BleepingComputer.com: What will the New President do?

[quote name='Abacus 7' post='1123819' date='Feb 6 2009, 10:16 AM']

So if America just goes down the Drain because people like you won't even give your ELECTED President even a remote chance to fix the Mess bought on other Leaders, no matter who they where, because he is not who you wanted? BTW, Did you actually Vote?

Can you live with the Idea that America could become a Third World Country, if your Elected President and your Law Makers screw up?

That is what America is looking at, Mate!


Edit.

Name me just one Country that is Trillions in Debt beside America? Scarey? It should be.

[/quote]


"not voting" is exercising your right to civil disobedience. I hate when people say that just because I don't vote I have no right to complain. Well that is bull. I'm an American citizen, more than a lot of the complainers in this country can say. While you may not agree with my position, I would be content and tolerate your ignorance if only every time I complain about something, you dont say ,"Well did you vote, mate?"

I watched Obama's Press Conference last night and what he had to say, besides blaming everything on prior administrations, made some sense although it is loaded with socialistic ideas. This is just another cycle in our Presiential circle. The next President will blame Obama, this is how it always has been.

[quote name='GTK48' post='1129609' date='Feb 11 2009, 01:30 AM']I watched Obama's Press Conference last night and what he had to say, besides blaming everything on prior administrations, made some sense although it is loaded with socialistic ideas. This is just another cycle in our Presiential circle. The next President will blame Obama, this is how it always has been.[/quote]

It is quite funny how he opened up American's eyes to a few Destroyed Tapes?

[quote name='Abacus 7' post='1167620' date='Mar 7 2009, 05:29 PM'][quote name='GTK48' post='1129609' date='Feb 11 2009, 01:30 AM']I watched Obama's Press Conference last night and what he had to say, besides blaming everything on prior administrations, made some sense although it is loaded with socialistic ideas. This is just another cycle in our Presiential circle. The next President will blame Obama, this is how it always has been.[/quote]

It is quite funny how he opened up American's eyes to a few Destroyed Tapes?


[/quote]

Why bring Nixon into this.

[quote name='GTK48' post='1167640' date='Mar 8 2009, 08:42 AM'][quote name='Abacus 7' post='1167620' date='Mar 7 2009, 05:29 PM'][quote name='GTK48' post='1129609' date='Feb 11 2009, 01:30 AM']I watched Obama's Press Conference last night and what he had to say, besides blaming everything on prior administrations, made some sense although it is loaded with socialistic ideas. This is just another cycle in our Presiential circle. The next President will blame Obama, this is how it always has been.[/quote]

It is quite funny how he opened up American's eyes to a few Destroyed Tapes?


[/quote]

Why bring Nixon into this.
[/quote]

I think you have lost the Plot, Mate?

We Aussies had a Leader that was always called "Pig Iron Bob"

Link to a Song about him?

[url="http://unionsong.com/u150.html"]http://unionsong.com/u150.html[/url]

Just goes to show that there is no real forgiving in the World?

Muck up and you pay for it, in one way or another.

This post has been edited by Abacus 7: 07 March 2009 - 07:56 PM

"What will the New President do?"

Well, here is one thing:

Obama releases secret Bush anti-terror memos.

I need help understanding some thing and I know this is the place to get it. Here I go. G.W. Bush had eight years in office. In that time the was weather that took out the southern part of the country, 2 wars, 911. Fany May and Fredy Mac controlled by congress which put us in the housing mortage problem and people jumped on his bass because the country went 1/2 trillion in debt. Our new Leader in about 30 days has put this nation 3 trillion in debt and climbing and lots of people think this is a great leaker. I'm confused.

GTK, the "few destroyed tapes" that Abacus 7 was referring to are actually 92+ tapes that were filmed of prisoners at Guantanamo being questioned using "enhanced interrogation techniques", i.e., torture, plus various other videos that were taken involving those same prisoners. When first asked for the tapes, the Congressional committee investigating was told that there were none, then 3 or 4, and the final number will never be known. But there are at least 92.

There were not that many Nixon audio tapes that were destroyed, but they did not evidence physical crimes being currently committed. They referenced past and future crimes involving vandalism, theft, and spying on people. Not quite the same thing.

I am considering a new, related, and possibly more hopeful and less contentious topic. Something like, "Barack Obama: Ombudsman in chief."

This post has been edited by fuzzywuzzy6: 08 March 2009 - 01:10 PM

[quote name='fuzzywuzzy6' post='1168764' date='Mar 8 2009, 02:07 PM']GTK, the "few destroyed tapes" that Abacus 7 was referring to are actually 92+ tapes that were filmed of prisoners at Guantanamo being questioned using "enhanced interrogation techniques", i.e., torture, plus various other videos that were taken involving those same prisoners. When first asked for the tapes, the Congressional committee investigating was told that there were none, then 3 or 4, and the final number will never be known. But there are at least 92.

There were not that many Nixon audio tapes that were destroyed, but they did not evidence physical crimes being currently committed. They referenced past and future crimes involving vandalism, theft, and spying on people. Not quite the same thing.

I am considering a new, related, and possibly more hopeful and less contentious topic. Something like, "Barack Obama: Ombudsman in chief."[/quote]

Oh OK, thanks for the info as I had no idea of what he was talking about. I also do not have a problem with what went on at Gitmo. If you believe that this kind of interrogation was something new you are dreaming.

[quote name='fuzzywuzzy6' post='1168764' date='Mar 8 2009, 02:07 PM']GTK, the "few destroyed tapes" that Abacus 7 was referring to are actually 92+ tapes that were filmed of prisoners at Guantanamo being questioned using "enhanced interrogation techniques", i.e., torture, plus various other videos that were taken involving those same prisoners. When first asked for the tapes, the Congressional committee investigating was told that there were none, then 3 or 4, and the final number will never be known. But there are at least 92.[/quote]

They are discussed in the link I provided a few posts earlier,

and, I support that they did destroy these tapes and any other similar ones.

What some people do, or did, to protect the lives of Americans in harm's way, is no doubt something most of us do not want to know.

I'm thankful that "Jack Bauer" is standing post on the wall.

You would be, too, if these actions saved the lives of your sons and daughters, or fathers and mothers, or other loved ones.

Mp pme thought that this form of interrogation was "something new"--it was taken from communist field manuals and developed from debriefings of victims of those interrogation techniques that were employed by the Japanese during World War II and by the Viet Cong in Viet Nam.

When you consider that the U.S. pressed the international community especially hard to create and use war crime tribunals following the second world war, it is devastating to consider what some in our government not only tacitly permitted, but actively encouraged, by having highly questionable legal arguments drafted to bolster their case.

If I am president, it is legal.

If the country is at war, it is legal.

If I say so, it is legal.

Saying so does not make it so.

Not to derail anything, but which one was Guantanamo again? Was that the one with that incident that went onto the news about how the soldiers there were torturing captives or was that some other prison?

[quote name='fuzzywuzzy6' post='1168924' date='Mar 8 2009, 03:54 PM']Mp pme thought that this form of interrogation was "something new"--it was taken from communist field manuals and developed from debriefings of victims of those interrogation techniques that were employed by the Japanese during World War II and by the Viet Cong in Viet Nam.

When you consider that the U.S. pressed the international community especially hard to create and use war crime tribunals following the second world war, it is devastating to consider what some in our government not only tacitly permitted, but actively encouraged, by having highly questionable legal arguments drafted to bolster their case.

If I am president, it is legal.

If the country is at war, it is legal.

If I say so, it is legal.

Saying so does not make it so.[/quote]

I hate to have to be the one to tell you but we are at war. We are at war with terrorists that have no ties to any nation. They do not fight under a flag of any nation. This war will never be over as long as there are people in this world that will strap on a bomb belt and get on a bus. We are at war with people that do not follow any convention such as The Geneva Convention. When people hijack airliners and crash them into buildings , they are playing buy a different set of rules-NONE. The Islamic Fascists of this world are out to kill everyone that is not Muslim. Now please do not misinterpret what I am saying. I am not saying that every Muslim is a terrorist. I am only speaking of the radical extreme terrorist groups such as Al Queda. Until the main Muslim Countries start to condemn these people instead of aiding them, we will be at war.

Oops, you answered so fast, I didn't get a chance to correct my typos!

Abu Ghraib was the prison in Iraq where Lindsey Englund (spelling?) and various lower level enlistees were actively encouraged and tutored in techniques of humiliation and torture that would be especially hateful to religious Moslems, such as forced nakedness, contact with dogs, being forced to wear women's underwear on their heads, being forced to desecrate the Koran and other sacred texts, being piled up in huge naked mounds, and having pictures taken of all that.

One of the whistle blowers was subjected to a court martial as being one of the instigators. He was not. he and his wife had to change their identities and move from their home town, I think, because of all the hateful activity that was mounted against them.

No higher level officials have been subjected to courts-martial, although it is suspected (and probably well-known in some circles) who was involved up along the entire chain of command. Intelligence officers from the CIA were supposedly brought in to school the lackeys in humiliation and torture techniques.

Guantanamo involved extensive water boarding, sleep deprivation, subjection to mind-scrambling music for hours on end, inadequate shelter, humiliation techniques and numerous other things.

At both prisons, there are prisoners being held who were reported for a bounty although being entirely blameless, or for simply having the same name as someone who had a very different physical description and came from another country. Many of those innocent prisoners are still being held, while some who have been proven through legitimate means to have been involved in acts of terror have been rewarded with various privileges for such things as making up things about prisoners who were innocent.

Then there were all the prisoners who were disappeared to countries that are well known to engage in even worse torture techniques than we can imagine. There were mental health professionals who helped to develop torture techniques. The American Psychological Association is looking at disciplinary action.

There are many careerists who are political conservatives who have come forward to document these abuses.

It is much easier to torture, abuse and humiliate other people when you do not regard them as people. People who have some rights.

Yes, we are at war. A lot of folks privately believed, but were too embarrassed to admit in public, that torture might be justified under "extraordinary" circumstances.

The torture and other techniques so widely used during the Bush administration were not used under "extraordinary" circumstances, because they considered everything to be extraordinary circumstances. The mentality of bullying for bullying's sake was actively promoted. One idea behind it, evidently, was to show the bad guys that we were tougher than they and dish a whole lot more out than they could; that this would intimidate them, and make them think a second and even third time about mounting more attacks on the U.S.

This policy has backfired, engendering much more hatred and distrust in the Middle East and other countries which have large Moslem populations. This will result in the creation of ever more terrorists, possibly for several generations.

In other words, they let the dogs out. The small number of people in the U.S. military who were sociopaths or worse were given free play and this moral corruption spread throughout the military and our intelligence communities.

These policies were like removing the heart and brain of a patient on the operating table and then pronouncing that the patient was saved. Without fixing the heart and brain and placing them back into the body first. Must the U.S. lose its collective soul in order to save its physical body? Doesn't make much sense to me.