It's called accountability...(sm)
Posted By: Just the big bad on 2009-04-04
In Reply to: Obama goes there - Trigger Happy
That's something we never saw out of the last administration. Instead of trying to bully Europe, he listens, owns up to the mistakes of the US, and comes out with some pretty impressive results.
Examples: When was the last time you heard the French president say that he TRUSTS our president? Yep...that's what he said. A very important result is the fact that France is now willing to help with Afghanistan as well as willing to take select prisoners from Gitmo. 
Russia is now more willing to work with us on reducing nukes (You do know that those treaties were about to expire in the fall?). 
We have a consensus when it comes to dealing with North Korea (I think Hillary gets a big kudos for that one -- working with the 6 party talks). 
20 countries have now come to an agreement about how to work on the world economic crisis (including more effective regulation). 
These are only a few things that he has accomplished on this trip. All I can say is  Obama!!!!!
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
The difference is accountability. There is no he said she said...
in this. The Republicans tried to get them to act before it happened and they refused. That is the bottom line.
Bush DID press it. But who has the majority in congress? You know, Congress, who has to pass any bill? That would be democrats. Look it up...John McCain tried in 2005, this is what he said:
join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
He named the problem, said what would happen, Democrats killed the bill...and here we are. Bush admin tried 17 times:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
It was the dems who did not listen to the Bush admin. None of them deserve to retain their seats. NONE of them.
Speaking of truth and accountability....
or lack of it........good grief.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276_pf.html
War Crimes Act Changes Would Reduce Threat Of Prosecution
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 9, 2006; A01
The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.
Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without spelling out what all those terms mean.
The draft U.S. amendments to the War Crimes Act would narrow the scope of potential criminal prosecutions to 10 specific categories of illegal acts against detainees during a war, including torture, murder, rape and hostage-taking.
Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as outrages upon [the] personal dignity of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts -- such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- that fall short of torture.
People have gotten worried, thinking that it's quite likely they might be under a microscope, said a U.S. official. Foreigners are using accusations of unlawful U.S. behavior as a way to rein in American power, the official said, and the amendments are partly meant to fend this off.
The plan has provoked concern at the International Committee of the Red Cross, the entity responsible for safeguarding the Geneva Conventions. A U.S official confirmed that the group's lawyers visited the Pentagon and the State Department last week to discuss the issue but left without any expectation that their objections would be heeded.
The administration has not officially released the draft amendments. Although they are part of broader legislation on military courts still being discussed within the government, their substance has already been embraced by key officials and will not change, two government sources said.
No criminal prosecutions have been brought under the War Crimes Act, which Congress passed in 1996 and expanded in 1997. But 10 experts on the laws of war, who reviewed a draft of the amendments at the request of The Washington Post, said the changes could affect how those involved in detainee matters act and how other nations view Washington's respect for its treaty obligations.
This removal of [any] reference to humiliating and degrading treatment will be perceived by experts and probably allies as 'rewriting' the Geneva Conventions, said retired Army Lt. Col. Geoffrey S. Corn, who was recently chief of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General. Others said the changes could affect how foreigners treat U.S. soldiers.
The amendments would narrow the reach of the War Crimes Act, which now states in general terms that Americans can be prosecuted in federal criminal courts for violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which the United States ratified in 1949.
U.S. officials have long interpreted the War Crimes Act as applying to civilians, including CIA officers, and former U.S. military personnel. Misconduct by serving military personnel is handled by military courts, which enforce a prohibition on cruelty and mistreatment. The Army Field Manual, which is being revised, separately bars cruel and degrading treatment, corporal punishment, assault, and sensory deprivation.
Common Article 3 is considered the universal minimum standard of treatment for civilian detainees in wartime. It requires that they be treated humanely and bars violence to life and person, including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture. It further prohibits outrages upon personal dignity such as humiliating and degrading treatment. And it prohibits sentencing or execution by courts that fail to provide all the judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
The risk of possible prosecution of officials, CIA officers and former service personnel over alleged rough treatment of prisoners arises because the Bush administration, from January 2002 until June, maintained that the Geneva Conventions' protections did not apply to prisoners captured in Afghanistan.
As a result, the government authorized interrogations using methods that U.S. military lawyers have testified were in violation of Common Article 3; it also created a system of military courts not specifically authorized by Congress, which denied defendants many routine due process rights.
The Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, however, that the administration's policy of not honoring the Geneva Conventions was illegal, and that prisoners in the fight against al-Qaeda are entitled to such protections.
U.S. officials have since responded in three ways: They have asked Congress to pass legislation blocking the prisoners' right to sue for the enforcement of those protections. They have drafted legislation allowing the consideration of intelligence-gathering needs during interrogations, in place of an absolute human rights standard.
They also formulated the War Crimes Act amendments spelling out some serious crimes and omitting altogether some that U.S. officials describe as less serious. For example, two acts considered under international law as constituting outrages -- rape and sexual abuse -- are listed as prosecutable.
But humiliations, degrading treatment and other acts specifically deemed as outrages by the international tribunal prosecuting war crimes in the former Yugoslavia -- such as placing prisoners in inappropriate conditions of confinement, forcing them to urinate or defecate in their clothes, and merely threatening prisoners with physical, mental, or sexual violence -- would not be among the listed U.S. crimes, officials said.
It's plain that this proposal would abrogate portions of Common Article 3, said Derek P. Jinks, a University of Texas assistant professor of law and author of a forthcoming book on the Geneva Conventions. The entire family of techniques that military interrogators used to deliberately degrade and humiliate, and thus coerce, detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at Abu Ghraib is not addressed in any way, shape or form in the new language authorizing prosecutions, he said.
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last Wednesday, however, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales complained repeatedly about the ambiguity and broad reach of the phrase outrages upon personal dignity. He said that, if left undefined, this provision will create an unacceptable degree of uncertainty for those who fight to defend us from terrorist attack.
Lawmakers from both parties expressed skepticism at the hearing. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the military's top uniformed lawyers had told him they are training to comply with Common Article 3 and that complying would not impede operations.
If the underlying treaty provision is too vague, asked Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), then how could the Defense Department instruct its personnel in a July 7 memorandum to certify their compliance with it? Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, who had signed the memo, responded at the hearing that he was concerned that degrading and humiliating are relative terms.
I mean, what is degrading in one society may not be degrading in another, or may be degrading in one religion, not in another religion, England said. And since it does have an international interpretation, which is generally, frankly, different than our own, it becomes very, very relevant to define the meaning in new legislation.
This viewpoint appears to have won over the top uniformed military lawyers, who have criticized other aspects of the administration's detainee policy but said that they support the thrust of these amendments. Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, the Army's judge advocate general, said in testimony that the changes can elevate the War Crimes Act from an aspiration to an instrument by defining offenses that can be prosecuted instead of endorsing the ideals of the laws of war.
Lawyer David Rivkin, formerly on the staff of the Justice Department and the White House counsel's office, said it's not a question of being stingy but coming up with a well-defined statutory scheme that would withstand constitutional challenges and would lead to successful prosecutions. Former Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo similarly said that U.S. soldiers and agents should not be beholden to the definition of vague words by international or foreign courts, who often pursue nakedly political agendas at odds with the United States.
But Corn, the Army's former legal expert, said that Common Article 3 was, according to its written history, left deliberately vague because efforts to define it would invariably lead to wrongdoers identifying 'exceptions,' and because the meaning was plain -- treat people like humans and not animals or objects. Eugene R. Fidell, president of the nonprofit National Institute of Military Justice, said that laws governing military conduct are filled with broadly described prohibitions that are nonetheless enforceable, including dereliction of duty, maltreatment and conduct unbecoming an officer.
Retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said his view is don't trust the motives of any lawyer who changes a statutory provision that is short, clear, and to the point and replaces it with something that is much longer, more complicated, and includes exceptions within exceptions.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Take responsibility. Demand accountability.
Why do you cut Republicans to ribbons the largest financial disaster we have faced in decades can be laid at the feet of Democrats in Congress and all of a sudden you guys are saying stop blaming. You want to stop blaming Bush for the war?
yeah demand accountability -- keep
I love watching the stocks plummet, since my money isn't there.
Lest we forget accountability, how-dare you ask?
x
Now wouldn't that bring accountability to the government?sm
If people could choose which programs they want to fund. I think we should all be given a form with our tax form and we get to choose where we which programs to fund. That way if no one supported a program it wouldn't happen.
The government should really do this.
Wanting truth and accountability = hatred?sm
Dissent, not loyalty to the almighty State is patriotic.
If we give up all this money now and do NOT demand full disclosure/accountability to these foul thie
despite all the duplicity in the banking crisis, are STILL in corporate positions, then we have just thrown good money after bad and our whole system will go down faster. These guys do not even know what accountability means, and someone has to TEACH THEM, if not, be replaced, no more hand-outs, and face stiff fines for misappropriation of tax payer's money/government funds. We need to act fast, but not BLINDLY AND RASHLY!!
What's it called?
It's called LYING.
Uh, maybe that's why it's called
What's more he/she/it started out with a sarcastic remark of *aren't we worthy*? You sound like crybabies. Liberal board is for liberal people. Now is that so hard?
Nobody was called (nm)
x
He should be called on this and often...nm
While he stands up there being the hypocrite he is.
I am the one who called him that. sm
I stand by what I said. He may not have raped Kathleen Willey or Paula Jones, but he may as well have. I totally believe he did rape Juanita Broaddick.
and you won't be called (nor have I)
They call mostly Democrats and "likely voters." Rasmussen, Gallup, and Daily Tracking are the most reputable ones, but even so, I ignore them.
Also, keep in mind that being on the no-call list prevents you from being called unless I'm mistaken.
You called it yourself--- not me!
 Vote Away
He actually called him ......(sm)
a *house negro* as well as Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. He also said he was no Malcom X and was betraying the Islam faith. I haven't heard Obama's reaction yet, but I think it's kind of funny. The terminology is outdated and laughable, and who wants to be like Malcolm X? Was the reference to Malcolm X supposed to be an insult or a compliment?
It's called........... sm
disillusionment and resignation, GP. The more I read about the whole BC thing and now hearing that the SCOTUS has delayed the hearing another 5 days, I guess I am resigned to the idea that nothing is going to stand in the way of Obama....not the Constitution and not the voice of the people. I kind of look at the Constitution as I do the Bible and sin. A sin is a sin to God (excepting one) and breaking one part of the Constitution is breaking the whole thing. Call me gloom and doom if you want, but I have come to the realization that we are not living in a democracy or a republic. We are living in a political machine that operates at its whim without regard for our country's most basic foundations.
On the Clinton-Obama front, like I said. It should be interesting, to say the least, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Hillary is getting something more out of this than just the letters SOS out beside her name. There is more that goes on in Washington than is dreamed of by mere residents (I won't even use the word "citizens") of this once great nation.
Pardon my sardonic pessimism this morning. lol
That's called....(sm)
They'll get it however they can. Check this out. We have a double lot (just enough to keep me busy with a garden...lol). When we bought the place there was a really old shed at the back of the property. It was built probably about 40-50 years ago. This thing was literally falling down, dirt floors.....completely in shambles and definitely not inhabitable. We knew we would have to tear it down when we moved here. So, we noticed on the assessment that 2K of the state assessment was attributed to that shed. Yeah right. We didn't need anything more than a sledge hammer and a crowbar to tear it down. So, after we took it down we had them come out for a re-assessment. They took $200 off the assessment value. Hmmmm..... Yeah, I raised cane with them but it didn't do any good. I've been planning on putting a greenhouse out there. I can't wait to see what happens with that.
No, that is just called being a
nm
That's called....(sm)
Let's scare the public into thinking the stimulus is evil. What a joke! That's almost as good as Steele saying the stimulus doesn't create jobs, it creates work. Talk about grasping at straws....
Unless you would like to be called
the "c" word (4 letters ends with "t"), then I would think twice.
This is highly offensive to some people and you know this. Reading your post is like dealing with my children who are 5 and 6 years old. One instigates the other calling each other names to lure the other into a fight. The difference though is my 5 and 6 year old are more mature than you are and understand the concept of playing nicely and treating each other with respectfully. They understand if they've said something that hurts the others feelings they will say they are sorry. Something you obviously don't understand. And after reading that you adore and hang onto every word Keith Oberfool has to say and you let him tell you how to think and what to say and do, I had to read no further than your first sentence.
Posters on this board have been disrespectful towards others. You think your aiding your cause by calling us teabaggers? Think again. You think your aiding your cause by saying anyone who participated is a racist? Well the laugh is on you because in these crowds of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people I saw plenty of black people. Go ahead, tell them they are racist.
You know I do hope you keep it up, I do hope Oberfool an the other moe-rons at BSNBC keep having guests on like this piece of garbage Gorofool. You wouldn't see the truth if it slapped you in the face. Go ahead and laugh it up, because I'm right there smiling all the way to the elections next year. So go ahead keep calling us names. The laugh will be on you.
First of all, don't believe I called you
JTBB now did I? I don't think so. Secondly, I was being comical when I said I too have sleep deprivation, etc. Loosen up a bit. Dang. I think you need to take a Xanax and chill out a bit. Sheesh.
Regardless of my joking, which you obviously didn't get, I have no sympathy for people who want us dead.
LOL, and you called me a bigot up above, so
x
GT, you have called me a bigot....
on this board at least 10 times. Who's the one who generalizes here? I can guarantee you that if I'm guilty, I'm certainly not alone. Oh yes, all Republicans are rich and living behind gates, ignoring the plight of the poor. Bull pucky. Talk about a sweeping generalization. I don't live behind a gate, I don't live in a fancy house, we make a decent income but are certainly not rich, and guess what? We're not even religious. You want equality for everybody? Well, that isn't something that is given to you, it's something you work for. My husband spent 7-1/2 yrs in college and got a master's degree, and worked his way through the whole thing at a gas station paying for it himself. We work long hours. There are people who refuse to value education, refuse to work hard, and just want a hand out. That's a fact. There have always been the poor and there always will be. We've poured TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of dollars into programs for the poor over the last 40 years and the poverty rate is basically the same. To succeed takes effort.
It's called the TRUTH!!!
I think it's called the First Amendment.
The poster isn't *getting away* with anything. He/she is exerting his/her constitutional right to form and voice an opinion. Just so happens what the poster said is true about Bush having the Saudis being escorted out of the U.S., and if I remember correctly, some of those escorted were relatives of Bin Laden.
Like I said, the poster isn't *gettin away* with anything because the poster hasn't done anything wrong. The person who has *gotten away* with a lot of illegal, immoral, unethical acts is Bush.
And *voila* had to be called down
Because he/she responded in profanity when her/his views were disputed. And know a lot PK. I know A LOT about your posting habits more than you could ever imagine.
Had they called me, there would be one more vote!
Yes, but we are the ones who are called intolerant. sm
Also, notice how the guys holding the sign have their faces covered. Cowards all of them.
Which is exactly why Bush called for...
conservation...or a reduction in use of oil, in his state of the union address, not a complete changeover. You can't fix anything overnight, and scaring people into it and causing even more damage, as this article describes, is NOT the way to do it, and those hawking global warming KNOW that, but it is typical socialism ploy...you get everyone on board by screaming *they are trying to hurt you but WE will save you.* New cause, same song, second verse.
It's called fraud
I happened to get a call from the police in Arizona a few months ago. I have always lived in Ohio. It seems someone (several someones actually) had LISTS of people across the country of personal info, account numbers, passwords, email addresses, etc. pretty much everything you need, even machines to make the credit cards and license IDs. Arizona puts the fraudsters away just for having this info without your permission. Apparently they had a large fraud bust out there and they don't waste their time on proving what they did with it. YEA ARIZONA!
Thanks. It's called sacrifice.
Baby did not ask to be here. I made that choice.
It's called Google. If you want to know...
information is there. I also have a dear friend who spent most of her life there.
It's called a debate...nm
.
Its called multitasking. :)
As to what I make...a living.
it's called recycling all the
talking points, trying to catch any newcomers to the political issues.
you called me indoctrinated and
claimed I have a poster above my desk. those are personal attacks. Do not attack me personally. Stick to the issues as required on this board.
It's called the Amero...
The new currency will be called the Amero if they create the North American Union (the merger of Canada, USA, and Mexico). (Amero for the NAU and Euro for the EU.) The deadline for the merger has been set at 2010. We will completely lose our national sovereignty. The U.S. Constitution, which has already been flushed down the crapper, will be completely moot. A Tribunal will replace the United States Supreme Court. Expect gun confiscation shortly before or after creation of the NAU.
Then again they may bypass that step and go straight to the wordwide currency, the Phoenix.
This stuff has been in the works for years. We have their documents... The globalist politicians have been consistently denying it (my Senators are two -- one of whom is McCain), but there are a few heroes in Congress. BTW, Obama openly supported creation of the NAU in an op-ed piece then turned around and feigned ignorance at a Town Hall meeting.
Since 2006 I have been called a "tin-foil-hat-wearing, paranoid conspiracy theorist" by countless sheeple. Unfortunately for all of us, soon enough they will see that my concerns were not unfounded....
Oh well, I did my part to try to sound the alarm. Too many Americans are dumbed down and complacent so there is no hope of saving her anyway.
Yes I can and it's called POVERTY
:
I have never been called since 2000
to be included in a national poll. I'm Democrat. I answer all phone calls JUST to have my voice heard. Why haven't they called me?
Back in the 50s that was called
"grading on a curve." Hardly the same as talking about money. If you're comparing CEOs to common workers, that's no comparison. I don't think anyone is planning to take money from someone making $30 an hour and dividing it up between someone making $10 an hour so that both would be making $20. That's stretching the "redistribution of wealth" a little far donchathink? On the other hand I wonder if you were making $50,000 a year would you really, really object if the CEO who was doing a sorry job and was being paid say 1 million a year, were to have say a mere $25,000 tax deducted and "redistributed" into your pocket. Anyone want to say they wouldn't be happy to take that little contribution? No? I didn't think so.
Someone called ME dense s/m
Reading comprehension. I was not and am not talking about SMALL businesses.
I am sure I will be called a racist, but
I really think that all the fuel needed was for a black man to run for president. That said, my problems with Obama lie in his policies, not his color.
Getting the so-called facts from
MSNBC are ya? Once again.....another example of the liberal media telling falsehoods. Palin draws in very large crowds wherever she goes.
I have certainly been called worse.
x
There's a movie on TV right now, called....sm
"Mortal Storm."
The movie begins on the night that Hitler was appointed as chancellor in 1933.
There are a lot of parallels between then....and now.
That's all I'll say.
Yes, I have. It's a process that is called
"read and compare." Read every link that is supplied, double-check to make sure nothing has been removed from the article that might change its meaning. Read unfounded allegations and "fears" and the "I'm scareds" all over the board.
Now, if you can supply me a racist post that she's made -- which is what the accusation is -- please copy and paste it. I will then "read and compare" and perhaps come up with a different conclusion.
If you're going to make a serious allegation against someone, at least have the documentation to back it up.
I'm still waiting. 
So why did all those so-called investigations
Where's your vote fraud scandal now?
It is called more attacks like the one we went through
Do you actually believe the govt is telling us about each and every plot they help dismantle to make the country safer. Oooh- can I be in your fantasy movie.
People may hate GW - You know our "President of the United States", but Americans (the patriotic ones that is) are grateful for the policies that have been put in place that enable them to find out when things are happening so we will not endure another 911. Sorry you don't like the fact, but that's what they are.
I for one am very grateful we have not been attacked again.
"And I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free. And I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me. And I'll gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today. Cos there ain't no doubt I love this land. God bless the USA!"
Morpheus called
Keanu Reeves the same thing in the Matrix. Are you sce-e-ered?
Better watch taking His holy words out of context to endorse your personal small-minded, hateful politic point. Word is he don't take kindly to such activities. You might face the Smotenator or even bullous pemphigoid.
its not called snooty
its confidence. its about time we have some positivity and hope for once,at least in my life time. I was too young to know about Kennedy but do watch a lot of documents on him. I cannot wait for Obama to walk through those White House doors!
|
