Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Thanks for responding to my email. I cannot answer for the Senator why he would change his mind regarding use of the Army Field manual.
From GlennG:
If -- as you claim -- using the Army Field Manual as a standard is a bad idea because it "could leave a loophole for another Bush or Cheney to incorporate techniques which could be called torture," why did Wyden advocate exactly that when Bush and Cheney were in office?
Glenn, I just read the Senator's assistant's response and took it at face value. SHE claimed that it could be easily altered. It is possible that Sen. Wyden actually learned more details about how the manual is revised and thought that a legislative solution would be better and potentially more permanent. I'm a Canadian, and I tend to be more optimistic about people's possible motivations.
However, lets be real here. A determined administration or group of people within government will bypass whatever legal hurdles are put in their path to torture if they think they are doing the right thing for their country. Especially if every succesive US administration refuses to investigate and prosecute the [in this case] torturers.
Until the torturers are brought before a court of law, I would be very surprised if this behaviour ended.
all that was actually the Reagan Reaction.
And the Right Wing movements of which you speak, CP, are also Reactionary. Nothing revolutionary about them, unless you're defining "revolution" as any violence intended to effect radical political change.
I agree that they are out there- although I think you're exaggerating their present strength, and I think it's up for grabs whether they're waxing or waning as a popular movement.
I'm telling you nothing would accomplish it at this point. Not going to have a Revolution. It's not going to happen. Not NOW.
Glad that's clear. Anything else? K.
Now that you've totally given up, of course, you have lost all credibility to bitch about the current state of affairs. You do realize that, right?
You are now, officially, among the Sheeple. However, you get to be totally aware of it. At least "they" have the excuse of being "pig ignorant."
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/5/the_blogging_revolution_a_look_at
December 05, 2008
The Blogging Revolution: A Look at the Repression of Online Journalism Around the World
A new report by the Committee to Protect Journalists says more internet journalists are jailed today than journalists in any other medium. [...]
* * * * *
Just because paranoid tyrants are afraid of one doesn't necessarily prove that one is a true threat . . . but it's a start.
Prate away about how I don't know what I'm talking about then...
Okay, I'll prate. You don't know what you're talking about. Is there anything--anything?--you've written that isn't known to readers here already? No (and I'll answer my own question). Let me steal from PDA (with your quote in hand): I'm telling you nothing would accomplish it at this point. Not going to have a Revolution. It's not going to happen. Not NOW.
"Glad that's clear. Anything else? K. Now that you've totally given up, of course, you have lost all credibility to bitch about the current state of affairs. You do realize that, right?"
Good grief, man. Rise up from the armchair and give life a whirl.
either a liar or an idiot. Of *course* the torture has been cast in a Right-vs-Left issue: The Republicans are for it, the Democrats want to stop it. That meme's been floating around this site for years. What Greenwald's article recognizes -- but you refuse to -- is that some Democrats' backtracking on the issue puts the lie to the Manichean political philosophy held by many on the Left. And I offer no defense of the Right in making that statement. They're just as bad.
Timothy3, you're... either a liar or an idiot.
Say, you're not still upset over my "chops" comment, are you?
What Greenwald's article recognizes -- but you refuse to -- is that some Democrats' backtracking on the issue puts the lie to the Manichean political philosophy held by many on the Left.
What the hell are you talking about?
Timothy3, you're... either a liar or an idiot.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Maybe he's a "liediot!" It's possible... my girlfriend has a "puggle;" and according to her I am a "douchehole."
Avoid The Trap Of Dualistic Thinking. That is all.
are you listening? PDA is right; I'm a liediot douchehole who loves his puggle.
Now take that everlasting Gobstopper out of your mouth and pay attention.
1. thanks to the numerous, more even-tempered kampers such as che pasta, ad nuto, froCT, hear-er, gordengecko (or sumpin'), peaceocake, cabdiver and others who gave further explanations of our dire present state of affairs, the futile reactions and actions of the typical saloonist/citizen, and the argument for 'revolution' ...
(*sheesh* *NOW* ooomoo is going to redefine 'revolution' out of existence... by the way, to the people i mentioned above, i THOROUGHLY realize your OWN sentiments were in no way an endorsement of either me or my take-no-prisoners tactics; but at least you guys/gals/dicks/pussies 'get it'...)
2. special thanks to br'er illuminated lib'rul who was 'capable' (i mean, c'mon, how 'capable' do you have to be ?) of seeing past my use of the banned words 'dickless', 'pussy', etc to understand the earnest and cogent points i (and others) made in regards to the issue of re-forming a gummint that is beyond salvation... you, sir, are a gentlemen and a scholar...
(really, do we have to go any further than that: outraged saloonies jumping all over me for having the temerity to use such loaded language as 'dickless' (*gasp* he's almost as bad as osama bin forgotten!) and 'pussies' (*GASP* he's such a juvenile, um, asshole ! (hmmm))... but no one addresses arguments (as per usual), the usual inability to separate style from substance... (WHY we are in the mess we are, isn't it ?)
language i KNOW 90% of you hypocrites use ALL THE TIME, you just dislike me so much, your sputtering hypocrisy knows no bounds...
yep, dickless pussies who are dicks, about sums it up...
3. yet more word-bans, ultra-PC assholes, and wannabe CENSORS who don't know SHIT about free speech, nor capable of addressing arguments unless couched in 'civil' terms acceptable to them...
(hint: when you are their oppposition, you will NEVER MEET THEIR shifty criteria for (so-called) civility... much like che pasta's excellent -and telling- point that there is NOTHING that will EVER cause self-satisfied saloonies and other faux-pwogs from EVER rebelling, PERIOD...)
("when in the course...")
since i have a to go get a chicken roasting, i don't have time to detail various kampers wrongheaded conclusions and hysterical hypocritical rants, but have patience, i'll call someone else a pussy soon enough...
oh, and pedestrian, i was pondering a line-by-line deconstruction of your hateful, hypocritical, weird-insult rant excoriating me for 'hateful' insult rants, but i won't bother...
you know the story, trying to teach a pig to sing only frustrates you and annoys the pig...
i *WOULD* prefer (EXACTLY why i have posted my email eddress numerous times) to keep the personal backbiting to another forum, but that isn't possible when your adversaries are, oh geez, what's the word i'm searching for...
it's on the tip of my tongue...
anybody ? somebody help me out here...
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
