OOPS!

OOPS I did it again, i ii cannnnnnt helppppp my selfffffffff.....that was without a teleprompter

OUR SOLDIERS HAVE NO BUSINESS MAKING TROPHIES OF OUR FALLEN ENEMIES!
(GI PHOTO SCANDAL)
Obama says LEAVE THAT TO ME.
BIN LADEN'S HEAD HANGING ON A TROPHY PLACK NEXT TO HIS CHAIR.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Photo scandal? Did Obama put on a flight suit; stuff a tube sock down his pants; and then land a plan on a flight deck of an aircraft carrier? No conservative can EVER accuse another president of using the troops of as props...

”

”

”plastic

See Obama's doing it wrong. You need a banner behind you.

MikeyA

every War, America's ever been in.
Including the two he's currently losing at a very fast rate.

And now, he's a poster boy for the Military ?
Do I smell a vacation or an election in the air ?

And his people lap this drool up as if it's lobster bisque !!!

Since W's "Mission Accomplished" speech, over 4000 young American men and women have died in Iraq and about 100,000 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have died! No WMDs, by W's own admission! The self-proclaimed oil man brought no oil boom to America from Iraqi oil! Sadam Hussein had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. In fact, Bin laden hated people like Sadam because Sadam was not religious enough for Osama. Why were we ever in Iraq??

And who had Osama Bin Laden hunted down and killed? A true American and a true patriot! Barack Obama!!

Now THAT'S what I call MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!

You ignorant fuck!
Your messiah odumbo, did nothing but allow the military to continue the job of hunting down Bin Laden. It was him and his kind(read libtards) that claimed Bush was a war criminal because of Gitmo and water boarding. Without the water boarding done at Gitmo they would have never caught Bin Laden.

Libtards are the most hypocritical people in the world. They chatter on about, "no wmd's" but all their democrat leaders agreed they were there. Hussien murdered thousands and thousands oof his own citizens. Would that not be enough reason to take him out?
That seemed like enough reason to take out Gaddafi. Or doesn't that count?

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

"And who had Osama Bin Laden hunted down and killed? A true American and a true patriot! Barack Obama!!"

What about all the leaks about the Bin Laden mission? Do you feel the leaking of which team killed him puts the families of those Sailors at risk? Do you think it's unfair that they can't discuss the mission yet the White House was calling journalists minutes after it happened?

I think it's ironic especially after everything I read by the liberals on this site about the revealing of Valerie Plame.

I'm not discrediting the President for making the call but I do have an issue with the conduct of the White House after the fact because military families sacrifice a lot already and their families were put in danger for political purposes.

MikeyA

Viet Nam !!
All were successful in that he came back alive.

Liberals, and their pathetic understanding of what a "mission", is. Repeat, over and over again , their utter stupidity with every regurgitation of their military ignorance on what a "mission", entails !
Liberals HATE everything to do with the military and anyone buying into President Hussein's, grand standing, are sops soaking up lies that are genetic in all radicals.

Proof necessary ? Liberals ate" shovel ready", like a snake eats rats.
Liberals, bought into "green energy", like cannibals eat each other.
Radicals, bought into "hope and change", like they bought into the war on terrorism, is now magically OVER ?!

Radicals, so obtuse and dissolute it is difficult to comprehend their faulty cognition on everything they say or do !
After all, Carleton S. Finkbiner, had changed, according to the local rag of lies !?

Actually, the GOP criticized Obama for saying he'd go into Pakistan to kill bin Laden if the opportunity came up.

" Without the water boarding done at Gitmo they would have never caught Bin Laden"

You're a fucking liar. The CIA chief denied that, and a Senate investigation (people testifying under oath) proved that false.

Pink Slip

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8491509/Osama-bin-Lad...

Where's your link asshole?

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

If Bush's water boarding yielded BinLaden why didn't Bush issue the strike?

America, under this Fascist regime until we fall under the weight of TRILLIONS of dollars wasted on Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, foreign banks holding bogus bonds from Fannie & Freddie, corrupt unions with billions of pension fund money for members unaccounted for, States of D-destruction , and of course green capitalists/ donors to President Food Stamps !

Yes , its getting desperate in this Fascist regime and we're all gong to pay dearly for it !!

Liberals are too ignorant to comprehend the economic ruin these job killers have wrought Even as the FACTS hit them square in the face !!!

Even those who claim that extreme torture methods work admit that much of the information obtained this way led U.S. forces to pursue many false leads. This meant that less resources were available to pursue more promising intelligence information. Obama's rejection of extreme torture methods led to focused pursuit of those more promising leads. The chances that the information that was used to pinpoint Bin Laden's location was rated for accuracy by analysts at about 50/50. Obama took the risk that a failure would have meant to his reputation if the information had not been correct. That's the type of real leadership our nation needs!

No president ever misused photo-ops the way W did. W...all flash, little accomplished. Obama...a genuinely patriotic American.

Bottom line...Osama Bin Laden is dead. And he was killed at the direct orders of President Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.

Your answers? Name calling and profanity. Great debate technique!!

Waterboarding is not torture. We do it to our own servicemembers during SERE training.

Every other of the "extreme torture methods" I had done to me at entry level schools and trust me it is not torture. If given the opportunity I would go to SERE training and undertake it as well.

MikeyA

I am somewhat familiar with Marine Corps training. I hold in high regard what it takes to become a Marine.

With all due respect, it is one thing to go through waterboarding as part of a vigorous training program, as opposed to having waterboarding used as a technique by people one believes to be mortal enemies and who care not one bit for one's life or well-being. I'm sure that you were schooled in the psychological and emotional side of the physical torture. For instance, sleep deprivation leaves no physical wounds, but the internal physical and psychological effects can be impressive indeed! When used as part of interrogation of an enemy, many who have greater expertise than do I in these areas, believe waterboarding to be extreme! I respectfully disagree with your assessment.

"With all due respect, it is one thing to go through waterboarding as part of a vigorous training program, as opposed to having waterboarding used as a technique by people one believes to be mortal enemies and who care not one bit for one's life or well-being." Actually you are wrong.

First, the CIA does care about their life and well-being because they have to follow US law and SCOTUS precedent, which both show waterboarding to be legal. I'm sure SCOTUS had access to as many experts as needed for their decision.

Secondly, there is not difference between using it to train and practical application. Both are designed as a means to produce a end result and will be done until the end result is fulfilled. For training it's to break someone down to rebuild them in a different mold. For practical application it's to break them down to attain information. If anything for practical application is the easier because the person being interrogated controls the duration whereas the person in training must endure for x number of hours regardless of their response.

For instance, I have gone through two instances where sleep deprivation and loud noises were used. One was boot camp the other was Officer Candidate School. I was awake for over 48 hours my first day and a half of bootcamp. At OCS my first 4 days there I had 6 hours of sleep. The only affects that I experienced were immediate and when I was finally given a chance for 8 hours sleep I recovered, there are no long term affects. Impressive indeed? Only if you consider really deep sleep to be impressive. This is done routinely in our indoctrination training and has been a part of that training for over 70 years. If there were the impressive adverse affects as you claim they would not be applied as liberally throughout the indoctrination training as they are.

For good reading on the subject I recommend reading the works of Dave Grossman who has dealt extensively with the psychological aspects of war and training and their affects on people.

MikeyA

When I referred to the actual interrogation by the U.S. officials, my reference was NOT to what was in the minds of the U.S. officials. It was what was in the minds of the DETAINEES!! They are NOT under the impression that Americans follow laws and humane procedures, even if that is true. They are brainwashed by others, or even by themselves, to believe that Americans are all heathens who hate them and might do anything to them including killing them. Again, that is what is in THEIR minds!

I am also NOT equating sleep deprivation to waterboarding. I deeply respect the type of training that you and other marines experience.

Dale, I was referencing this "For instance, sleep deprivation leaves no physical wounds, but the internal physical and psychological effects can be impressive indeed!".

Secondly it doesn't matter what's in their minds. Your mind can torture you in the absence of an aggressor. Trust me, I've done created enough haunted houses in my life that I know there's nothing I can do that can be scarier than what the human mind can imagine. So the threat of waterboarding or the act is not torture. If we were responsible for the fear that is in each other's minds then every white person in the US would be guilty of violating purnhrt's civil rights.

Dale, I've had enough interaction with you to know you are respectful and honorable. I wish I could say that about some of the others you choose to associate with but there is no need for you to say all due respect. I know you have respect for our military and it's members.

MikeyA

Mike, where do you find SCOTUS precedent that determines that waterboarding is legal? I know for a fact that we have prosecuted people for doing it.

Be honest. You're just making it up, aren't you?

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/11/13/fear-and-torture-on-the-campaign-tr...

By the way, bravo for volunteering to be waterboarded. In essence that's what you did. It's a little different with prisoners though. Ask John McCain. He was tortured.

Pink Slip

Well pink, first the Supreme Court has ruled that only individuals can be held responsible for torture, not organizations. That means only the aggressor can be held accountable not the organization. ( Likewise the Geneva Conventions contend that the motivation of the aggressor also is pertinent to the discussion.)

So, if one takes part in enhanced interrogation techniques that are sanctioned by the organization they are interrogating for. (See John Yoo's legal opinion and the findings of the courts who Padilla tried to bring a lawsuit against and SCOTUS refusal to hear that case directly) Now since the Obama Dept of Justice has declined to prosecute the CIA officers who conducted the techniques is quite telling especially when put in context with the expanded powers of the AUMF with the NDAA.

We may hear more from SCOTUS if the Padilla case gets heard but with the new NDAA it's doubtful unless they decide to throw out the whole law but that would be unprecedented.

MikeyA

"Well pink, first the Supreme Court has ruled that only individuals can be held responsible for torture"

So....now you're saying the exact opposite? You're admitting torture is illegal. Why else would SCOTUS have any reason to "hold someone responsible"?

Pink Slip

You totally missed the point.

Yes torture is illegal. Yet if EITs are as the administration claims are torture then the only people they can prosecute via SCOTUS decisions are the CIA operatives. Thus, because the administration isn't doing that they are conceeding that no illegal conduct has occurred. Additionally the NDAA that the administration signed gives more control to the President of the AUMF, a direct rebuke by the legislative and executive branch of the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision, and expanded the President's authority over interrogation, and limited the SCOTUS judicial review of wartime prisoners. Actions speak louder than words and the administration's actions in conjunction with SCOTUS precedent all says that the EITs are not torture.

MikeyA

It's difficult to "get" your point, when it keeps changing.

First you said Supreme Court precedent shows waterboarding to be legal. I asked for a clarification, since I know that the exact opposite is true. We have prosecuted individuals in this country for waterboarding people.

Then you said the Supreme Court has ruled that only individuals can be held responsible for torturing. A citation would have been appropriate, but whatever. I never questioned this in the first place.

Now you are saying that since the Obama administration is not going after the torturers for their crimes, they are not crimes? Sounds like Nixon. "If the President does it, it is not illegal".

And the stuff about the recent NDAA holds no bearing here, since I talking about the practice of waterboarding which ceased in 2009

Pink Slip

My point has never changed. SCOTUS has ruled that only individuals can be charged with torture. Under the Geneva convention the aggressor's motives are pertinent to whether torture took place or not. If you want a citation on the SCOTUS ruling I can provide one but it was a man who tried to sue the PLO for torture in the 80's, I can look up the name of the case.

So SCOTUS puts the ball into the court of the DOJ to determine if torture has taken place to prosecute individuals. Then in 2009 the President says waterboarding is illegal and is torture. YET, the DOJ announces they will not prosecute individuals within the CIA.

And YES the NDAA does have bearing on this because the NDAA specifically expands the President authorities under the AUMF to authorize techniques such as EITs (which is a direct reputiation of Justice Steven's writ in Hamden v. Rumsfeld which said that Congress did not extend that under the AUMF). Being that the current President signed that into law is a direct repudiation to what he said in the first three months of his presidency.

So unless SCOTUS gives further amplification in the Padilla case OR it chooses to rule the NDAA 2012 unconstitutional (doubtful) then waterboarding is legal as long as the person doing the waterboard is doing it with the intent to gain information and not the intent to harm/punish/give threat of immenent death then it is legal. In all the cases where waterboarders were prosecuted the torturer had unjust motives as outlined above. Likewise waterboarding by the government did not stop in 2009. It is still being used today by our military for training, again the motive for use determines if it is torture or a technique which is why it is legal in this instance.

MikeyA

"SCOTUS has ruled that only individuals can be charged with torture."

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning this. I don't dispute it, nor do I know how it relates to anything I said.

"Under the Geneva convention the aggressor's motives are pertinent to whether torture took place or not"

I'm sure this is not true. But I DO know this. The US is a signatory of the UN Convention Against Torture--which mean it's the law of the land. Here's how they define torture:

"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

So your contention is that since the SCOTUS has not said explicitly that waterboarding is torture, then the responsibility of defining it rests with the DOJ? The fact that we have prosecuted others for waterboarding in the past doesn't matter, as long as a current DOJ official says it's ok? What if a Bush OLC official admitted that waterboarding=torture?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/bush-memo-footnotes-defin_n_188...

It would be very interesting if waterboarding were considered torture for all of our history as a country, except for one 4 year period when a couple of rogue lawyers thought it was ok.

And don't hand me that canard about SERE training. It's obviously a different scenario. Even one of the Bush torture memos admitted that:

"Individuals undergoing SERE training are obviously in a very different situation from detainees undergoing interrogation; SERE trainees know it is part of a training program, not a real-life interrogation regime, they presumably know it will last only a short time, and they presumably have assurances that they will not be significantly harmed by the training."

Also, a CIA inspector general report also points out the OBVIOUS differences.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892708,00.html

Pink Slip

"So your contention is that since the SCOTUS has not said explicitly that waterboarding is torture, then the responsibility of defining it rests with the DOJ?" That is exactly what I've contended because that is exactly what SCOTUS has said. If prosecutors choose not to prosecute then either a crime has not been committed OR they don't believe there is enough evidence to support a conviction.

Is there suddenly a lack of evidence that waterboarding occurred?

MikeyA

" If prosecutors choose not to prosecute then either a crime has not been committed OR they don't believe there is enough evidence to support a conviction."

OR....it's for political reasons! Whatever the reason, the fact that the Obama administration didn't seek to prosecute certainly does not make the act legal. In fact they are complicit to the crime. Not to mention they are not upholding the Constitution.

Pink Slip

The most likely scenario is that Democratic lawmakers knew, and approved of the waterboarding. So if the Obama administration sought prosecution, they would implicate their own "team".

Pink Slip

Chairman B.Hussein Obama, is absolutely loathed by the Military !!!
Except, for the peter puffers, that is...

No wonder there are so many stupid kids coming out of TPS, the likes of you taught them.

More info has surfaced. 0bama had a memo drafted blaming the military if the mission had failed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jniVeih8idc&feature=youtu.be

Further, he knew of the whereabouts of Bin Ladens hideout since the summer of 2010, almost a year earlier, but wouldn't "pull the trigger".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsT4Tmc_K4g&feature=youtu.be

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Bin Laden's complex was built about 2005. Since W had the same resources as Obama, what happened to Mr. Flight Jacket? No guts; no glory!

You're struggling so much with Obama's successes! You're probably among those conservatives praying that the economy tanks between now and November. You don't really care about Americans and how much they may suffer. You just want to be right and have your person win the next election. How profoundly sad!

I'll bet you would have criticized Carter's attempted freeing of the hostages in Iran, if you had been old enough to comment then. Real leaders take real risks! Unlike Mr. Photo-Op, Obama is a real leader!!

BTW...George Bush #41 was a true American hero. He was also a man with whom I disagreed on most issues. But Bush #41 was not an ideologue. He was willing to compromise for what was best for America. It's no wonder that he and Bill Clinton have forged a close relationship over the past 10 years!

scat, is truly frightening in what he says and no doubt taught, to empty skulls !
Proof is the horrible and very dangerous schools he professes to adore !?

His lengthy diatribes indicate that if he has ever read something from The Nation ,New York Times,or the Alynsky books, it is absolutely true without derivation ?!
A closed mind is a terrible voter...look at the outcome of his last Presidential vote if you need verification.
Then, check his votes in Lucas County, to further amplify his incorrect voting pattern , which has left this area in economic shambles !

Just another useless Leftist bent tool...

scat, is truly frightening in what he says and no doubt taught, to empty skulls !
Proof is the horrible and very dangerous schools he professes to adore !?

His lengthy diatribes indicate that if he has ever read something from The Nation ,New York Times,or the Alynsky books, it is absolutely true without derivation ?!
A closed mind is a terrible voter...look at the outcome of his last Presidential vote if you need verification.
Then, check his votes in Lucas County, to further amplify his incorrect voting pattern , which has left this area in economic shambles !

Just another useless Leftist bent tool...

I WAS old enough to comment then. Carter is second in ineptness only to odumbo.

As for why Bush didn't "get him". The CIA found him by following his most trusted courier. They didn't find out where this guy lived until 2 years ago. Here is a pretty good article about how they found him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/how-osama-bin-laden-found

Typical of a liberal, if they don't like the facts, they ignore them and substitute their own bullshit.
Honestly, I can't imagine anyone with an ounce of sense that could support a president who has failed so miserably.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Bush may have had a chance with Bin Laden was in 2005 -
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/washington/08intel.html?_r=1&pagewante...

A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

Obama didn't let Pakistan get in the way and he got Bin Laden...

Bush #43...faux leader

Obama REAL leader!

Bin Laden...DEAD!!

Care to address the several opportunities your buddy Clinton had at getting Bin Laden?

Pertcheck, you're hopeless, a typical liberal sheep with no mind of his own.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Yep Clinton launched cruise missiles at Bin Laden’s Afghan base, leveling it, but missing him. Wing nuts and conservatives everywhere were pissed that he launched an attack. Dismissing it as “saber rattling” and a “distraction”.

But what’s your point, Clinton tried and failed, Bush didn’t ever try (called off Pakistani and Tora Bora operations), but Obama got him. Sent troops into Pakistan, something Bush refused to do and Romney and McCain said they wouldn’t if given the opportunity.

According to JM and other conservatives, if a Democrat tries and fails, that Democrat is a screwup. If a Democrat doesn't even try, that Democrat is a wimp. However, if W does nothing, he's a hero to JM. After all, W can fly a jet! W looks great in a flight jacket! W's people always orchestrate great photo-ops!

Bottom line...Bin Laden is dead, and he's dead at the order of a true, patriotic American, a man willing to take risks, a man willing to ruffle feathers of a so-called ally. That man is our current President, Barack Hussein Obama!!

Sad, and pathetic.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

JM

JM did you hear the new one?

The underwear bomber caught this weekend worked as an informant for the US and Saudia Arabia in Yemen. He was a double spy.

All this and the War on Terror is over. Yay!

MikeyA

is a fool. Mikey, I thank you and all of the men and women of the armed services, in the FBI, and in the CIA for the work they do that allows us to state our opinions in freedom.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.