpus. This wasn’t controversial until right wing pants-wetters decided to trash the US justice system in the wake of 9/11.

    I don’t have a problem with actual prisoners of an actual war being detained until conflict ceases.

    I suggest you read the US Supreme Court decisions of Hamdi and Boumedienne which will show you where you are going wrong. Luckily, the US SC has respect for the rule of law, even if right wing pants-wetters such as yourself don’t.

  30. Splatterbottom

    Jeremy, this isn’t a binary argument about the rule of law, so much as it’s details.

    At the moment we have existing rules regarding war, but they are not well adapted to asymmetric war. A very crude approach would be to say that the criminal law should be the default position. A more intelligent approach would be to devise a system of rules that deals effectively with enemy combatants while preserving the traditional rule of law protections for non-combatants.

    The tendency in the west is to cower before Islam and ignore previously hard-won freedoms. Now you can’t even have a sausage sizzle in Paris because religious fanatics are upset by pork sausages and grog. You can’t even ridicule religion in Victoria, even a religion founded by a kiddie-fiddling warlord. These are serious assaults on the rule of law designed to cower ordinary citizens and preserve the sensitivities of the votaries of a fascistic religion.

  31. Splatterbottom

    Buns, Khaled Sheikh Mohammad is getting a trial in case you didn’t notice. The US/Yemeni fool is still out on the battlefield organising terror attacks and liable to be shot on sight. What is wrong with that, exactly?

    The problem is that we are fighting primitive goons who have no concept of the rules of war, and who think that killing civilians is a good thing. It is they who have made the whole world a battlefield and they who should be hunted down and killed wherever they are found .

    I wonder why the gutless oafs running interference for these sick murderers don’t demonstrate the superiority of their approach by putting down their lattes and effecting a citizens arrest on the culprits.

    The only reason the rule of law still survives is that brave people have fought communists and fascists who sought to destroy it. We have a new war now with an equally vile enemy. It is a different type of war which needs different rules of engagement.

  32. Thanks, SB. I couldn’t hope to find a better exemplification of right wing pants-wetting than your last post.

  33. Blast Tyrant

    “Thanks, SB. I couldn’t hope to find a better exemplification of right wing pants-wetting than your last post.”

    Indeed, SB gets quite hysterical sometimes. I imagine that since the start of the war on terror that he has had to wear an adult nappy to see him through the day.

  34. Splatterbottom

    As opposed to you two, who wear nappies to collect your lunch in.

  35. http://thisishistorictimes.com/2009/02/one-ring-to-rule-them-all/

    I guess Stewert had to make Palin Gollum, though.

    SB, we’re all too scared of ending up like that man who was arrested while wandering about the Pakistani wilderness with a gun and a big sword. Apparently countries don’t like foreigners wandering around playing soldier.

  36. Maybe the point I’m making is that even though Obama is far to the left, it is hilarious that he is still being attacked from the fanatical fringe in the belief that people actually want him to behave in an even more left-wing manner.

    Maybe it is, but given that he is actually being attacked for failing to adhere to the policy commitments he made during his campaign for this would be an idiotic point.

    I’ll say it again since you don’t seem to be getting it: he’s being criticised for failing to do the things he promised he would do when he was campaigning. You know, the things that attracted people to vote for him in the first place.

    The best thing to do is ignore them as they hold their breath and turn blue.

    Well, Obama certainly seems to agree with you!

    I fear, however, that he may come to see the foolishness of such advice when his base deserts him at the next election. I’m sure you’d agree that America’s “international credibility with friend and foe” will be in safer hands when the Palin administration is ushered in.

  37. The only reason the rule of law still survives is that brave people have fought communists and fascists who sought to destroy it.

    LOL. Now we have to destroy the rule of law in order to save it!!

    Classic stuff.

  38. communists and fascists”

    Well, I suppose at a stretch we could call Bush and Cheney fascists but communists?!!!! C’mon.

    Anyway – happy weekend all – thanks for the entertainment SB 😉

  39. Splatterbottom

    Mondo, I doubt a Palin administration would be much better than Obama’s.

    I also don’t want to destroy the rule of law so much as have a conversation about its limits. Apparently curbing free speech is fine with some, but detaining enemy combatants isn’t.

    The fact that Obama threw a few bones to his base, and now can’t deliver on them shows he may actually be taking his responsibilities seriously, although sometimes I wonder about that.

  40. Apparently curbing free speech is fine with some, but detaining enemy combatants isn’t.

    Just so you know SB, “the rule of law” refers to the executive branch of government being subject to the law, rather than above it.

    When Buns refers to the US abandoning the rule of law he means that representatives of its executive (e.g. CIA agents) are engaging in behaviour that is unlawful (e.g. torture, kidnapping and detainment without charge or trial) yet are not being held to account. This is what the Supreme Court effectively found in Hamdi and Boumedienne, where it recognised that the government had no right to ignore the legal requirement of habeas corpus regardless of how horrible their accusations might be.

    Curbing free speech is not a rule of law issue (although I agree that it is undesireable), whereas govt sanctioned murder or kidnapping of civilians who are only accused of crimes quite clearly is.

    You once said that Jeremy’s advocacy for a fair trial for David Hicks caused you to reconsider and realise that true commitment to a legal principle means upholding it even when it is applied to the advantage of someone you personally despise. It’s sad to see this realisation slipping.

  41. Splatterbottom

    I did get about soft on Hicks, didn’t I. Look, there is a whole host of issues here.

    Closing Guantanomo is purely symbolic, and niether here nor there.

    Chasing down and killing Osama bin Laden and his ilk is a good thing indeed.

    Waterboarding isn’t torture.

    When you have managed to capture some of the bastards, they are entitled to a trial, as KSM is getting, and Hicks got.

  42. SB, I’m sure the WW2 veterans administered the “Water Cure” by their Japanese captors will be thrilled to hear that they weren’t tortured. The families of the executed Japanese soldiers will also be happy to know that Grandad wasn’t really a war criminal.

  43. “Waterboarding isn’t torture.”

    It is, though. You are wrong.

  44. “Waterboarding isn’t torture.”

    LOL – You’re so tough SB…..and completely wrong but you’d be used to that.

    “Chasing down and killing Osama bin Laden and his ilk is a good thing indeed.”

    Yeah, your neo-con heroes fucked that up as well.. stupid wingnuts!

    “As opposed to you two, who wear nappies to collect your lunch in.”

    Great retort SB……../sarc

  45. “Waterboarding isn’t torture.”

    Please, enlighten us with your definition of “torture”.

    PS Christopher Hitchens didn’t think it was torture until they did it to him.

  46. “Hicks got.”
    You call that a trial? Ah I guess it could be described as an unfair trial officially there was a so-called “Pre-trial arrangement” a cosy arrangement with clauses such as:

    “that Hicks must not speak to the media for one year nor take legal action against the United States,”

    Why do think that was SB? I realise you sucked up the utter bullshit from the Howard and Bush administrations but that’s because you’re a gullible sucker prone to not only beleiving proven liars but regurgitating their lies on blogs.

    Like I say, keep it up I like watching wingnuts humiliate themselves.

  47. Splatterbottom

    Broggly, you might have a point if the two techniques were similar. They aren’t.

    Jeremy and RobJ, waterboarding is non-lethal, and doesn’t inflict injury. It causes fear, not pain. It is a tough form of interrogation, but its use is quite reasonable in particular cases.

  48. Unbelievable.

    I repeat: please, enlighten us with your definition of “torture”.

  49. Splatterbottom

    Unbelievable. The salient points are in the last comment.

  50. “The salient points are in the last comment.”

    So if waterboarding’s “non-lethal” nature excludes it from the category of torture, anything short of lethal is not torture? Yeah, you’ve really got a grip on the issue.

    OK, I’ll be generous and ignore that idiocy, and concentrate on the “doesn’t inflict injury”. Let’s have a hypothetical – what if I could induce tremendous physical pain without injury? Is that torture?

  51. Splatterbottom

    JJ you forgot the ‘not pain’ qualification also mentioned in my comment.

  52. I can’t see where in your answer you gave us your definition of “torture”.

  53. “JJ you forgot the ‘not pain’ qualification also mentioned in my comment.”

    Hahahahahahahahaha!

    Wait, OK, wait….

    Hahahahahahaha!

    Alright, I’ve got that out of my system. Firstly – I didn’t forget that at all. See the second paragraph of my previous comment. Secondly, you can’t combine lethality with anything else, as it negates everything else! So either your criterion of “non-lethal” is redundant/meaningless or, as I said, idiocy.

    Now answer the question.

  54. Splatterbottom

    I’ve told you two why I don’t think it is torture. That is enough to make my point. I didn’t offer to produce a comprehensive definition of torture, and it is unnecessary for me to do so. If you want to do so, go ahead.

  55. “I’ve told you two why I don’t think it is torture.”

    But your explanation doesn’t make sense, and I’m trying to clarify your explanation. If you refuse, that implies you are vague on the notion, and have no right to make definitive declarations on the matter.

    Personally, I’m unsure what constitutes torture. That’s not going to stop me making fun of other people’s attempts if I find them laughable.

    My question is a simple one, and I don’t see why you would evade it…. unless you were uncertain as to your working definition.

  56. No, SB, you haven’t told us why you think “waterboarding is not torture”, as you claimed a few comments ago.

    You said:

    “waterboarding is non-lethal, and doesn’t inflict injury. It causes fear, not pain. It is a tough form of interrogation, but its use is quite reasonable in particular cases.”

    That tells us what you think “waterboarding” means (although it’s odd – you’ll note from Hitchens’ article all the disclaimers that are attached to the activity by those who practice it, and that there is, they warn, a real risk of death) but it doesn’t tell us why you say that’s “not torture”.

  57. Like I say, keep it up I like watching wingnuts humiliate themselves.

    Damn, I was half joking but there you go continuing to humiliate yourself by demonstrating that you don’t believe the rule of law and that you support torture.. What a despicable person you are……. Though we already knew that with regard to your attitude toward the 1 million children in the Gaza Strip – your support of the foul blockade that even Israel now admits was wrong, I don’t care what they say, their actions regarding the easing of the ILLEGAL blockade are an admission of guilt!

  58. Splatterbottom

    JJ, you can get all the amusement a person can tolerate just by re-reading your previous comment – you don’t understand my comment, you are not going to give your own definition, and you are cackling like a loon. Have fun in la-la land.

    Jeremy my statement is in the form of a proposition “waterboarding is not torture because of…”.

  59. Splatterbottom

    RobJ you are an utter nutter. You don’t even know what this conversation is about. I support the rule of law and oppose torture. What we are discussing is the boundaries of those concepts.

    Unfortunately, like so many of your ilk, your emotional imbalance undermines your ability to reason. Trying to divert the discussion to Israel’s attempts to deal with its terrorist neighbours just emphasises your pathetic inability to hold a logical discussion.

  60. RobJ you are an utter nutter.”

    then:

    “I support the rule of law and oppose torture.

    Riiight, are you stupid or just lying? You support the US Admin putting itself ABOVE the law therefore you do NOT support the rule of law (you cannot have it both way). You deny that waterboarding is torture, you’re either stupid or lying!

    You are indeed a despicable person… I notice you’ve ignored the point I made about you’re utter and foul disregard for the children of Gaza with your unquestioning support of a cruel and illegal blockade rather trying to pass it off as part of the war on TERROR and your idiotic support of the utterly flawed concept. Pathetic!

    “emphasises your pathetic inability to hold a logical discussion.”

    Another ad-hom just to remind us all that you’re also a hypocrite 😀

  61. SB says, “I believe in the rule of law……BUT!”

    LOL..

  62. The following techniques are non-lethal and do not inflict injury or pain:

    1. Holding a gun to someone’s head in the course of questioning them;
    2. Threats to rape or kill members of a detainee’s family;
    3. Sleep deprivation;
    4. Holding a detainee in a confined space – even, say, an enclosed coffin – for extended periods of time.

    All OK with you, SB? Yes, they cause mental trauma, which one could argue is either “pain” or “injury”. But so does waterboarding.

    If yes, is there any reason why, in your view, the police should not have these techniques available to them in their questioning of criminal suspects?

  63. Blast Tyrant

    Rob: “Riiight, are you stupid or just lying?” – I think it’s a little from column A and a little from column B.

    Jeez, even John McCain thought waterboarding was torture – but he clearly knows less about the subject than SB.

    Trying to divert the discussion to Israel’s attempts to deal with its terrorist neighbours
    I think you mean divert the discussion to the Palestinians and their terrorist neighbours in the IDF and Israeli government.
    And considering this thread is about Obama, who continues to back Israel in all it’s crimes, I hardly see how discussing Israel and it’s illegal and inhuman blockade is off topic.

  64. Splatterbottom

    Rob J, you are really beyond help. Arguing about what constitutes the rule of law is not a rejection of the rule of law. I know this is a difficult concept for you, but do try to keep up.

  65. Supporting Guantanamo Bay as a prison to deprive criminals/suspects access to civil law or a depriving them their rights as prisoners of war is an out and out rejection of the RULE of LAW

    And you also support torture, saying that something isn’t torture when it is doesn’t alter the fact.

    And….just for good measure there’s your despicable support of the collective punishment of the children of Gaza. You ought to be ashamed of yourself!

    Rob J, you are really beyond help

    I’m happy for the readers to make up their own minds, that you think I’m beyond help probably means that I’m not 😉

    I know this is a difficult concept for you

    The concept of the rule of law is simple, it applies to EVERYBODY!

    but do try to keep up.

    Err, I’m not the one who keeps tripping myself up with asinine posts…

  66. Waterboarding is torture, despite what SB likes to think.

    Torture isn’t just about inflicting physical pain, or causing injuiry. It also includes extreme mental anguish, fear and the experience of agony.

  67. Oops, should read: Waterboarding is NOT torture, despite what SB likes to think.

  68. Oh dear. Let me be clear.

    waterboarding is most definately an act of torture.

  69. Splatterbottom

    RobJ, Guantanamo Bay is a prison. As such its existence doesn’t really matter one way or the other. US law is that the prisoners are entitled to a trial. What is your beef with this?

    Your comments are torture to read. Please stop torturing us, or at least cynically denying that the debate about what constitutes torture is not legitimate.

    Gaza is irrelevant to this debate. Suffice to say that you are completely wrong on this anyway.

    Confessions, be careful. You almost lapsed into reason for a moment.

  70. Why does anyone bother to argue with this supercilious tosser? He gets off on provoking decent people with his vile ideas and puerile insults and then watching them froth at the mouth with incoherent anger, which is probably quite a normal, humane response to this kind of misanthropic filth.

    He likes to think he’s intellectually and morally superior to us dopey lefties, so let him indulge himself and just ignore him. There’s plenty of other people here that we can converse with, why bother with a prick like him? You wouldn’t give this idiot the time of day if you met him on the street, so why give him any attention here?

    Let’s just set him a challenge: no-one here will respond to anything he posts until he submits himself to a public waterboarding, administered by RobJ. If he survives it and still says it’s not torture, then we could “chase him down and kill him, which would be a good thing indeed”, to quote some fuckwit I read somewhere.

  71. Well said, sir.

    *golf clap*

  72. “Why does anyone bother to argue with this supercilious tosser? ”

    Because I get a laugh at his ridiculous responses? Like this one:

    RobJ, Guantanamo Bay is a prison. As such its existence doesn’t really matter one way or the other. US law is that the prisoners are entitled to a trial. What is your beef with this?

    LOL He thinks that holding someone indefinitely on the flimsiest of evidence then throwing them in front of a cobbled together (just for the occassion) military tribunal is cool, he doesn’t understand the term extrajudicial.

    Let’s just set him a challenge: no-one here will respond to anything he posts

    I’d agree as long as it means I can still take the piss out of his crass posts?

  73. confessions

    He thinks that holding someone indefinitely on the flimsiest of evidence then throwing them in front of a cobbled together (just for the occassion) military tribunal is cool, he doesn’t understand the term extrajudicial.

    Not to mention that, as I understand it, having waterboarded detainees makes it very difficult to even get to trial, as any evidence obtained through torture is likely to be ruled inadmissible.

    So much for rule of law and justice.

  74. Splatterbottom

    Confessions the purpose of waterboarding, which has been used on only 3 detainees, is to obtain information about planned further attacks. It is not to gain evidence.

  75. confessions

    Ah yes, the ticking time bomb. Wondered when that one would come out.

  76. confessions

    which has been used on only 3 detainees,

    Assuming it is only 3 people, this doesn’t tell us that two of those people were waterboarded 183 times and 83 times in the space of one month respectively. And what can happen when we accept cruel, sadistic interrogation methods as the norm in the military?

    A soldier waterboarded his four-year-old daughter because she was unable to recite her alphabet. Joshua Tabor admitted to police he had used the CIA torture technique because he was so angry.

    [T]he terrified girl was found hiding in a closet, with bruising on her back and scratch marks on her neck and throat. Asked how she got the bruises, the girl is said to have replied: ‘Daddy did it.’

    It’s a slippery slope, which is why harsh and extreme interrogation practices are deemed illegal.

  77. Here’s another “goon” the fascist right wing pants-wetters would like “hunted down and killed wherever they are found”:

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/21/pundits/index.html

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s