You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #170: war crimes are war crimes. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-21-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #162
170. war crimes are war crimes.
There is no "middle ground." No "yeah, but." No "but it's slightly okay sometimes."

We are a torture state. Until the President fully acknowledges this, fully discloses what we did, and aggressively pursues those who committed the crimes--AS HE IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO--we will remain a torture state.

I don't want to live in a torture state. Do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Mr. President, you alluded to your oath of office today, stating that you are obligated rateyes  May-21-09 11:34 AM   #0 
  - k and r  Lorax7844   May-21-09 11:34 AM   #1 
  - He probably doesn't read DU. Call the White House n/t  emulatorloo   May-21-09 11:36 AM   #2 
  - right on  Lorax7844   May-21-09 11:38 AM   #3 
  - I honestly believe that Obama cares about those that criticize him  Lorax7844   May-22-09 01:53 AM   #203 
  - Exactly!! He told us to keep him in line and make our voices heard.  The Hope Mobile   May-21-09 06:21 PM   #143 
  - 202 456 1111 -- every day n/t  WhiteTara   May-21-09 09:24 PM   #172 
  - Your ass is covered Boss, GET'ER DONE  bagrman   May-21-09 11:41 AM   #4 
  - Calling Obama a criminal really doesn't help the cause.  HiFructosePronSyrup   May-21-09 11:44 AM   #5 
  - Ayup  alcibiades_mystery   May-21-09 11:48 AM   #7 
  - So are we allowed to support Obama and still ask questions about what really happend on 9/11?  tridim   May-21-09 11:50 AM   #9 
  - You're allowed to do whatever the hell you want.  HiFructosePronSyrup   May-21-09 11:51 AM   #10 
     - Asking questions RE: the BushCo era is never stupid.  tridim   May-21-09 11:52 AM   #12 
        - Calling for the impeachment of Obama is stupid.  HiFructosePronSyrup   May-21-09 11:52 AM   #13 
           - Yes it is.  tridim   May-21-09 11:55 AM   #14 
           - It comes full circle  EnoughOfThis   May-21-09 10:42 PM   #195 
              - Agreed  LaloBorges   May-22-09 08:52 AM   #215 
  - #1, I didn't call Obama a criminal.  rateyes   May-21-09 11:57 AM   #16 
  - Riiiiiight, and threw in the reference to "high crimes and misdeamenors"  HiFructosePronSyrup   May-21-09 12:01 PM   #19 
  - Riiiiggggghhhhht. I didn't call Obama a criminal.  rateyes   May-21-09 12:04 PM   #22 
  - And if there is no prosecution after the investigation.  geek tragedy   May-21-09 09:52 PM   #177 
     - And, you know this how?  rateyes   May-21-09 10:18 PM   #186 
  - The law is the law  spiritual_gunfighter   May-22-09 10:37 AM   #231 
  - Obama isn't an investigator or a prosecutor, he's the President  tridim   May-21-09 12:02 PM   #20 
     - He's the head of the executive branch. The branch of government  rateyes   May-21-09 12:07 PM   #24 
        - And he has already directed the AG and Congress to investigate  tridim   May-21-09 12:11 PM   #29 
        - Has he? What I've heard is that his administration will NOT prosecute  rateyes   May-21-09 12:26 PM   #37 
        - His administration CANNOT PROSECUTE!!!  JuniperLea   May-21-09 03:09 PM   #102 
        - The hell it doesn't. The DOJ is part of the Executive Branch.  rateyes   May-21-09 05:21 PM   #132 
        - You're hearing from the "head in the sand" branch of the corporatist party  The Hope Mobile   May-21-09 06:18 PM   #140 
        - Well shit, somebody done went and changed the Constitution while I wasn't looking.  konnichi wa   May-21-09 06:22 PM   #144 
        - That's what he said this morning per the video.  The Hope Mobile   May-21-09 06:19 PM   #141 
        - Please Link to where he said that please.---as far as I know he  snowdays   May-21-09 02:58 PM   #97 
        - Exactly, the Executive Branch...  JuniperLea   May-21-09 03:09 PM   #100 
           - Gee, I thought the Attorney General worked for the Prez  Vinnie From Indy   May-21-09 03:14 PM   #104 
           - Read a book  JuniperLea   May-21-09 03:15 PM   #105 
              - Take a gander at the list of departments under the Executive Branch  rateyes   May-21-09 05:30 PM   #136 
              - I can only surmise you are smoking something that isn't doing what you expected.  konnichi wa   May-21-09 06:23 PM   #145 
                 - Dead on! nt  The Hope Mobile   May-21-09 06:33 PM   #149 
                 - I thought you had me on ignore...  JuniperLea   May-21-09 07:27 PM   #159 
                 - Sadly...  JuniperLea   May-21-09 07:28 PM   #160 
                 - Ass..  JuniperLea   May-21-09 06:43 PM   #154 
                 - I am really digging 'ignore' right now. Future crow-eaters be gone!!  The Hope Mobile   May-21-09 07:55 PM   #163 
           - Obama is the Leader, but he is NOT leading on this.  snowdays   May-21-09 03:16 PM   #106 
           - The judicial branch INTERPRETS the laws,  rateyes   May-21-09 05:25 PM   #134 
              - THE PRESIDENT DOESNT DO IT HIMSELF!!!  JuniperLea   May-21-09 06:42 PM   #153 
              - And, what the hell does any of that have to do with your assertion  rateyes   May-21-09 09:55 PM   #179 
              - That's how I learned it. Should I sue my history teachers?  shadowknows69   May-21-09 10:06 PM   #182 
                 - You learned it correctly. nt  rateyes   May-21-09 10:28 PM   #190 
  - So let me get this straight - it's wrong to challenge Obama, but believing the offical story of 9/11  slay   May-21-09 12:07 PM   #25 
  - Like I said elsewhere, calling for the impeachment of Obama is stupid.  HiFructosePronSyrup   May-21-09 12:19 PM   #32 
  - Who's calling for the impeachment of Obama here? What are you talking about?  slay   May-21-09 12:34 PM   #43 
     - Thanks for the link.  HiFructosePronSyrup   May-21-09 12:38 PM   #47 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   May-21-09 12:43 PM   #53 
     - Thanks for the link - I can never tell if people are being serious or sarcastic when they post stuff  slay   May-21-09 12:51 PM   #64 
        - like i said, they get removed.  mkultra   May-21-09 01:16 PM   #76 
        - Exactly!!  The Hope Mobile   May-21-09 06:29 PM   #147 
     - Undercover FBI in your classroom?  Torn_Scorned_Ignored   May-21-09 09:44 PM   #173 
        - Deleted message  Name removed   May-22-09 12:57 AM   #200 
        - You know what forget it - I don't care if you believe me or not  slay   May-22-09 04:47 AM   #205 
  - Perfectly consistent to say it's wrong to challenge Obama AND believe the official story of 9/11.  glitch   May-21-09 12:50 PM   #63 
  - You made my point for me far better than I could - thank you  slay   May-21-09 12:54 PM   #67 
  - You're welcome! :) nt  glitch   May-21-09 12:59 PM   #70 
  - Exactly! The sheeple mentality!  The Hope Mobile   May-21-09 06:35 PM   #150 
  - Some people just need their binky of lies  jgraz   May-22-09 10:19 AM   #228 
  - nice sidestep.  leftofthedial   May-21-09 06:49 PM   #156 
  - K&R  pleah   May-21-09 11:44 AM   #6 
  - That's a U.N. resolution from the '80's. And Pres. Obama has instructed his AG to investigate.  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 11:49 AM   #8 
  - Hey stop letting facts get in the way of a perfectly good self rightous rant  NJmaverick   May-21-09 11:52 AM   #11 
  - I know... I'm such a sucker for preferring facts to op-ed rhetoric.  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 12:24 PM   #35 
  - I don't know about President Clinton. If he violated the CAT  rateyes   May-21-09 11:55 AM   #15 
  - Well, since you're going back to the 80's... better look at the 90's, too (links ->)  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 12:05 PM   #23 
     - If Bill Clinton is responsible for extraordinary rendtions, then YES  rateyes   May-21-09 12:09 PM   #27 
        - There's no "If" about it. He started the practice with presidential directive PDD 39 on 6/21/95.  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 12:10 PM   #28 
           - OK, here is the text of PDD 39.  rateyes   May-21-09 12:34 PM   #41 
              - You expected the text of Clinton's presidential directive to include the word "torture"?  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 12:37 PM   #45 
                 - I'm sorry, but show me where I'm giving a pass to Clinton. I've already  rateyes   May-21-09 12:48 PM   #59 
  - That's the law of this land. The Constitution is a resolution ratified  rateyes   May-21-09 12:00 PM   #17 
  - U.N. resolutions are the "law of this land"? I don't think so. Besides, AG Holder is on it.  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 12:08 PM   #26 
     - Treaties are the law of this land. We RATIFIED the Convention  rateyes   May-21-09 12:13 PM   #30 
     - You're wrong (see link). And Pres. Obama has asked AG Holder to investigate this matter.  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 12:15 PM   #31 
        - self-delete nt  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 12:25 PM   #36 
        - No, you're wrong - Supremacy clause  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-21-09 12:29 PM   #39 
           - Sorry, but you're wrong. See Reply #38. nt  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 12:41 PM   #49 
              - Read it and you're still wrong UN resolutions (what you are pointing at  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-21-09 12:43 PM   #51 
                 - It's a UN resolution we're talking about, not a signed treaty. See Reply #38.  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 12:44 PM   #54 
                    - Oh for fuck's sake! "United Nations Convention Against Torture" go and read who signed and also  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-21-09 12:45 PM   #55 
                    - It clearly states it's a UN resolution, so your spin fails to impress. See Reply #38 for why.  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 12:48 PM   #58 
                       - Which part about ratified don't you get? Have you ever heard the  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-21-09 12:51 PM   #65 
                       - And you are correct in stating that it is up to the Justice Department whether to prosecute or not.  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-21-09 12:55 PM   #69 
                    - Do I have to post the text to these links to get you to read them:  rateyes   May-21-09 01:17 PM   #78 
                       - Do I have to repeat that Pres. Obama has ALREADY ordered AG Holder to investigate this matter?  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 02:15 PM   #81 
                          - Again, I haven't seen any news report, etc. that backs up your statement.  rateyes   May-21-09 02:54 PM   #93 
                          - See Reply #116.  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 03:43 PM   #119 
                             - This morning he said its not going to happen per the video. nt  The Hope Mobile   May-21-09 06:31 PM   #148 
                                - Huh? Per what video?  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 07:26 PM   #158 
                                   - Rachel Maddow's discussion with Isikoff on Hissyspit's Journal  The Hope Mobile   May-21-09 08:41 PM   #167 
                                      - I don't trust hearsay by biased unsourced parties. nt  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 06:35 AM   #208 
                                         - I can't imagine why someone would make that up but obviously you're  The Hope Mobile   May-22-09 09:17 AM   #217 
                                         - Hearsay is not reliable. I prefer to wait for the facts and see the WH plan.  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 09:28 AM   #221 
                                         - I'd love it if you were right about this but given the recent behaviors  The Hope Mobile   May-22-09 09:37 AM   #223 
                                         - I'll wait to see the WH plan rather than make preemptive judgment based on biased unsourced hearsay.  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 10:06 AM   #227 
                                         - You said that and I said you're entitled.  The Hope Mobile   May-22-09 10:41 AM   #233 
                                         - Cool.  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 10:44 AM   #234 
                          - not sure if this sig is one of the cutesiest or one of the most annoying ones i've ever seen... nt  inna   May-22-09 01:52 AM   #202 
        - I am not going to get into a semantics argument with you. The  rateyes   May-21-09 01:00 PM   #71 
     - I CAMPAIGNED FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA  dotymed   May-22-09 10:57 AM   #236 
  - Clinton wasn't investigated  xxqqqzme   May-21-09 12:01 PM   #18 
  - Clinton didn't start the practice of "extraordinary renditions"  wyldwolf   May-21-09 12:38 PM   #46 
  - The ACLU and Wikipedia and PPD 39 contradict you.  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 12:43 PM   #52 
  - Quote the text from PDD 39 that disagrees with Scott Horton and Dennis Kucinich  wyldwolf   May-21-09 12:50 PM   #62 
     - See reply #45.  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 12:55 PM   #68 
        - I did. All I see is a link to the ACLU that doesn't have the text  wyldwolf   May-21-09 01:02 PM   #72 
           - Did you expect the text of Clinton's presidential directive to mention "extraordinary renditions"?  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 02:09 PM   #79 
              - no, I expected text that would meet the definition of "extraordinary rendition" but have seen none  wyldwolf   May-21-09 02:25 PM   #83 
                 - No, I expect you would not but you're hardly unbiased, are you?  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 02:39 PM   #87 
                    - Of course I'm biased, but I would never peg Kucinich as such... and...  wyldwolf   May-21-09 02:44 PM   #89 
                       - So you think PBS Frontline and the ACLU is biased? As for Kucinich, this must be the first time...  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 03:30 PM   #112 
                          - do I think the ACLU and PBS are biased?? Yep!  wyldwolf   May-21-09 03:37 PM   #114 
  - You were wrong in that thread and you are still wrong today. n/t  EFerrari   May-21-09 03:59 PM   #122 
  - only to people who can't face facts - like you.  wyldwolf   May-21-09 07:06 PM   #157 
  - He didn't start it, but he didn't stop it. (nt)  redqueen   May-22-09 09:24 AM   #219 
  - "You da man Clark...You da man" *said in my crazy R. Bachmann voice* n/t  vaberella   May-21-09 05:00 PM   #128 
  - According to Michael Isikoff Obama said no prosecutions  soryang   May-21-09 05:30 PM   #135 
  - Clinton could be a war criminal also.  Raksha   May-22-09 08:42 AM   #214 
  - who does his admin have to prosecute in order for him not to become a war criminal  cali   May-21-09 12:04 PM   #21 
  - According to the law (and you'll see this if you read it),  rateyes   May-21-09 12:23 PM   #34 
  - please provide evidence for the President having to prosecute  cali   May-22-09 04:32 AM   #204 
     - Did you read the law? If you will, your question will be answered. nt  rateyes   May-22-09 09:24 AM   #218 
  - Everyone suspected of participation in torture.  Senator   May-21-09 05:31 PM   #137 
  - Of course there's a way around it:  salguine   May-21-09 12:20 PM   #33 
  - "Myth and Fact: Does Failure to Implement UN Resolutions Violate International Law?"  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 12:29 PM   #38 
  - We're talking about a signed ratified treaty. Not a UN resolution. nt  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-21-09 12:30 PM   #40 
  - The document refers to "General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984"  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 12:34 PM   #42 
     - See reply to your other reply above. Once ratified it becomes US law. nt  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-21-09 12:36 PM   #44 
        - That's a myth, as my linked source shows in Reply #38. nt  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 12:39 PM   #48 
           - Again no, your link doesn't mention ratified treaties does it? I can't believe I have to try and  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-21-09 12:42 PM   #50 
              - We're talking about a UN resolution, not a ratified treaty as you keep insisting.  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 12:46 PM   #56 
                 - Look up United Nations "Convention Against Torture" that's all you have to do. nt  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-21-09 12:47 PM   #57 
                    - I'm looking at the OP's linked document page and it clearly is titled "UN resolution..."  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 12:49 PM   #61 
                       - A UN resolution yes but specifically the "United Nations Convention Against Torture" it goes  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-21-09 12:53 PM   #66 
                       - UN resolutions signed by the unted states are not automatic treaties  mkultra   May-21-09 01:14 PM   #75 
                       - You are correct reg. conventions and treaties. nt  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-21-09 01:16 PM   #77 
                       - See Reply #80.  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 02:30 PM   #85 
                          - See # 86. And that doesn't change the fact that you kept claiming  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-21-09 02:43 PM   #88 
                             - Sorry, but I disagree since the document clearly references UN resolution 39/46  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 03:59 PM   #121 
                                - This isn't for you to agree or disagree it is how this country works when they  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-22-09 09:49 AM   #224 
                                   - You do realize that U.S. courts agree with me, don't you?  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 10:40 AM   #232 
                                      - The Supremacy Clause pretty much states that if the document is ratified  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-22-09 10:55 AM   #235 
                                         - Why are you ignoring what I just said? I repeat, U.S. courts agree with me.  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 11:10 AM   #237 
                                            - You've ignored everything I've been saying since yesterday. I've provided to you  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-22-09 11:15 AM   #238 
                                               - No, I've disagreed with your position. So do the U.S. courts.  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 11:35 AM   #239 
                                               - Yet you continued to call it a resolution when you knew that I was talking about the  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-22-09 11:43 AM   #240 
                                               - Red herrings may help you keep up a fallacious argument but I have the U.S. courts on my side.  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 11:59 AM   #241 
                                               - That's up to the attorney general. Now, is torture illegal or not Mr Addington? nt  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-22-09 12:03 PM   #242 
                                               - Now you've created a strawman "torture illegal or not" argument to CYA.  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 12:10 PM   #243 
                                               - So what is it that you're arguing here? It's illegal but not because of the Conventions  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-22-09 12:12 PM   #244 
                                               - There you go again...  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 12:13 PM   #245 
                                               - Ah the Reagan response........ nt  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-22-09 12:14 PM   #246 
                                               - It fits you well.  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 12:19 PM   #247 
                                               - It says more about the person using it. nt  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-22-09 12:36 PM   #248 
                                               - lol! Your response was predictable. But you got my message.  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 01:13 PM   #251 
                                               - Yours are not exactly oozing with originality and cleverness. Did you have a good lunch? nt  Guy Whitey Corngood   May-22-09 01:14 PM   #252 
                                               - The courts do not agree with you as to your position on treaties.  rateyes   May-23-09 09:28 AM   #257 
                       - No, it does not say that it's a RESOLUTION. It's clearly a  rateyes   May-21-09 01:09 PM   #74 
                          - The document clearly refers to "General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984"  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 02:17 PM   #82 
                             - The document REFERS to a resolution. It is not TITLED as a resolution.  rateyes   May-21-09 03:05 PM   #99 
                                - Wrong. According to your document link, that's the UN resolution's full I.D.  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 03:35 PM   #113 
  - The resolution to which the CONVENTION (which is a TREATY RATIFIED by this country)  rateyes   May-21-09 01:07 PM   #73 
     - Why can't you acknowledge the fact that Pres. Obama has already ordered AG Holder to investigate?  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 02:27 PM   #84 
        - I'm going to try this one more time with you, and then I'm done...  rateyes   May-21-09 03:25 PM   #110 
           - Your insistence doesn't make it so. The CAT entry on Wikipedia is illuminating. (quote/link)->  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 06:39 PM   #151 
              - You're correct. It's illuminating. First of all,  rateyes   May-21-09 10:08 PM   #183 
              - CAT is "'an international human rights instrument, under the review of the United Nations"  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 06:41 AM   #209 
                 - The Constitution says that all treaties are the supreme law of the land...  rateyes   May-22-09 09:04 AM   #216 
                    - Then why do U.S. courts disagree with you?  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 10:03 AM   #226 
                       - You do realize, do you not, that you took that citation from a document  rateyes   May-22-09 10:28 AM   #229 
                          - Of course I do, but the reality remains the same. Your position is not supported by U.S. courts.  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 10:35 AM   #230 
                             - Yes, it is. Bye.  rateyes   May-22-09 12:48 PM   #250 
                                - Saying so isn't enough. There is no case study where a U.S. court supported your position.  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 01:28 PM   #253 
                                - Medellin v. Texas  onenote   May-22-09 01:44 PM   #254 
                                   - I agree with all of that. However, because Congress has not  rateyes   May-22-09 02:48 PM   #255 
                                   - Let me also say that in this case, the report cited states that  rateyes   May-22-09 03:17 PM   #256 
              - And, I refer you to post #86 where I quote the report  rateyes   May-21-09 10:15 PM   #184 
                 - "Obligations" does not equate to "supreme law of the land".  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 06:42 AM   #210 
  - ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT  scubadude   May-21-09 12:49 PM   #60 
  - So, Obama is an accomplice of Ted Stevens  geek tragedy   May-21-09 09:54 PM   #178 
     - Self Delete  scubadude   May-22-09 09:27 AM   #220 
     - Yes, it is indeed a Geek Tragedy.  scubadude   May-22-09 09:31 AM   #222 
  - the OP is an example of what happens when amateurs play international lawyer  onenote   May-21-09 02:13 PM   #80 
  - And, your post is an example of getting half the story, and not understanding the defintion  rateyes   May-21-09 02:35 PM   #86 
  - Why can't you acknowledge the fact that Pres. Obama supports AG Holder's investigation into torture?  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 02:52 PM   #90 
  - You state that as being a "fact." SHOW ME. One news article.  rateyes   May-21-09 02:54 PM   #95 
     - From Michael Isikoff's report in Newsweek (link and quote -->)  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 03:42 PM   #116 
        - Dude, that was so last month  Generator   May-21-09 05:45 PM   #139 
           - You're right, "Faith is not about reality." Which is why I don't believe off-the-record hearsay.  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 06:28 PM   #146 
              - One of the men that met with Obama is going to  Generator   May-21-09 08:15 PM   #166 
                 - Fine, but it's still hearsay, which is why civil courts strictly limit their admittance as evidence.  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 06:47 AM   #212 
  - You are missing the point.  onenote   May-21-09 02:54 PM   #94 
     - I understand exactly what you are saying. The reason the US declared  rateyes   May-21-09 03:03 PM   #98 
     - the supreme court disagrees with you  onenote   May-21-09 03:19 PM   #108 
     - Oh, and BTW, I have not claimed that Obama is guilty of a criminal act.  rateyes   May-21-09 03:09 PM   #101 
        - not a crime under domestic law  onenote   May-21-09 03:21 PM   #109 
        - OK, then. If President Obama fails to live up to international law,  rateyes   May-21-09 03:28 PM   #111 
           - Bush - impeachable offense; Obama -- no impeachable offense  onenote   May-21-09 04:30 PM   #123 
              - That's wrong. And if you don't know it, you should.  EFerrari   May-21-09 04:59 PM   #127 
              - I look forward to your explanation of why my analysis is wrong  onenote   May-21-09 05:01 PM   #129 
                 - I assume that you have access to The Google.  EFerrari   May-21-09 05:23 PM   #133 
                 - BECAUSE OBAMA IS EVIL LIKE BUSH@!!!@!!! n/t  geek tragedy   May-21-09 09:49 PM   #175 
              - Is waterboarding outlawed by domestic law?  rateyes   May-21-09 05:18 PM   #130 
              - I'm probably being dense here but if under domestic law Bush committed a treasonable  truedelphi   May-21-09 08:51 PM   #168 
        - you are confusing criminality and illegality.  Vattel   May-21-09 03:42 PM   #117 
           - There are illegal acts that are not crimes?  rateyes   May-21-09 05:20 PM   #131 
              - It's not really rare  Vattel   May-21-09 08:05 PM   #165 
              - Sneaking into the country from Mexico isn't a crime.  geek tragedy   May-21-09 09:50 PM   #176 
                 - It's not? Then why the hell do we arrest those who do?  rateyes   May-21-09 10:22 PM   #188 
                    - They are detained and deported.  geek tragedy   May-21-09 10:32 PM   #193 
  - Wrong and you should know better.  EFerrari   May-21-09 03:43 PM   #118 
  - There is no statute making it a crime to fail to prosecute someone.  geek tragedy   May-21-09 09:56 PM   #180 
     - Have you read the CAT?  rateyes   May-21-09 10:27 PM   #189 
        - There is no provision making it a crime to fail to investigate  geek tragedy   May-21-09 10:31 PM   #192 
           - ...  rateyes   May-22-09 09:53 AM   #225 
  - I'm pretty sure the Constitutional Law professor knows the legal obligations of his office  CakeGrrl   May-21-09 02:53 PM   #91 
  - perhaps.  snowdays   May-21-09 03:18 PM   #107 
  - His constant statements about moving forward are directly at odds  EFerrari   May-21-09 03:45 PM   #120 
     - Simply *saying* we need to move forward does not equate to calling off the DOJ  CakeGrrl   May-21-09 04:53 PM   #124 
        - Well, he hasn't. The UN Special Rapporteur has made that clear in the media.  EFerrari   May-21-09 04:57 PM   #125 
           - I'm well aware of what the Special Rapporteur has said  onenote   May-21-09 06:39 PM   #152 
  - Sure there's a way around it. Just ask our Indian tribes.  sofa king   May-21-09 02:53 PM   #92 
  - Well, you do make a point. nt  rateyes   May-21-09 03:10 PM   #103 
  - K & R....Return us to being a Nation of Laws.  winyanstaz   May-21-09 02:55 PM   #96 
  - It's all right to keep telling Obama what you need and expect.  EFerrari   May-21-09 03:39 PM   #115 
  - Thanks.  rateyes   May-21-09 05:44 PM   #138 
  - K&R.  Vidar   May-21-09 04:57 PM   #126 
  - Wouldn't be prudent.  konnichi wa   May-21-09 06:20 PM   #142 
  - there you go again, trying to enforce the *rules* at a fan club meeting.  leftofthedial   May-21-09 06:46 PM   #155 
  - Why are you using such divisive language? This is a discussion forum and we're having a discussion.  ClarkUSA   May-21-09 07:55 PM   #162 
  - war crimes are war crimes.  leftofthedial   May-21-09 09:18 PM   #170 
     - You haven't answered my question. nt  ClarkUSA   May-22-09 06:33 AM   #207 
  - the UN Rapporteur on Torture recently said we have an obligation to investigate  Old Hank   May-21-09 08:55 PM   #169 
  - K&R  TheMachineWins   May-21-09 07:49 PM   #161 
  - SHHHHH..in a bad economy ..it doesn't surprise does it? eom  flyarm   May-22-09 12:45 PM   #249 
  - Stop talking about the law and start enforcing it on The Bush Crime Family!  santamargarita   May-21-09 08:00 PM   #164 
  - Cheney's big mouth could be making it more likely.  Lord Helmet   May-21-09 09:21 PM   #171 
  - Lots of "impeach Obama" nutjobs to add to my ignore list.  geek tragedy   May-21-09 09:48 PM   #174 
  - Where did I say that. But, if you insist on putting me on ignore...  rateyes   May-21-09 09:58 PM   #181 
     - You realize that Eric Holder is supposed to make those  geek tragedy   May-21-09 10:17 PM   #185 
        - Yes, I'm aware of that. However, Obama said that his administration  rateyes   May-21-09 10:21 PM   #187 
        - Perhaps Holder told him that they wouldn't be prosecuting  geek tragedy   May-21-09 10:30 PM   #191 
           - Following orders is not a defense for a war-crime.  Ozymanithrax   May-21-09 11:43 PM   #199 
        - no he's not. Obama is the chief executive.  Vattel   May-22-09 06:58 AM   #213 
  - If Obama believes it is torture....  EnoughOfThis   May-21-09 10:39 PM   #194 
  - Just Had A Thought  Dinger   May-21-09 11:06 PM   #196 
  - It doesn't matter who started it.  Ozymanithrax   May-21-09 11:32 PM   #197 
  - Mr. Obama. Prosecute, or get in line to be prosecuted. It is that simple.  L. Coyote   May-21-09 11:36 PM   #198 
  - You won ... after reading though the thread you won  kster   May-22-09 01:49 AM   #201 
  - there IS one way around this -  mdmc   May-22-09 06:29 AM   #206 
  - That was for *our* benefit, I hope.  Orsino   May-22-09 06:46 AM   #211 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC