Military Commissions Act/Keith Obermann report
- Thread starter Gary Conner
- Start date
- Status
I have to second this .... The shut up king has no arguements ... only Shut up and Leave. Anyone that finds this guy unbiased is kidding themselves.Gary Conner
New member
No, the operative word is "torture" since you said you were unhappy at being misled. I was pointing out you were not misled. And you weren't. A person can be abused under this act, and the statements obtained used to incriminate themselves. But if it is "torture", it cannot be used to incriminate them.
See, that is why so many people are asking for a definition. However, the President refused numerous times in his interview with the "fair and balanced" Bill O'Riley, to define what the Administration considered torture. He continued to say he "would not say, since it would give an advantage to the enemy" and presently, I guess it depends on what your definition of torture is.
Regardless, Olberman did not say torture. He said "abused" so it wasn't a misleading statement at all.
September11
New member
I wonder if, when he said "enemy" he meant the terrorists or the Democrats...
Gary Conner
New member
Dear Goslash27:
I'm glad I was able to point out the slight but significant difference in that meaning.
I've skimmed through the entire Act, and believe this thing needs to be watched very, very closely. And really, that is the duty of all of us, not just the politicians.
Because as ambiguous as the language is in this Act, I can see why many people are concerned today with how simply "making a gesture" or indulging in "conspiracy theories" could possibly get some poor slob into some big trouble. Even U.S. citizens. In some portions it appears to not apply, however, when in other sections it describes "any person who" gives some a little pause to think it may need some real study.
I intend to read the entire thing as a whole. But I don't blame anyone for being skeptical when "torture" is not defined.
I'm glad I was able to point out the slight but significant difference in that meaning.
I've skimmed through the entire Act, and believe this thing needs to be watched very, very closely. And really, that is the duty of all of us, not just the politicians.
Because as ambiguous as the language is in this Act, I can see why many people are concerned today with how simply "making a gesture" or indulging in "conspiracy theories" could possibly get some poor slob into some big trouble. Even U.S. citizens. In some portions it appears to not apply, however, when in other sections it describes "any person who" gives some a little pause to think it may need some real study.
I intend to read the entire thing as a whole. But I don't blame anyone for being skeptical when "torture" is not defined.
What are you having a hard time understanding? All of them are bias---you are bias when presenting a point of view. You are presenting your arguement with bias based on what you feel are facts and truth. The distinction between Tucker and O'reilly vs Olbermann is simple to understand. they present their(bias) opinion(that's why they are debating the point) and present a counter arguement to their viewpoint. It's not a TV News program. Olbermann, OTOH, presents his opinion(bias as well) and follows with guest after guest who AGREES with everything he says. That's why you never see the confrontations like you do on O'Reilly---there's nobody there to confront or get opposing view points from. If you can't see that then you simply have a dislike for them personally and can't be objective.
Point being this wasn't a vote strictly along party lines---Democrats voted for it too and some Republicans went against. Seems like if it was so bad ALL the Democrats would have gone against.
Ah yes, it wasn't going to pass under the original---compromise was agreed upon.
Another words the ACLU and far left Democrats who began crying that the Gitmo prisoners needed to be charged or released---knowing that if given a trial, the Government would be forced to reveal classified info, informants and INTEL information! This was the only alternative.
September11
New member
mow
It is unfortunate we can’t have a rational conversation. I have read some of your other posts and you are so beyond the pail that most conservatives aren’t following you. Some of your ideas are very soundly based but you take it too far. You probably still decry “liberal media” – show it to me, other than Oberman and Air America…
You watch O'Reilly and believe everything you are hearing is fair and balanced. His idea of sharing ideas is one Dem and two right-wingers.... He tapes his show and edits it to make himself look good. People who insist on live broadcast are refused. Fox is notorious for presenting a significantly slanted perspective that is dictated by the owner to drive people to believe a certain way. They practically invented the modern definition of "talking points." This is the concept that if a person hears the same thing repeated enough times, it will begin to be thought of as true. This has been the mantra of the current administration and their cronies like Fox. Unfortunately, it works. How many times was the justification for going into Iraq correlated to a "mushroom cloud?" O'Reilly has guests and if they don't agree with him he verbally abuses them verbally and becomes a belligerent child. That is where this whole "shut-up" thing came from. If you want news you have to go to cspan and other countries to get it.
It is unfortunate we can’t have a rational conversation. I have read some of your other posts and you are so beyond the pail that most conservatives aren’t following you. Some of your ideas are very soundly based but you take it too far. You probably still decry “liberal media” – show it to me, other than Oberman and Air America…
You watch O'Reilly and believe everything you are hearing is fair and balanced. His idea of sharing ideas is one Dem and two right-wingers.... He tapes his show and edits it to make himself look good. People who insist on live broadcast are refused. Fox is notorious for presenting a significantly slanted perspective that is dictated by the owner to drive people to believe a certain way. They practically invented the modern definition of "talking points." This is the concept that if a person hears the same thing repeated enough times, it will begin to be thought of as true. This has been the mantra of the current administration and their cronies like Fox. Unfortunately, it works. How many times was the justification for going into Iraq correlated to a "mushroom cloud?" O'Reilly has guests and if they don't agree with him he verbally abuses them verbally and becomes a belligerent child. That is where this whole "shut-up" thing came from. If you want news you have to go to cspan and other countries to get it.
You seem to be missing some key points. It's not O'Reilly the man, or Tucker Carlson the man, it's the format of the show. The shows are just as good when they aren't even hosting. They put on opposing views and Olbermann(show format) doesn't. They are not(any of them) reporting News--they are opinion programs dealing with politics(mainly) and current events. Tucker, BTW, happens to be on MSNBC. I don't get my news from any of the 3 FOX, CNN or MSNBC. I do watch all, and enjoy the format better when opposing views are presented. As far as Liberal media---of course, there is also Conservative, but Liberal is prominent. Besides Olbermann, Air America, The Daily Show, Bill Mahr, CNN, 60 Minutes, NPR, MSNBC, SF Chronicle, NY Times etc...
September11
New member
Point being, when you own the majority it shouldn't take a lot of effort to get something passed if it isn't aweful...
So, by far left Democrats you mean the Supreme Court, right?
September11
New member
I guess when you list comedy central as the number three source of liberal media, you prove my point.
thanks for the dialogue
thanks for the dialogue
1. Didn't take alot of effort
2. Some on the Supreme Court, yes.
Did you expect the Government to just release these guys or go to trial and release all of this information. This was a consequence of the ACLU suit. You have nothing to fear, unless you are funding Al Queda secretly.
2. Some on the Supreme Court, yes.
Did you expect the Government to just release these guys or go to trial and release all of this information. This was a consequence of the ACLU suit. You have nothing to fear, unless you are funding Al Queda secretly.
September11
New member
the daily show is a show on comedy central - hello
as far as the other sources... you mean like Bill Maher... he is off the air... you are grasping at straws
NPR is headed by a woman appointed by GW -
60 minutes - please... are we talking hard hitting journalism now!??
as far as the other sources... you mean like Bill Maher... he is off the air... you are grasping at straws
NPR is headed by a woman appointed by GW -
60 minutes - please... are we talking hard hitting journalism now!??
September11
New member
now your true colors shine...
No, I expect them to be classified as prisoners of war and treated per the Geneva conventions or to be prosecuted as per the Constitution that this country was built on... Do you believe in the Constitution? Geneva Conventions? We should be better than mob mentality and vigilanty rule
No, he's got a fairly popular show on HBO
Yes I believe in the constitution. Nowhere does it guarantee due process rights for alien combatants.
As for geneva, if I am not mistaken, we are not a signatory. Even if it did, terrorists are not uniformed soldiers in a national army. They don't meet any of the qualifications other than they are trying to kill us. Whenever we comply it is out of our sheer benevolence.
September11
New member
Stage 2
My point was that mow's examples of a significant liberal biased in the news media aren't exactly strong cases from the mainstream. When I think about “mainstream news media” I don’t think of HBO and Comedy Central. Being popular does not make John Stewart a member of the press corp.
As for the Constitution - the Constitution is an anthem by which we declare our beliefs as a country. It outlines how we expect to be treated, what we hold as basic truths - for all people. It does not address specifics per se. It sounds like you are suggesting those beliefs should be suspended because we find ourselves in an ugly situation with an enemy we haven't faced before... So, we live by the Constitution - sometimes.
We are not a signatory on the Geneva Conventions, but we waste no time calling for those standards when our solders are captured. That is a double standard. You want the benefit of it but refuse to follow it's guidelines.
Here is my point - in our society, it is not supposed to be acceptable to stoop down to the level of the criminal, combatant or offender in how we behave. We are supposed to be the leader – the example. In our past we denounced the Kremlin and the SS specifically for taking such tactics. Now we are saying it is okay for us because these are really bad people. I think we can accomplish the task of prosecuting these people and combating their efforts without giving up who we are.
This is about who we are as a society. This is not about whether some people want to "free the terrorist" - that is an argument used by people who have no good position to argue from. This is about how we as a country choose to behave in a very difficult and new situation.
My point was that mow's examples of a significant liberal biased in the news media aren't exactly strong cases from the mainstream. When I think about “mainstream news media” I don’t think of HBO and Comedy Central. Being popular does not make John Stewart a member of the press corp.
As for the Constitution - the Constitution is an anthem by which we declare our beliefs as a country. It outlines how we expect to be treated, what we hold as basic truths - for all people. It does not address specifics per se. It sounds like you are suggesting those beliefs should be suspended because we find ourselves in an ugly situation with an enemy we haven't faced before... So, we live by the Constitution - sometimes.
We are not a signatory on the Geneva Conventions, but we waste no time calling for those standards when our solders are captured. That is a double standard. You want the benefit of it but refuse to follow it's guidelines.
Here is my point - in our society, it is not supposed to be acceptable to stoop down to the level of the criminal, combatant or offender in how we behave. We are supposed to be the leader – the example. In our past we denounced the Kremlin and the SS specifically for taking such tactics. Now we are saying it is okay for us because these are really bad people. I think we can accomplish the task of prosecuting these people and combating their efforts without giving up who we are.
This is about who we are as a society. This is not about whether some people want to "free the terrorist" - that is an argument used by people who have no good position to argue from. This is about how we as a country choose to behave in a very difficult and new situation.
- Status