On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 07:29:13 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

The way you are separating your comments from mine, two dashes and a
space, is the standard signature delimiter. My newsreader reads your
comments as a signature and cuts them.



Bailing on Bush is all I hope for, though by bailing I simply mean not
supporting him in lockstep as most Repubs in the House have been doing
for the past five years.

What is interesting to me is how the Repubs are reinventing systems,
procedures and rules in Congress to push their agendas, while boobus
Americanus sits home and snores.

I'm more than disappointed. Spying on Americans has been an ongoing fight
between various administrations wanting to take the easy way, and civil
liberties. I don't like it, but I can't say Bush is the first, but an
American President defending torture? I didn't think I'd ever see the day.


Welkome to Republican Amerika.

Fortunately, not all Republicans. This regime shall also pass into
history, the sooner the better.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 08:00:28 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 07:29:13 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

The way you are separating your comments from mine, two dashes and a
space, is the standard signature delimiter. My newsreader reads your
comments as a signature and cuts them.



Bailing on Bush is all I hope for, though by bailing I simply mean not
supporting him in lockstep as most Repubs in the House have been doing
for the past five years.

What is interesting to me is how the Repubs are reinventing systems,
procedures and rules in Congress to push their agendas, while boobus
Americanus sits home and snores.

I'm more than disappointed. Spying on Americans has been an ongoing fight
between various administrations wanting to take the easy way, and civil
liberties. I don't like it, but I can't say Bush is the first, but an
American President defending torture? I didn't think I'd ever see the day.


Does it bother you that Democrats were involved from the get-go? Do you think those Democrats are
just conservatives in disguise, or could they have had a rationale for their decision? Perhaps there
is more to the story than meets the eye?

BTW, here is a great Christmas gift for some of your buddies.

http://gop.com/store/Detail.aspx?id=15
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 09:13:36 -0500, JohnH wrote:


Does it bother you that Democrats were involved from the get-go? Do you
think those Democrats are just conservatives in disguise, or could they
have had a rationale for their decision? Perhaps there is more to the
story than meets the eye?

Bull****, John, Congress wasn't involved, Democrats or Republicans, and
unless you are aware of what exactly was said during that briefing, they
may not have even known. If Congress was involved, it would be a
different story. They have the Constitutional authority to make law. Of
course, any law would be up for judicial review, but that didn't happen
either, did it?

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:28:16 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 09:13:36 -0500, JohnH wrote:


Does it bother you that Democrats were involved from the get-go? Do you
think those Democrats are just conservatives in disguise, or could they
have had a rationale for their decision? Perhaps there is more to the
story than meets the eye?

Bull****, John, Congress wasn't involved, Democrats or Republicans, and
unless you are aware of what exactly was said during that briefing, they
may not have even known. If Congress was involved, it would be a
different story. They have the Constitutional authority to make law. Of
course, any law would be up for judicial review, but that didn't happen
either, did it?

I posted, yesterday, the paragraph from the NY Times story showing they *were* involved, at least
the Senate Intelligence Committee. I believe I even highlighted the 'both parties' phrase from the
paragraph. Did you miss that?

And, unless you were there, you don't know any more than I do.
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

"thunder" wrote in message

...but an
American President defending torture? I didn't think I'd ever see the
day.

Pres Bush was not defending torture, as the press so gleefully loves to
portray. What he was defending was the use of distastefully coercive
interrogation techniques. Surely someone as smart as you can see the
distinction. [If you deny seeing the distinction, I would have to ask who
operates your computer for you.] Torture has been banned by US law for some
time. What the McCain bill does is take political correctness to the
highest level yet achieved.

God knows, we wouldn't want to make our captured enemies feel uncomfortable
now, would we? No demeaning words or actions now, it just wouldn't be
right!

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:29:19 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

...but an
American President defending torture? I didn't think I'd ever see the
day.

Pres Bush was not defending torture, as the press so gleefully loves to
portray. What he was defending was the use of distastefully coercive
interrogation techniques. Surely someone as smart as you can see the
distinction. [If you deny seeing the distinction, I would have to ask
who operates your computer for you.] Torture has been banned by US law
for some time. What the McCain bill does is take political correctness
to the highest level yet achieved.

You overlook this administration's history of handing people over to
countries that do torture. That would be an accessory before the fact.
You also overlook the infamous Bybee memo that was the formal legal
opinion that guided this administration. It defined torture so narrowly
that only activities resulting in "death, organ failure or the permanent
impairment of a significant body function" qualify. By most Americans'
standards that is far more than "distastefully coercive interrogation
techniques."

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:50:55 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:29:19 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

...but an
American President defending torture? I didn't think I'd ever see the
day.

Pres Bush was not defending torture, as the press so gleefully loves to
portray. What he was defending was the use of distastefully coercive
interrogation techniques. Surely someone as smart as you can see the
distinction. [If you deny seeing the distinction, I would have to ask
who operates your computer for you.] Torture has been banned by US law
for some time. What the McCain bill does is take political correctness
to the highest level yet achieved.

You overlook this administration's history of handing people over to
countries that do torture.

Are you suggesting that we should keep any foreign suspects we capture and put them in a
bed-and-breakfast for the rest of their lives?

If we can't return them to their country of birth, where should we send them?

What countries do *not* use coercive interrogation techniques?


That would be an accessory before the fact.
You also overlook the infamous Bybee memo that was the formal legal
opinion that guided this administration. It defined torture so narrowly
that only activities resulting in "death, organ failure or the permanent
impairment of a significant body function" qualify. By most Americans'
standards that is far more than "distastefully coercive interrogation
techniques."

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html

--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:29:19 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

...but an
American President defending torture? I didn't think I'd ever see the
day.

Pres Bush was not defending torture, as the press so gleefully loves to
portray. What he was defending was the use of distastefully coercive
interrogation techniques. Surely someone as smart as you can see the
distinction. [If you deny seeing the distinction, I would have to ask
who operates your computer for you.] Torture has been banned by US law
for some time. What the McCain bill does is take political correctness
to the highest level yet achieved.

You overlook this administration's history of handing people over to
countries that do torture. That would be an accessory before the fact.

If these "people" are citizens of the country they are being returned to
then what is the problem. These "people" are just being repatriated.

You also overlook the infamous Bybee memo that was the formal legal
opinion that guided this administration. It defined torture so narrowly
that only activities resulting in "death, organ failure or the permanent
impairment of a significant body function" qualify.

What is your definition of touture? Does raising your voice at someone
constitute torture?

By most Americans'
standards that is far more than "distastefully coercive interrogation
techniques."

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:55:27 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


If these "people" are citizens of the country they are being returned to
then what is the problem. These "people" are just being repatriated.

That isn't the case, and you should know it by now. Do a search on
"extraordinary renditions", and then tell me these people were being
repatriated.

What is your definition of touture? Does raising your voice at someone
constitute torture?

Do they give lessons in denial when one becomes a Republican? I think
most Americans have a general concept of what constitutes torture.
Perhaps, you don't have a problem with it being done in your name, but it
shames me. Oh, and if you had read the following link, you would know
what this administration considered torture.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:43:57 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:55:27 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


If these "people" are citizens of the country they are being returned to
then what is the problem. These "people" are just being repatriated.

That isn't the case, and you should know it by now. Do a search on
"extraordinary renditions", and then tell me these people were being
repatriated.

What is your definition of touture? Does raising your voice at someone
constitute torture?

Do they give lessons in denial when one becomes a Republican? I think
most Americans have a general concept of what constitutes torture.
Perhaps, you don't have a problem with it being done in your name, but it
shames me. Oh, and if you had read the following link, you would know
what this administration considered torture.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html

I did. I found many articles. I looked at several. All the ones I read referred to the same
individual, Maher Arar, who says he was tortured in Syria.

Are there other cases which ring with some truth, or are there just umpteen stories about this one
guy?
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****