• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama's Complicity in Torturing an Innocent Man

Agnapostate said:
Uh, yeah...and would have been more interventionist as a result, as I've emphasized. :2wave:
Click to expand...

According to your opinion.... but we all know what they say about opinions....
 
Crunch said:
You are kidding, right? Do you remember anything about posting legislation online so people could read it before it was voted on? What happened to that?

----> Posting legislation online before he signed it; he is in the Executive branch, not the legislative branch.


Do you remember anything about no more earmarks? What happened to that?

----> Yea, that was McCain, we didn't elect him, remember? LMAO


How about the amendments done in the dead of night behind closed doors?

----> again, Executive branch, not Legislative branch.


Have you ever seen so many people in an administration that couldn't apply for Dog Catcher, yet Barry slipped them in as Czars?... cutting out the vetting process by Congress? Did we get taken over by Russia while I wasn’t looking?

-----> Yea, in the Bush administration :rofl


I don't think your little joke is funny at all.
Click to expand...



Funny stuff, Crunch, funny stuff :lamo
 
jackalope said:
Funny stuff, Crunch, funny stuff :lamo
Click to expand...

He still promised all of that for his administration during the campaign, or weren't you paying attention to what he said…. Or did you only hear hope and change?
 
Crunch said:
He still promised all of that for his administration during the campaign, or weren't you paying attention to what he said…. Or did you only hear hope and change?
Click to expand...


You're gonna have to show that he promised to keep McCain's campaign promises, and change the way the legislature did business.


Come on, show ur cards.
 
Sullivan leaves out a few details. He says:

We know that an American interrogator, operating under the authority of the US government, said the following words to a detainee: “There is nothing against you. But there is no innocent person here. So, you should confess to something so you can be charged and sentenced and serve your sentence and then go back to your family and country, because you will not leave this place innocent.”
Click to expand...

How do "we" know this? The detainee claims it was said. The government denies it. There is no evidence that it was said other than the detainee's own testimony.

Accordingly, I fail to see how this indicates that the government "knowingly tortured an innocent man to procure a false confession." In fact, if you read the actual order, which Sullivan neglects to link, you'll see that the government continued their interrogation practices precisely because they believed he was lying to them about his confession. Sort of the opposite of what Sullivan is implying.

From that point forward, AI Rabiah provided his interrogators with countless confessions that followed the same pattern: Interrogators told Al Rabiah the "evidence" they had in their possession (whether it really existed or not), Al Rabiah would request time to pray or otherwise ask for a break, and then he would provide a full confession through an elaborate or incredible story. Significantly, the interrogators never believed these confessions, observing that they contained "inconsistencies" and "vast holes," and expressly concluding that Al Rabiah was creating a ''tale'' to "please interrogators." Ultimately, his interrogators grew increasingly
frustrated with the inconsistences and implausibilities associated with his confessions...
Click to expand...

If the goal of the interrogators was to get him to make up a false confession, then why would they be getting angry when he made up false confessions? That makes absolutely no sense.

The judge further notes that:

Notwithstanding this evaluation, XXXXXXX and several other detainees provided interrogators with allegations against Al Rabiah that have now been discredited but that were apparently believed at the time.
Click to expand...

If the interrogators have credible evidence from multiple sources indicating that a suspect was deeply involved with Al-Qaida, the fact that that evidence later turns out to be false doesn't mean that they were wrong to continue the interrogation before they discovered the truth. We can take issue with some of the threats made by the interrogators (which the judge concludes were in fact violations of the Army Regulations and Geneva), but that doesn't mean that the purpose of the evidence-gathering was improper.
 
jackalope said:
You're gonna have to show that he promised to keep McCain's campaign promises, and change the way the legislature did business.


Come on, show ur cards.
Click to expand...

To reduce bills rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them, Obama "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."
Click to expand...

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Obama's Campaign Promises that are Promise Broken

During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.

McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.

Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
Click to expand...

PolitiFact | Obama's promise to go after earmarks 'line by line'

Business & Media Institute
February 11, 2009
President Barack Obama has proclaimed his administration will be more open than the previous administration. However, his counterparts in the House and the Senate aren’t following suit.



Chairman Tom Price discusses the stimulus deal struck between Congressional Democrats and the White House without Republican input or public oversight.


The Washington Post has reported that negotiations between House and Senate Democrats have resulted in a stimulus bill with a price tag of “about $789.5 billion.” This agreement raised the ire of Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., and he went outside of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office to express it.
“My name’s Tom Price and I represent the Sixth District of Georgia and [am] the privileged chair of the Republican Study Committee,” Price said. “It’s now noon on Wednesday. I’m standing outside the office of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. The door is closed. We just heard news break there’s been an agreement between the House and the Senate on the non-stimulus bill.
Click to expand...

Stimulus Bill: ?Shady Deals Going on Behind Closed Doors? | Congress Check

And Barry signed it didn't he...

Have you been checked for Alzheimer's lately?.... or is it all that hope and change that has your memory messed up?
 
Crunch said:
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Obama's Campaign Promises that are Promise Broken



PolitiFact | Obama's promise to go after earmarks 'line by line'



Stimulus Bill: ?Shady Deals Going on Behind Closed Doors? | Congress Check

And Barry signed it didn't he...

Have you been checked for Alzheimer's lately?.... or is it all that hope and change that has your memory messed up?
Click to expand...


Crunch, I will be gentle. You just proved that what you said was wrong, and what I said was right. Obama promised to put bills online before he signed them ... not before the legislature voted on them (Executive and Legislative branches are separate, co-equal branches, Obama does not control the Legislative branch). And, Obama did not make any campaign promise to abolish earmarks, McCain did.
 
jackalope said:
Crunch, I will be gentle. You just proved that what you said was wrong, and what I said was right. Obama promised to put bills online before he signed them ... not before the legislature voted on them (Executive and Legislative branches are separate, co-equal branches, Obama does not control the Legislative branch). And, Obama did not make any campaign promise to abolish earmarks, McCain did.
Click to expand...

God you are dense, or too partisan to see your hand in front of your face.... read the links again.

Obama promised to go line by line on ear marks.... he promised to post bills online before he signed them... he promised to have the most transparent administration ever.

Show me where he has kept one of those promises...
 
Crunch said:
God you are dense, or too partisan to see your hand in front of your face.... read the links again.

Obama promised to go line by line on ear marks.... he promised to post bills online before he signed them... he promised to have the most transparent administration ever.

Show me where he has kept one of those promises...
Click to expand...


I ain't the dense one, dude :lol:

YOU said Obama promised to post bills online before they were voted on.
I said Obama promised to post bills online before he signed them.


Now you are pretending YOU said what I said.
btw, you want to report yourself for calling me dense, or should I do it? :2wave:
 
Agnapostate said:
I'm surprised that there are people who still believe that the Dems and Repubs are anything other than two factions of one party. :shrug:
Click to expand...
And of course you're part of a worthwhile group? :roll:
 
Crunch said:
According to your opinion.... but we all know what they say about opinions....
Click to expand...

I guess. Political opinions do tend to be rather disproportionately represented on political discussion boards; it's quite an odd trend. :2wave:

American said:
And of course you're part of a worthwhile group? :roll:
Click to expand...

Yeah...the "abstinence from electoral politics" group.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
This is NOT the change I voted for. I am profoundly disappointed on a level I find hard to articulate.
Click to expand...

Next time take a few minutes and Google the person you plan to vote for... If he (or she) happens to have written, not one, but two books on marxist, social-justice, revolution then you MIGHT not want to vote for him!

I'm embarrassed for you too!
 
Obama's a Marxist author? Interesting. Can you identify any specific element of his writings that display advocacy of...crisis theory, for example?
 
jackalope said:
Crunch, I will be gentle. You just proved that what you said was wrong, and what I said was right. Obama promised to put bills online before he signed them ... not before the legislature voted on them (Executive and Legislative branches are separate, co-equal branches, Obama does not control the Legislative branch). And, Obama did not make any campaign promise to abolish earmarks, McCain did.
Click to expand...




Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up... But let's go back to the original point. John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
 
jackalope said:
Crunch, I will be gentle. You just proved that what you said was wrong, and what I said was right. Obama promised to put bills online before he signed them ... not before the legislature voted on them (Executive and Legislative branches are separate, co-equal branches, Obama does not control the Legislative branch). And, Obama did not make any campaign promise to abolish earmarks, McCain did.
Click to expand...
I suppose less then ten days is long enough to see a bill before Obama signs it, if he waits that long, right?
 
American said:
I suppose less then ten days is long enough to see a bill before Obama signs it, if he waits that long, right?
Click to expand...

When has he ever done that?.... did I miss it?
 
You hear that gentle sound in the night? Sounds like the slow approachings of the Nobel repo-man.
 
ConservaBill said:
Next time take a few minutes and Google the person you plan to vote for... If he (or she) happens to have written, not one, but two books on marxist, social-justice, revolution then you MIGHT not want to vote for him!

I'm embarrassed for you too!
Click to expand...
You should also educate yourself on terms like "Marxist" before you apply them to people who do not fit the description.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up... But let's go back to the original point. John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
Click to expand...



Yea, thx for the legwork on the quote proving Obama never said he'd abolish earmarks.


I think some McCainiacs are very sad ... and they've transferred McCain promises to Obama. It's sweet.


PS ~ what he did promise is actually kind of interesting, and more involved than your quote. You should check it out. I'll let ya do the google on that too.
 
Last edited:
American said:
I suppose less then ten days is long enough to see a bill before Obama signs it, if he waits that long, right?
Click to expand...


Mmmm ... hmmmmm.... especially since the promise to be kept is 5 days; which, btw, was an improvement over the past. If you want to hold the Prez accountable for his promises, it'd be good to a.) make sure it's accurate, and b.) make sure it's not a McCain campaign promise.

Just for starters.
 
Master word smith in action.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeJ9gE-FA0Q"]YouTube - Obama on Earmarks and Pork-Barrel Spending[/ame]
 
Crunch said:
God you are dense, or too partisan to see your hand in front of your face.... read the links again.

Obama promised to go line by line on ear marks.... he promised to post bills online before he signed them... he promised to have the most transparent administration ever.

Show me where he has kept one of those promises...
Click to expand...

On earmarks, there is no way Obama could deliver that, even though he promised to "support it", which is much different than promising to implement it. It would mean a line item veto, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional when Clinton tried to do it.

On Obama's broken promises to end torture, I agree with you on that. Those who bashed Bush over torture are strangely quiet now, and that really pisses me off. You know, instead of screaming about birther conspiracies, this issue is something with teeth, if only they would use it instead of the silly stuff.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom