On the passage of the torture bill -

[John Gauger]

I think many here are overreacting. The passage of this bill is not the end of the world. I understand it's bad. I understand that you don't like the fact that Congress has condoned torture. I don't like it either. I have read a number of people saying that they have lost faith in humanity. I think that's a little fantastic. How is this any different from any other failing of the American public? They don't care about it just the same as they don't care about any of the other important issues that they neglect. I really don't see what makes this issue so different. I am saddened by this as well. I am also distraught that my beloved country has just opened a legal loop hole to allow torture. But I am not surprised by this. My political education began with the 2000 presidentianl campaign and I am well familiar with the downhill path this country has taken. Looking at the past five years, I really can't say that this is much of a shock to me. And besides, our government tortured before they had a loophole. This has not changed anything. Our government is going to commit atrocities if they are crimes and they are going to commit atrocities if they are not crimes. This really does not affect their moral decision making. Sure, what they are doing could now be said to be legal, but the way I look at it their chances of being procecuted have not changed. That kind of prosecution just does not happen in this country. Before the passage of this bill, the only way that a prosecution would have occurred was if the American people forced it to happen. And that is the only way it is going to happen now. Torture is still an international crime and we can still send them to the Hague if we so choose. So what is all the fuss about?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[John Gauger]

12. What?

I don't understand what you are trying to say at all. What is your criticism of my statements?

[LiviaOlivia]

21. What? What? What?

I am going to presume that you are an American.

You said:

Our government is going to commit atrocities if they are crimes and they are going to commit atrocities if they are not crimes. This really does not affect their moral decision making. Sure, what they are doing could now be said to be legal, but the way I look at it their chances of being prosecuted*(you can't spell. I fixed it.)have not changed. That kind of prosecution just does not happen in this country.---(Oh really? You are either uneducated, stupid or a liar)

Your own words reveal your ideology and your lack of reading history. May I suggest reading up on the the Espionage Act, the Sedition Act and the Palmer Raids of 1918-1921. Geeeez.

[John Gauger]

24. I am aware of the Espionage Act.

I know that in 1917 Eugene Victor Debs went to jail under the Espionage Act for making anti-war statements. He ran for President from his jail cell in 1922 and got more than 900,000 votes. I am aware that the law is still on the books and that since 1950 the United States has been in a state of emergency (remember that the Korean War never ended) thus making the law active. I am aware that it is illegal to say "don't join the Army" in this country. But I am not aware of any Presiden ever having been tried for his crimes against humanity. Please tell me at what time this kind of trial has occurred in the past. I really don't see why the Palmer Raids are relevent, but okay: they were crimes just like our current President's judiciary sleight of hand. Were any government officials ever tried for their criminal conduct? By the way, thank you for the spelling fix. It is truly appreciated.

[uppityperson]

31. What country are you in that's illegal to say "don't join the Army"?

[stuartrida]

2. This bill tells me that we need 60+ Dems in the senate and 250 Dems in

congress and a Dem president ASAP. I will do everything I can get that.

[Hav]

9. .

That was my thought, too. And after this last vote, I think we really need 70+ Senators...

[John Gauger]

13. Just think

If we win the House, we have a good shot at impeachment. If we impeach Bush & Cheney in the same trial, the Speaker of the House (a Dem) will take office.

[uppityperson]

3. have you heard of checks and balances, 3 branches of gvt?

it is gone. the president gets to decide and pass judgement. That is what the fuss is about also.

[driver8]

10. Exactly. I am sick and tired of little lord psychopants getting

everything he wants, when he wants it.

Checks and Balances no longer exist in our government. Our democracy has become a dictatorship. Yes -- this is a big fucking deal.

Our country is no longer our country.

[John Gauger]

15. Yes I have heard of them

But it's been very rare that I've seem them. Checks and balances did not die today. They were effectively nonexistant no later than Ford's bombing of Cambodia in violation of the War Powers Act in 1978. I just don't see what has changed.

[uppityperson]

27. Hmm, I thought you said your political education started in 2000

I guess you must have been doing a bunch of research the last 6 yrs. Yes, there have been checks and balances of varying sorts. But, as of today, the executive branch gets to interpret. If you don't see what has changed, I feel sorry for you.

[spooked911]

4. there should be no rationalizing this insanity

[John Gauger]

16. I didn't say it was right

I just don't see why everybody is reacting so dramatically to this. We aren't in any holes because of this that we weren't already in. I understand your concerns. I don't like it either. but I really don't think it's working getting worked up over. Yeah, it's bad. I already knew that.

[uppityperson]

29. Now it is LEGAL to do what they are doing.

Now the president gets to INTERPRET the laws.

[Mist]

5. This has put our country on a par with tin-pot dictatorships--it's sordid

and immoral, and even if the f*cking Rethug congress voted for it, it's still illegal. How can we be proud Americans at such a time?

[atommom]

6. Just send them to the Hague? How easy will that be?

The fact that we've seen this coming doesn't mean we should be complacent about what has happened. This is deadly serious. Our constitution is being dismantled and there is effectively no opposition. The game is being rigged to favor the fascists even more, leaving most of us no recourse. IMO, that should scare the everlasting shit out of us.

:banghead:

[zeemike]

7. The important thing to the bush administration is

It gives them immunity from prosecution for there crimes.
Now Chainey can make sport of shooting prisoners in the face if he wants and there is nothing we can do about it.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Torture, indefinite detentions, secret trials ARE WAR CRIMES.

They are CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. Which part of that do you not understand?

[John Gauger]

17. Indeed.

They are crimes against humanity. But they were before this bill passed. They were already being committed with impugnity. Who was going to stop Bush when they were crimes? Our best chance for prosecution was then and is now in an international court, where - as you pointed - these actions are still crimes.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Before this bill passed

the actions of our criminal government were unofficial. Now they are official. We are officially (as of the signing this weekend) outside of the international treaty system of normal behavior.

[John Gauger]

22. When has this country opperated within

the international treaty system? America has signed over 450 treaties with Indians tribes and violated every single one of them. On the international stage we operate under the "single standard," which states that international law and treaty obligations apply to everyone except the United States. What is the difference between being "officially" outside the law and "unofficially," which we have been until this day?

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Technically until this weekend.

Oh we did lots of things unofficially to make us a de facto abomination, now we have taken the step to make it de jure. That is one big step there.

[uppityperson]

30. Now they officially NOT crimes against humanity if pres says so.

In the USA they are NOT crimes anymore. That is the difference.

[Daphne08]

11. I really don't know how to respond to your post because you

obviously don't GET IT -- and since you don't GET IT, I probably would be wasting my time trying to explain it to you, and I'm very weary tonight.

Read. Educate yourself about this country's unique history.

[John Gauger]

20. Yeah. Okay. I understand. The loss of our rights is bad.

I am concerned with the five-year descent into Fascism as well. I just don't think that the passage of this bill has changed anything. I am aware that the United States has lost something very special. But we didn't lose it tonight. This country does have a unique history - but that history is plagued with attacks on our rights such as this. I understand that the Bush administration is the worst attack on our rights that this country has ever faced, that attack did not occur today. We effective lost all of our rights the day Jose Padilla, and American citizen, was arrested without cause to be held without charge or due process.

[emcguffie]

14. I think you are under-reacting.

I think they will find a way to designate "left wing extremists" who post on the internet as unlawful combatants....

and round them up.

They as much as said so.

So... why worry? I'm sorry I don't have the link. It was on DU last night. I have to work tonight, from home, so cannot invest the time at this moment.... I wish I could.

Personally, I am alarmed, and ready to find work on another continent.

[John Gauger]

25. I am also concerned that I may be disappeared because of

my politics. But I was just as afraid of that before. I just don't see why it is now more likely to happen than before.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[John Gauger]

26. I know it could happen to me

because it has already happened to Jose Padilla and several other American citizens. These things have been happening in this country since 9/11. The Bush administration has already done all of the things you mentioned and gotten away with it. Bush was able to do it without penalty while it was illegal, so what is different now that he shall be within the law? And I can't be preemptively blocked just because I might potentially say something that offends you. I have to break the rules first.

[uppityperson]

28. you can be ts'd for promoting flame fests.

and other things. So, what is different now is that it is legal for the president to do as he interprets is right. He can do what he want and NOT suffer legal consequences. Yes, he was supporting a lot of it already, but could have been tried, eventually. Now he can't. Eventually. Ever. Never. Ever.

For a simiplistic comparison, pretend I drive faster than the speed limit and don't get caught. Is there a difference between that and the scenario of raising the speed limit to whatever I deem is right? Both cases, driving too fast. First case, breaking law. Second case, making law, interpreting law, doing whatever the hell I want. Legally.