Tony Snow and Press Spar: 'Torture' For All of Them

[one...two...tree 2,762]

on page 8 of this topic you will see the post about the video, on page 9 is Steven_And_Jinky's thumbs up to it. and in my opinion anyone that would try to insinuate that the president of the united states advocates torturing children is a left wing lunatic

You really are reaching now. Quit being a putz - I gave a thumbs up to Marc posting the link to the video. I can't link to YouTube at work right now, but you should type the quote, word for word what the narrator says in the video and then read the bloody White House memos that condone torture. Do I think that George W. Bush condones the sexual torture of children? Of course not nor do I think Bush is 'evil' per se. I think he has made some really bad decisions that are morally reprehensible. How quaint that Clinton gets judged on his lack of morals, but diehard Bushites like yourself refuse to hold him accountable for his actions. The narrator used provocative terms based on military manuals on torture that White House counsel John Yoo said are appropriate to make his point. Torture is torture and the White House condoned it and then Bush denied it.

[mmmbop1976 1]

on page 8 of this topic you will see the post about the video, on page 9 is Steven_And_Jinky's thumbs up to it. and in my opinion anyone that would try to insinuate that the president of the united states advocates torturing children is a left wing lunatic

You really are reaching now. Quit being a putz - I gave a thumbs up to Marc posting the link to the video. I can't link to YouTube at work right now, but you should type the quote, word for word what the narrator says in the video and then read the bloody White House memos that condone torture. Do I think that George W. Bush condones the sexual torture of children? Of course not nor do I think Bush is 'evil' per se. I think he has made some really bad decisions that are morally reprehensible. How quaint that Clinton gets judged on his lack of morals, but diehard Bushites like yourself refuse to hold him accountable for his actions. The narrator used provocative terms based on military manuals on torture that White House counsel John Yoo said are appropriate to make his point. Torture is torture and the White House condoned it and then Bush denied it.

no need for me to that, you can explain it any way you want, but ask anybody here and i'll bet they would all have the impression that marc and olga was trying to insinuate that pres bush condoned torture of children and you gave tacit approval to his propaganda attempt with your thumbs up. i doubt anybody would interpret it otherwise, and finally, just now you disavow that statement. took awhile, makes me wonder....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

on page 8 of this topic you will see the post about the video, on page 9 is Steven_And_Jinky's thumbs up to it. and in my opinion anyone that would try to insinuate that the president of the united states advocates torturing children is a left wing lunatic

You really are reaching now. Quit being a putz - I gave a thumbs up to Marc posting the link to the video. I can't link to YouTube at work right now, but you should type the quote, word for word what the narrator says in the video and then read the bloody White House memos that condone torture. Do I think that George W. Bush condones the sexual torture of children? Of course not nor do I think Bush is 'evil' per se. I think he has made some really bad decisions that are morally reprehensible. How quaint that Clinton gets judged on his lack of morals, but diehard Bushites like yourself refuse to hold him accountable for his actions. The narrator used provocative terms based on military manuals on torture that White House counsel John Yoo said are appropriate to make his point. Torture is torture and the White House condoned it and then Bush denied it.

no need for me to that, you can explain it any way you want, but ask anybody here and i'll bet they would all have the impression that marc and olga was trying to insinuate that pres bush condoned torture of children and you gave tacit approval to his propaganda attempt with your thumbs up. i doubt anybody would interpret it otherwise, and finally, just now you disavow that statement. took awhile, makes me wonder....

Hence the term, chopf##k. The gestapo would have recruited a hack like you.

[mmmbop1976 1]

on page 8 of this topic you will see the post about the video, on page 9 is Steven_And_Jinky's thumbs up to it. and in my opinion anyone that would try to insinuate that the president of the united states advocates torturing children is a left wing lunatic

You really are reaching now. Quit being a putz - I gave a thumbs up to Marc posting the link to the video. I can't link to YouTube at work right now, but you should type the quote, word for word what the narrator says in the video and then read the bloody White House memos that condone torture. Do I think that George W. Bush condones the sexual torture of children? Of course not nor do I think Bush is 'evil' per se. I think he has made some really bad decisions that are morally reprehensible. How quaint that Clinton gets judged on his lack of morals, but diehard Bushites like yourself refuse to hold him accountable for his actions. The narrator used provocative terms based on military manuals on torture that White House counsel John Yoo said are appropriate to make his point. Torture is torture and the White House condoned it and then Bush denied it.

no need for me to that, you can explain it any way you want, but ask anybody here and i'll bet they would all have the impression that marc and olga was trying to insinuate that pres bush condoned torture of children and you gave tacit approval to his propaganda attempt with your thumbs up. i doubt anybody would interpret it otherwise, and finally, just now you disavow that statement. took awhile, makes me wonder....

Hence the term, chopf##k. The gestapo would have recruited a hack like you.

i wouldn't join the gestapo, i love freedom. freedom for everybody, no matter race, religion, sexual preference, et al, except for criminals and terrorists.

but hey, why don't we ask for opinion here, see what others think, maybe i'm alone in my thinking here. so, any other vj'ers see this original posts? when u read it do you get the impression that marc was insinuating that president bush condones torture or children? and if so, do u think steven's thumbs up shows approval of that theory/suggestion?

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

but hey, why don't we ask for opinion here, see what others think, maybe i'm alone in my thinking here. so, any other vj'ers see this original posts? when u read it do you get the impression that marc was insinuating that president bush condones torture or children? and if so, do u think steven's thumbs up shows approval of that theory/suggestion?

yes

[one...two...tree 2,762]

on page 8 of this topic you will see the post about the video, on page 9 is Steven_And_Jinky's thumbs up to it. and in my opinion anyone that would try to insinuate that the president of the united states advocates torturing children is a left wing lunatic

You really are reaching now. Quit being a putz - I gave a thumbs up to Marc posting the link to the video. I can't link to YouTube at work right now, but you should type the quote, word for word what the narrator says in the video and then read the bloody White House memos that condone torture. Do I think that George W. Bush condones the sexual torture of children? Of course not nor do I think Bush is 'evil' per se. I think he has made some really bad decisions that are morally reprehensible. How quaint that Clinton gets judged on his lack of morals, but diehard Bushites like yourself refuse to hold him accountable for his actions. The narrator used provocative terms based on military manuals on torture that White House counsel John Yoo said are appropriate to make his point. Torture is torture and the White House condoned it and then Bush denied it.

no need for me to that, you can explain it any way you want, but ask anybody here and i'll bet they would all have the impression that marc and olga was trying to insinuate that pres bush condoned torture of children and you gave tacit approval to his propaganda attempt with your thumbs up. i doubt anybody would interpret it otherwise, and finally, just now you disavow that statement. took awhile, makes me wonder....

Hence the term, chopf##k. The gestapo would have recruited a hack like you.

i wouldn't join the gestapo, i love freedom. freedom for everybody, no matter race, religion, sexual preference, et al, except for criminals and terrorists.

but hey, why don't we ask for opinion here, see what others think, maybe i'm alone in my thinking here. so, any other vj'ers see this original posts? when u read it do you get the impression that marc was insinuating that president bush condones torture or children? and if so, do u think steven's thumbs up shows approval of that theory/suggestion?

You're a pathetic chopf##k. You want to get into the facts, Jack? Let's look at what your boy, John Yoo (White House Counsel) actually said.

John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.

Now tell me, Sparky, how does that sit with you that the White House would say somehing like that? Come on now...step out of your rigid ideological, pro-Bush fortress and dare to be critical of such an outrageous statement.

[mmmbop1976 1]

on page 8 of this topic you will see the post about the video, on page 9 is Steven_And_Jinky's thumbs up to it. and in my opinion anyone that would try to insinuate that the president of the united states advocates torturing children is a left wing lunatic

You really are reaching now. Quit being a putz - I gave a thumbs up to Marc posting the link to the video. I can't link to YouTube at work right now, but you should type the quote, word for word what the narrator says in the video and then read the bloody White House memos that condone torture. Do I think that George W. Bush condones the sexual torture of children? Of course not nor do I think Bush is 'evil' per se. I think he has made some really bad decisions that are morally reprehensible. How quaint that Clinton gets judged on his lack of morals, but diehard Bushites like yourself refuse to hold him accountable for his actions. The narrator used provocative terms based on military manuals on torture that White House counsel John Yoo said are appropriate to make his point. Torture is torture and the White House condoned it and then Bush denied it.

no need for me to that, you can explain it any way you want, but ask anybody here and i'll bet they would all have the impression that marc and olga was trying to insinuate that pres bush condoned torture of children and you gave tacit approval to his propaganda attempt with your thumbs up. i doubt anybody would interpret it otherwise, and finally, just now you disavow that statement. took awhile, makes me wonder....

Hence the term, chopf##k. The gestapo would have recruited a hack like you.

i wouldn't join the gestapo, i love freedom. freedom for everybody, no matter race, religion, sexual preference, et al, except for criminals and terrorists.

but hey, why don't we ask for opinion here, see what others think, maybe i'm alone in my thinking here. so, any other vj'ers see this original posts? when u read it do you get the impression that marc was insinuating that president bush condones torture or children? and if so, do u think steven's thumbs up shows approval of that theory/suggestion?

You're a pathetic chopf##k. You want to get into the facts, Jack? Let's look at what your boy, John Yoo (White House Counsel) actually said.

John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.

Now tell me, Sparky, how does that sit with you that the White House would say somehing like that? Come on now...step out of your rigid ideological, pro-Bush fortress and dare to be critical of such an outrageous statement.

nice way to try and change d topic.....my charge was that marc gave the impression that pres bush condoned torture of children and your reply to him gave the impression that you agreed. marc did not say in his post that john yoo said that, purposely i might add, and he purposely started his next statement with pres bush, trying to link the 2 statements to bush. we'll wait for more opinions on it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

on page 8 of this topic you will see the post about the video, on page 9 is Steven_And_Jinky's thumbs up to it. and in my opinion anyone that would try to insinuate that the president of the united states advocates torturing children is a left wing lunatic

You really are reaching now. Quit being a putz - I gave a thumbs up to Marc posting the link to the video. I can't link to YouTube at work right now, but you should type the quote, word for word what the narrator says in the video and then read the bloody White House memos that condone torture. Do I think that George W. Bush condones the sexual torture of children? Of course not nor do I think Bush is 'evil' per se. I think he has made some really bad decisions that are morally reprehensible. How quaint that Clinton gets judged on his lack of morals, but diehard Bushites like yourself refuse to hold him accountable for his actions. The narrator used provocative terms based on military manuals on torture that White House counsel John Yoo said are appropriate to make his point. Torture is torture and the White House condoned it and then Bush denied it.

no need for me to that, you can explain it any way you want, but ask anybody here and i'll bet they would all have the impression that marc and olga was trying to insinuate that pres bush condoned torture of children and you gave tacit approval to his propaganda attempt with your thumbs up. i doubt anybody would interpret it otherwise, and finally, just now you disavow that statement. took awhile, makes me wonder....

Hence the term, chopf##k. The gestapo would have recruited a hack like you.

i wouldn't join the gestapo, i love freedom. freedom for everybody, no matter race, religion, sexual preference, et al, except for criminals and terrorists.

but hey, why don't we ask for opinion here, see what others think, maybe i'm alone in my thinking here. so, any other vj'ers see this original posts? when u read it do you get the impression that marc was insinuating that president bush condones torture or children? and if so, do u think steven's thumbs up shows approval of that theory/suggestion?

You're a pathetic chopf##k. You want to get into the facts, Jack? Let's look at what your boy, John Yoo (White House Counsel) actually said.

John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.

Now tell me, Sparky, how does that sit with you that the White House would say somehing like that? Come on now...step out of your rigid ideological, pro-Bush fortress and dare to be critical of such an outrageous statement.

nice way to try and change d topic.....my charge was that marc gave the impression that pres bush condoned torture of children and your reply to him gave the impression that you agreed. marc did not say in his post that john yoo said that, purposely i might add, and he purposely started his next statement with pres bush, trying to link the 2 statements to bush. we'll wait for more opinions on it.

Why don't you put the question to Marc. Perception doesn't automatically mean "endorsement".

[mawilson 2,133]

John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

Huh? It's the same law that prevents me from ordering the torture of your testicles.

I'm against torture - real torture. As for sleep deprivation, sensory disorientation,

forced exercises, white noise, keeping terrorists in uncomfortable positions - yes!

How else are you supposed to extract information from these chopf##cks? Why

should we care about their comfort? Guantanamo Bay is not Montego Bay and they

are not on vacation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

Huh? It's the same law that prevents me from ordering the torture of your testicles.

I'm against torture - real torture. As for sleep deprivation, sensory disorientation,

forced exercises, white noise, keeping terrorists in uncomfortable positions - yes!

How else are you supposed to extract information from these chopf##cks? Why

should we care about their comfort? Guantanamo Bay is not Montego Bay and they

are not on vacation.

But the point has been made previously that some people have been picked up and incarcerated (and subjected to torture/harsh treatment/"pressure" - whatever you want to call it) for the most arbitrary of reasons - wearing the "wrong" clothes, asking the "wrong" questions. Seems there is no appeals process - if the trooper at the road block "don't like your face" what's to stop him having you shipped off to Guantanamo with the real terrorists?

Is there any point asking what would happen if say Iran, China or North Korea was holding American citizens and denying them any legal rights or charging them with a crime. People would be screaming bloody murder.

An American operation like Guantanamo only legitimises what countries like Burma have been doing for years.

Edited September 15, 2006 by erekose

[one...two...tree 2,762]

John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

Huh? It's the same law that prevents me from ordering the torture of your testicles.

I'm against torture - real torture. As for sleep deprivation, sensory disorientation,

forced exercises, white noise, keeping terrorists in uncomfortable positions - yes!

How else are you supposed to extract information from these chopf##cks? Why

should we care about their comfort? Guantanamo Bay is not Montego Bay and they

are not on vacation.

The White House officially didn't want to define what they thought was acceptable or not, and basically said it was up to the President to decide what is appropriate. I don't know about you, but regardless of any moral dilemnas regarding torture, giving so much power to a President is a perversion of the very principals this country was created on.

Now, after the Supreme Court has ruled that Article III of the Geneva Convention Rules applies to detainees, the White House is backpedalling by redefining what it says. Nice.

Transcript:

Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty

Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

http://revcom.us/downloads/file_info/downl..._on_torture.mp3

Edited September 15, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

Huh? It's the same law that prevents me from ordering the torture of your testicles.

I'm against torture - real torture. As for sleep deprivation, sensory disorientation,

forced exercises, white noise, keeping terrorists in uncomfortable positions - yes!

How else are you supposed to extract information from these chopf##cks? Why

should we care about their comfort? Guantanamo Bay is not Montego Bay and they

are not on vacation.

The White House officially didn't want to define what they thought was acceptable or not, and basically said it was up to the President to decide what is appropriate. I don't know about you, but regardless of any moral dilemnas regarding torture, giving so much power to a President is a perversion of the very principals this country was created on.

Transcript:

Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty

Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

http://revcom.us/downloads/file_info/downl..._on_torture.mp3

do you really think any president is stupid enough to authorize that?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

Huh? It's the same law that prevents me from ordering the torture of your testicles.

I'm against torture - real torture. As for sleep deprivation, sensory disorientation,

forced exercises, white noise, keeping terrorists in uncomfortable positions - yes!

How else are you supposed to extract information from these chopf##cks? Why

should we care about their comfort? Guantanamo Bay is not Montego Bay and they

are not on vacation.

The White House officially didn't want to define what they thought was acceptable or not, and basically said it was up to the President to decide what is appropriate. I don't know about you, but regardless of any moral dilemnas regarding torture, giving so much power to a President is a perversion of the very principals this country was created on.

Transcript:

Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty

Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

http://revcom.us/downloads/file_info/downl..._on_torture.mp3

It does seem a tad extreme.

Edited September 15, 2006 by erekose

[mawilson 2,133]

But the point has been made previously that some people have been picked up and incarcerated (and subjected to torture/harsh treatment/"pressure" - whatever you want to call it) for the most arbitrary of reasons - wearing the "wrong" clothes, asking the "wrong" questions. Seems there is no appeals process - if the trooper at the road block "don't like your face" what's to stop him having you shipped off to Guantanamo with the real terrorists?

Is there any point asking what would happen if say Iran, China or North Korea was holding American citizens and denying them any legal rights or charging them with a crime. People would be screaming bloody murder.

An American operation like Guantanamo only legitimises what countries like Burma have been doing for years.

I completely agree that no-one should be denied the right to due process and a fair trial --

all suspected terrorists should be either charged with a crime or released.

I think that in some cases you can justify holding an individual without charge or trial

for several weeks, maybe even a month -- but no more than that! And in some

*extraordinary* cases where national security is at stake (say, a nuclear bomb is to

be detonated in an American city and the prisoner knows where and when), there has

to be a way to interrogate those individuals without running afoul of the law.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

Huh? It's the same law that prevents me from ordering the torture of your testicles.

I'm against torture - real torture. As for sleep deprivation, sensory disorientation,

forced exercises, white noise, keeping terrorists in uncomfortable positions - yes!

How else are you supposed to extract information from these chopf##cks? Why

should we care about their comfort? Guantanamo Bay is not Montego Bay and they

are not on vacation.

The White House officially didn't want to define what they thought was acceptable or not, and basically said it was up to the President to decide what is appropriate. I don't know about you, but regardless of any moral dilemnas regarding torture, giving so much power to a President is a perversion of the very principals this country was created on.

Transcript:

Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty

Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

http://revcom.us/downloads/file_info/downl..._on_torture.mp3

It does seem a tad extreme.

Except that John Yoo is not some schmuck hired by the White House for legal counsel...

...Marcus Cooney, who back in 1995 hired the young University of California law school expert on presidential powers to the staff of Utah senator Orrin Hatch's Judiciary Committee. Said Cooney: "As far as conservative academics, I don't think there's anyone in the law whose contacts run deeper in the three branches, or higher." Actually as high as they can go.

John Yoo is back on the faculty of the University of California law school at Berkeley, while writing and lecturing widely on Bush's supreme authority to ignore Congress and the courts— including the president's no longer secret unleashing of National Security Agency spying on millions of Americans' telephone calls and e-mails. (Yoo was involved in that decision.)

Last year, I debated John Yoo during a panel discussion at Princeton University. He is an amiable, soft-spoken adversary, whose sole response to one of my questions about torture was: "I enjoy reading Nat Hentoff on jazz."

John Yoo has a significant place in history as a vital figure in George W. Bush's unprecedented expansion of the "unitary executive." Or as Lincoln Caplan, editor of the continually stimulating magazine Legal Affairs (affiliated with the Yale University law school), puts it:

"The outlook of Richard Nixon was that he was above the law. Watergate disabused him of the notion. The position of George W. Bush is that he is a law unto himself."

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0605,hentoff,71946,6.html