September 27, 2006
Democrats Reluctant to Give Up Battle for Terrorists' Rights
The Associated Press reports that Republicans are moving ahead with legislation to satisfy Supreme Court requirements for terrorists to be detained, interrogated, and tried:
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
WASHINGTON - Republicans on Wednesday cleared procedural hurdles in the House and Senate on the way to giving President Bush authority to detain, interrogate and try terrorism detainees before military commissions.The AP also notes that Democrats, who have been fighting tooth and nail to obstruct the legislation are finally seeing the writing on the wall:
While bowing to the inevitable, Democrats continued to criticize the bill. Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said defendants still won't be able to confront some classified evidence against them while allowing evidence obtained through torture.Oh my, so sad, go cry.
Why don't we just use the Durbin rules for terrorist interrogations.
Posted by: Bluto at
02:57 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Included in the bill is a provision to retroactively protect Bush and his minions from War Crimes.
Politikal Pork.
Politikal Pork.
Posted by: Greg at September 27, 2006 03:18 PM (/+dAV)
2
167 Democrats in the House vote to deny the right of America to detain and question terrorists. Says a lot about the party, doesn't it?
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at September 27, 2006 05:05 PM (3nKvy)
3
I say we should retroactively prosecute the Democrats for war crimes in World War 2 and see what you have to say then.
Greg, considering the tactics LEGALLY used, I endured FAR FAR WORSE in
my Fraternity. Now the things that were ILLEGALLY USED ended in
the people doing it being PROSECUTED.
Just wondering, since you obviously didn't pledge any Frat's, did you
perhaps follow up on your convictions by holding a protest at your
ultra liberal college accusing the Fraternities of War Crimes? If
not I am going to simply say, with ample justification, that you are
picking and choosing when to be offended according to your political
leanings.
Greg, considering the tactics LEGALLY used, I endured FAR FAR WORSE in
my Fraternity. Now the things that were ILLEGALLY USED ended in
the people doing it being PROSECUTED.
Just wondering, since you obviously didn't pledge any Frat's, did you
perhaps follow up on your convictions by holding a protest at your
ultra liberal college accusing the Fraternities of War Crimes? If
not I am going to simply say, with ample justification, that you are
picking and choosing when to be offended according to your political
leanings.
Posted by: Naieve at September 27, 2006 05:06 PM (+PWjE)
4
It's too bad the plane that hit the pentagon didn't hit the house and senate instead. Maybe then these guys would get the "picture".
Posted by: n.a. palm at September 27, 2006 06:21 PM (DSoJs)
5
Naieve, when I attended the University of Wisconsin, I chose not to join a fraternity for what I felt were some pretty legitimate reasons: pledges were typically populated by those who had little other recourse in forming friendships; their insecurity too often played itself out in compensatory arrogance and pink Izod shirts; and they were always up for a rousing bukkake session with their "brothers," none of which interested us heterosexuals. You didn't attend the University of Wisconsin, did you?
Posted by: inkwell at September 27, 2006 06:28 PM (Xhg7X)
6
"167 Democrats in the House vote to deny the right of America to detain
and question terrorists. Says a lot about the party, doesn't it?"
They did no such thing. So, you are lying and/or leaving out the entire truth.
Says a lot about you, doesn't it?
and question terrorists. Says a lot about the party, doesn't it?"
They did no such thing. So, you are lying and/or leaving out the entire truth.
Says a lot about you, doesn't it?
Posted by: Angryflower at September 27, 2006 07:16 PM (Bss6w)
7
"and they were always up
for a rousing bukkake session with their "brothers," none of which
interested us heterosexuals. You didn't attend the University of
Wisconsin, did you?"
Sorry, not that kind of Fraternity. Mine was more interested in
women, which is why I joined, and I had ALOT of fun, with no gay antics
as you suggest. There is something to be said for being able to almost
exclusively populate your parties with women at a rate of three or so
women to each man... I was more referring to the being forced to
stay up all night, getting screamed at, stupid tasks and such to
throughly humiliate us, loud music blaring all the time and such.
You know, like the things legally being done by our government, not the
gay antics of Abu Ghraib which were PROSECUTED.
for a rousing bukkake session with their "brothers," none of which
interested us heterosexuals. You didn't attend the University of
Wisconsin, did you?"
Sorry, not that kind of Fraternity. Mine was more interested in
women, which is why I joined, and I had ALOT of fun, with no gay antics
as you suggest. There is something to be said for being able to almost
exclusively populate your parties with women at a rate of three or so
women to each man... I was more referring to the being forced to
stay up all night, getting screamed at, stupid tasks and such to
throughly humiliate us, loud music blaring all the time and such.
You know, like the things legally being done by our government, not the
gay antics of Abu Ghraib which were PROSECUTED.
Posted by: Naieve at September 27, 2006 08:06 PM (+PWjE)
8
So that dead Iraq guy in the bathtub packed in ice we've all seen in the photos, the one where no one was ever prosecuted, he was probably forced to stay up all night and then yelled at to death. I see. Any comment on the fact that these legal tor ... er, interrogations have probably done as much damage to the US mission in Iraq and put as many US service people in danger as an Al Queda recruiting poster?
Posted by: grinnel at September 27, 2006 09:30 PM (Xhg7X)
9
Sure, grinnell, there were no beheadings or anything like that at all before Abu Ghraib, and the media lied about 9/11 - it actually occurred after the invasion because every jihadi in the world loved America before George W. Bush was elected President, twice.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 27, 2006 10:56 PM (vBK4C)
10
The media lied about 9/11? You lost me.
As for George W. Bush, you are correct, he was elected President, twice. Much like Bill Clinton was elected President twice -- though I believe he won both times by clear margins and was never actually placed in office the first time by Supreme Court caprice. Oh yeah; he can also actually form sentences and his own opinions. Plus he likes fat chicks. But that's another story.
As for George W. Bush, you are correct, he was elected President, twice. Much like Bill Clinton was elected President twice -- though I believe he won both times by clear margins and was never actually placed in office the first time by Supreme Court caprice. Oh yeah; he can also actually form sentences and his own opinions. Plus he likes fat chicks. But that's another story.
Posted by: grinnel at September 28, 2006 12:11 AM (Xhg7X)
11
"So that dead Iraq guy in the bathtub packed in ice we've all seen in
the photos, the one where no one was ever prosecuted, he was probably
forced to stay up all night and then yelled at to death. I see. Any
comment on the fact that these legal tor ... er, interrogations have
probably done as much damage to the US mission in Iraq and put as many
US service people in danger as an Al Queda recruiting poster?"
How many times have you read about deaths from Fraternity
pledges? And are you sure no one was prosecuted on that death?
BTW, when was the last time we had an enemy who actually followed the
Geneva Conventions? Our soldiers are beheaded and their bodies
dragged through the streets, they are at no more danger than they were
when it happened under Clintons watch in Somalia, or the Hanoi Hilton
in Nam. Go find another strawmans arguement.
Anyways as to your Clinton Glorification, go threaten ABC's freedom of
speech some more. Then come back and tell us how the SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS NO RIGHT TO FOLLOW THE LAW BECAUSE IT
GOES AGAINST A DEMOCRAT.
Clinton was/is/always will be a used car salesman trying to make you happy with the Lemon he sold you.
Let me guess, "The Path to 9/11" was all one big lie, huh?
the photos, the one where no one was ever prosecuted, he was probably
forced to stay up all night and then yelled at to death. I see. Any
comment on the fact that these legal tor ... er, interrogations have
probably done as much damage to the US mission in Iraq and put as many
US service people in danger as an Al Queda recruiting poster?"
How many times have you read about deaths from Fraternity
pledges? And are you sure no one was prosecuted on that death?
BTW, when was the last time we had an enemy who actually followed the
Geneva Conventions? Our soldiers are beheaded and their bodies
dragged through the streets, they are at no more danger than they were
when it happened under Clintons watch in Somalia, or the Hanoi Hilton
in Nam. Go find another strawmans arguement.
Anyways as to your Clinton Glorification, go threaten ABC's freedom of
speech some more. Then come back and tell us how the SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS NO RIGHT TO FOLLOW THE LAW BECAUSE IT
GOES AGAINST A DEMOCRAT.
Clinton was/is/always will be a used car salesman trying to make you happy with the Lemon he sold you.
Let me guess, "The Path to 9/11" was all one big lie, huh?
Posted by: Naieve at September 28, 2006 08:02 AM (+PWjE)
12
jonny
Posted by: jonny at September 28, 2006 08:51 AM (QbGjZ)
13
Casey?
Posted by: Naieve at September 28, 2006 09:15 AM (+PWjE)
14
TIMMAY!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 28, 2006 10:06 AM (v3I+x)
Posted by: tbone at September 28, 2006 12:42 PM (HGqHt)
16
Are these the same demacraps who want to prevent our GIs from voting?
Posted by: sandpiper at September 28, 2006 03:09 PM (h6CK1)
17
"Sorry Naieve, but the argument is simple...
Those rules are what make us better than them."
What rules?
The intentionally vague rules that can pretty much be interpreted any
way people want, like the N Viets declaring our POW's war criminals and
torturing to their hearts content?
HOW DARE BUSH TRY TO DEFINE WHAT THE RULES ARE AND GIVE OUR MILITARY
AND INTELLIGENCE APPARATUS A CLEAR SET OF GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW, HOW
DARE BUSH!!!
Those rules are what make us better than them."
What rules?
The intentionally vague rules that can pretty much be interpreted any
way people want, like the N Viets declaring our POW's war criminals and
torturing to their hearts content?
HOW DARE BUSH TRY TO DEFINE WHAT THE RULES ARE AND GIVE OUR MILITARY
AND INTELLIGENCE APPARATUS A CLEAR SET OF GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW, HOW
DARE BUSH!!!
Posted by: Naieve at September 30, 2006 10:36 PM (+PWjE)
38kb generated in CPU 0.0226, elapsed 0.0433 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0332 seconds, 172 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.0332 seconds, 172 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
