This is not the America I believe inFollow

Shameful and a disappointment from the administration.

Well that's disgusting.

Post #5 and no "Change You Can Believe In" comment yet! The Pubbies are slipping!

And The Who said that, how many years ago now? And its still true? Imagine that.

Honestly, I long ago concluded that all politicians are Machiavellian liars, so **** like this don't surprise me at all.

Seriously, The Who are ******* awesome.

As a small consolation, at least Obama is more attractive than Bush

Well, and then there is the fact Bush was actively supporting torture, whereas Obama is only not allowing him to be raked across the coals for it in the name of "national security".

It is not for the love of Bush, but for all those along the chains of command who were assured it was legal by the Bush team and followed orders. Obama does not want them having to go to jail because it would set a bad precedent - future employees would virtually have to either have law degrees or get outside legal council to ensure what they were doing was in fact legal if they could wind up in jail when the president changes.

I understand that argument but I do not approve of it. Everyone is subject to the law, even if the white house tells them it is legal - especially for crimes as heinous as torture.

My mistake. I should have replied to one of about a half dozen other posts in this thread.

So he's a Conservative plant? I knew it all along.

Yeah. Bush actively supported torture. No bias there! Nosiree!



It was a pretty silly lawsuit. It was filed specifically to force the release of classified documents and go fishing with them. Think about it. The CIA is handed over prisoners to other countries in which they were later tortured, not by the CIA, but by those countries security forces, so they sue the airline company they contracted to do the transporting? That's like suing the company that operates the school bus for driving you to school, because a teacher at that school molested you.

They were right to rule this way on this case. They would have been right to rule this way regardless of who was sitting in the Oval Office at the moment.



And if there was a speck of evidence that the company contracted to fly those prisoners around were involved in said torture, you'd have a point.

So as far as you are concerned, some concerned citizen could file some sort of lawsuit that would (for sake of argument) require public disclosure of the US Nuclear Launch codes, and you would be ok with that?

Sure, thats an absurd and extreme example, but there is a line. The question is where is that line located?

I'd prefer they set up some sort of Judicial entity to handle these types of things. Something along the lines of the house permanent select committee on intelligence, but focused on prosecution of intel sensitive cases. You'd have a risk of "star chambers" with something like that, and sometimes the lawyers would be cleared for information that their clients were not, but it would be better than nothing.

Sometimes I wish I was American, just so I could vote for whoever is standing against this guy.

I hope he was on something, otherwise it's even more worrying.

My two personal favourites was when he messed his "favourite quote in the history of the spoken word", which about 5 words long, and when he said "Desperate times call for... what?" and them someone meekly says "desperate measures?" and he goes "YES!!! WHO SAID THAT?!?!?!"