Spazito
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-06-07 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
| 26. LOL, because they don't believe it is the law does NOT change |
|
the fact that it IS the law. Some silly bill "re-iterating" the existing law will do nothing to change the bush cabal's belief, you know that as well as I and the only thing such a bill will do is try to pull the wool over the publics' eyes that the bush cabal is breaking the law.
I have to say I find the attempts to sell this meme about such a bill to be fascinating, both how it is done and by whom.
|
| -Question: why not one vote - up/down - waterboarding is torture? |
DrZeeLit |
Nov-06-07 12:00 PM |
#0 |
 -
Because that would piss off the republicans |
me b zola |
Nov-06-07 12:03 PM |
#1 |
| -
Sorry, but I smell a RW talking point with this one. It isn't necessary. |
blondeatlast |
Nov-06-07 12:12 PM |
#2 |
 -
And we called it a war crime when the Japanese did it. |
dflprincess |
Nov-06-07 12:15 PM |
#3 |
| -
The Viet Cong and the Chinese also drank tea. |
Basileus Basileon |
Nov-06-07 12:16 PM |
#5 |
| -
Apples=oranges? I think not. That we have to debate that suffocation torture is |
blondeatlast |
Nov-06-07 12:20 PM |
#6 |
 -
Then torture will continue. |
Basileus Basileon |
Nov-06-07 12:20 PM |
#7 |
| -
So is it OK if I cut people's head of with a machete? |
Bornaginhooligan |
Nov-06-07 12:28 PM |
#11 |
| -
Those both fall under definitions of murder, which are extremely explicit. |
Basileus Basileon |
Nov-06-07 12:51 PM |
#18 |
| -
So does torture. |
Bornaginhooligan |
Nov-06-07 12:52 PM |
#19 |
| -
Again, torture requires an agreed-upon definition of "unreasonable" or "excessive." |
Basileus Basileon |
Nov-06-07 12:53 PM |
#21 |
| -
We don't need to "legislate" every FORM of torture, there is no equivocation on the issue. |
Justitia |
Nov-06-07 12:30 PM |
#12 |
| -
Exactly. Definitions of torture are purposely kept vague |
Poiuyt |
Nov-06-07 12:44 PM |
#16 |
| -
It's illegal to drive drunk |
magellan |
Nov-06-07 12:33 PM |
#13 |
| -
Not only that, it will give bush legal cover to say "well, it wasn't illegal when I did it." |
Kingshakabobo |
Nov-06-07 12:42 PM |
#15 |
| -
A better analogy is |
Basileus Basileon |
Nov-06-07 12:50 PM |
#17 |
| -
Yeah, but you still don't have to list those substances, do you? |
magellan |
Nov-06-07 12:54 PM |
#22 |
| -
In most laws, they generally do. |
Basileus Basileon |
Nov-06-07 01:01 PM |
#24 |
| -
Really? Quote them. |
magellan |
Nov-06-07 01:12 PM |
#29 |
| -
they also all ate rice |
bushmeat |
Nov-06-07 12:26 PM |
#10 |
| -
Kennedy introduced a bill in August-- |
librechik |
Nov-06-07 12:16 PM |
#4 |
| -
Even if they don't pass a law... |
lazyriver |
Nov-06-07 12:23 PM |
#8 |
| -
cojones nt |
bushmeat |
Nov-06-07 12:25 PM |
#9 |
| -
Then what happens if it passes and Bush vetoes it. |
shraby |
Nov-06-07 12:39 PM |
#14 |
| -
Make it clear in the wording |
Basileus Basileon |
Nov-06-07 12:52 PM |
#20 |
| -
Why would one formally re-iterate a law that is already the law.... |
Spazito |
Nov-06-07 01:00 PM |
#23 |
| -
Because the current Executive does not officially believe it is the law? |
Basileus Basileon |
Nov-06-07 01:04 PM |
#25 |
| -
LOL, because they don't believe it is the law does NOT change |
Spazito |
Nov-06-07 01:08 PM |
#26 |
| -
It would certainly put the Mukasey wordplay to rest. nt |
Basileus Basileon |
Nov-06-07 01:09 PM |
#27 |
| -
Not confirming him would do that.... |
Spazito |
Nov-06-07 01:12 PM |
#28 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread