(The full text of lovetoblowmyload's post is posted above.) I sincerely respect your views, and I'm glad you have posted on this thread which has been a vigorous debate of an important issue without personal attacks or flaming. (The suggestion that "hardrocker" should be waterboarded was a joke.....and a very funny one.)

But OMG....these arguments are George Bush and the right wing noise machine......ON STEROIDS. These are wild, irrational, emotional stories, appealing to God and the flag....to frighten children, and fearful, unthinking adults.

American cities under the threat of being "nuked and vaporized." Your friends and family are living in these cities. They might be "vaporized." In fact "hundreds of thousands" might be "vaporized." Someone has the essential information which will prevent the city....your friends and family....from being destroyed. YESSSSSSSS....TORTURE HIM!!!! We know he has the information. He'll give it up. And we know that what he says will be reliable....after all, we tortured it out of him.

It goes on and on. Electrodes attached to your testicles. The electrical current flows. You're crying like a baby. Yep, that's what the bad guys do in those other countries. These are the kinds of animals we're dealing with. Torture chambers with barrels of acid. On and on and on. Bogey man stories for frightened children and fearful, unthinking adults.

Finally, we're reminded that almost anything is acceptable in a combat zone. We torture the enemy. We kill the enemy. Of course we do. These are within the rules of engagement in warfare. So the argument is that WE are at war RIGHT NOW......like World War II....like the Civil War. We MUST be at war, after all, George W. Bush declared and named it....."The War on Terror." In fact, it was a wonderfully convenient "war" for political purposes. It would go on forever.....or at least as long as Bush would be President. And all of America then becomes a war zone where the President has the powers of a military commander. He can imprison without due process. He can spy on our phone calls and Emails. And OF COURSE he can TORTURE. Once again, the "War on Terror" is an argument for children and fearful, unthinking adults.

I have good news. In Barack Obama we now have a THINKING adult as President. And he is one who respects our laws and our constitutional form of government. He knows that the "War on Terror" was a phony war of political convenience. The struggle against international terrorism must go on, in conformance with our laws and our constitution. But, under the Obama administration, the "War on Terror" disappeared on January 20. This phony war exists now only within the great right wing noise machine.

BTW, I respect the service (and the opinions) of all the people here who have served in America's military. But George W. Bush's constant call for "support" of the military was mostly about "support" for himself.....the Commander in Chief holding war powers. It was cynical political posturing and opportunism. It fundamentally dishonored the true heroes of our armed forces who served in harm's way. And, for that matter, with its disregard of our laws and our constitution, it was in the most fundamental sense Un-American.

Ummm the president can NOT declare war. Only Congress can declare war. The president had to make his case to congress. Congress voted to declare war on Iraq back in October of 2002. So yes we do have a declared war.

Well, if you're saying that the "War on Terror".....which Bush talked about endlessly......was not really a war, but served political purposes in order to (among other things) "make his case to Congress." I sure do agree with that. And it's certainly true that only the Congress can formally declare war. The last time we fought such a declared war was World War II.

But are you SERIOUSLY trying to tell us that the congressional authorization of 2002 was a Declaration of War with Iraq. IT WAS NOT. Google it. Read it.

The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" granted the President the authority to use military force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enfore all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

This is NOT a Declaration of War. Even in his wildest claims of Presidential authority, George W. Bush never claimed that Congress declared war in 2002.

It's also interesting to see how the Iraq authorization gets conflated and confused in the public debate with the actions against terrorism. The Congressional authorization is all about military action in Iraq. It has nothing to do with any kind of a "war" against the terrorist threat to the United States homeland. And even in his continuous efforts to justify his actions in Iraq, Bush never claimed that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks on 9/11.

So I'm at a loss. How do you fight the lies and distortions about these issues while trying to formulate rational and responsible public policy?

We fought a declared war with Iraq????? We're in a state of war right now.....WHICH CONGRESS DECLARED in 2002????? Utterly beyond belief that such complete fabrications are presented....and accepted by many.....as fact.

Funny CNN called it a WAR resolution

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

I can see facts to you are pointless. Everything will always be Bush's fault. You have bought in to the distorted MoveOn.org crap. So it is a useless endeavor to argue facts with a Michael Moore follower.

Let me wake you up to some more facts...

WWII lasted from Dec 1941 until Aug of 1945.
The US STILL occupies bases in the Axis Countries some 64 years later.

Guess you think we should be out of Germany, Italy, and Japan too, huh?

So CNN news copy uses the term "Iraq war resolution," and people believe that Congress must have declared war. Such is the sad state of public political discourse in our nation today.

Under the law, words have precise meanings which carry specific legal consequences, apart from the political flim flam which is always in the air. A Congressional declaration of war has a precise meaning. It generally confers broad powers on the President which he would not have in peacetime. The last two times that Congress declared war was against Japan on December 8, 1941, and against Germany and Italy on December 11, 1941. Congress has not made a formal declaration of war since 1941.

Ever since then, Presidents have fought our "wars" through their authority as Commander in Chief of the armed forces. They have generally been backed by congressional "authorizations," of one form or another, allowing them to use that authority in a foreign conflict. But no President since World War II has had the broad legally defined war powers that FDR had in 1941-1945.

But people throw around words in casual conversation and political debate. Words which, outside of the legal system, may mean different things to different people. CNN talks loosely about a "war resolution." The political debate rages about "the war." It is just such a supercharged political climate which allowed George W. Bush to simply make the claim that we are in a "War on Terror" and that he is a "war President." And he certainly claimed "war powers." His supporters pointed to the powers that FDR had....or Abraham Lincoln.

Under this claim of authority, he detained prisoners without due process, he spied on our telephone conversations and Emails, and he tortured prisoners.

Problem is, TORTURE IS ILLEGAL. Detention without trial is illegal. And Bush can't legally claim such authority under the guise of a "War on Terror" which never actually existed in fact, under the law.

The political battle is now over. Barack Obama has been elected President. Bush's policies have been reversed. There will be no more torture. And the detention facilities at Gitmo and elsewhere will be closed.

The remaining question is a legal one. The law is clear. The words in the law have precise legal definitions. Grorge W. Bush broke the law. The question is whether or not he should be prosecuted for his crimes in a court of law. I say yes.

It's useless to argue with a 20 year old that is blinded to the reality of the situation. The rest of the world does not think like those of us in the USA. Many of them will send their children to attack US civilians.

The rules of war are a joke to try and civilize something that is not civil. Sign up and carry a rifle for a few years in combat. Come back and tell me what is right and wrong then. Until then, you are a clueless individual that thinks the "Coexist" bumper sticker means something to that extremist who would like to cut your head off with a dull knife.

Unfortunately, you and everyone that hates the methods used to protect this country will learn a lesson too late. Obama is destroying the security of this nation. That's ok, it will be left to the next guy to deal with. All we care about is that Obama looks cool and says the right things to make you feel all warm and fuzzy.

Too bad this guy already has more criminals on his cabinet than Bush ever did. But Obama is GREAT...

Keep drinking the Kool-aid.

Hello all!
As I have stated (or at least inferred,) I am a citizen of the United States of America and am very proud of that fact. One of the greatest things about this nation is the First Amendment of our nation's constitution. All citizens have the right to speak, write, and voice their opinion regardless if others others think it stark, raving madness or totally agree with them. I welcome the respectful, polite, and healthy debate that most have conducted on this thread. That is what mature, adult, USA citizens do. They debate their opinions with respect and tact without personal attacks and insulting the opinions and others that disagree with them. Our men and women of the military have died, cried, lost blood, and limbs, for us to be able to that!
In reviewing some of the posts on this thread since my last posting on this thread, I wanted to share a thought or two, as well as, pose a challenge to others, with maturity and respect to their opinions of course. One of the points that I tried to make earlier in one, or more of my previous posts, was the fact that what some are referring to torture in regards to what happened at Gitmo, is well, in my personal, humble opinion, is, very hard for me to wrap my mind and thoughts around when you compare it to the real torture that happens in and is conducted by nations and thugs such as North Korea, Communist People's Republic of China, Colombian drug lords and Colombian rebels that have kidnapped others, as well as the various drug cartels in Mexico, to just name a few. From my understanding as to what happened at Gitmo, things such as putting a caterpillar in an enemy combatant's cell, and pushing an enemy combatant into a flexible wall, and having medical personnel present at all times to treat any injuries that might have unintentionally occurred, in my mind does not constitute torture. As to the real perpetrators of torture, such as North Korea, Mexican drug cartels,etc., etc., I pose the question to others who disagree with me, if they in their hearts, minds, and souls, actually believe true victims of torture by nations and thugs I just referred to compare, in reality, to the events that happened at Gitmo? Are the walls they throw their victims against flexible? Do they have medical personnel ready to treat any injuries immediately, etc.? As I said before, the treatment the the enemy combatants at Gitmo received was far and above what real victims of torture really go through. Real victims, such as those of Colombian drug lords and/or rebels for example, of torture were subjected to horrors and nightmares far worse than what enemy combatants experienced at Gitmo. Terrorists would kidnap wealthy Mexicans, chop off a finger a week and send it to the victim's family till they got the ransom money. Do you doubt that some Banana Republic dictator did not place electrodes connected to a battery onto the penis and scrotum of male torture victims, send electrical current through the wires until the torturers got the information from the victims that they were wanting? Batteries, electrodes, chopping off fingers, etc., did not happen at Gitmo. Was what happen at Gitmo pretty and wonderful? Absolutely not. Is it torture compared to what real torture victims experience in other parts of the world, I highly doubt it. If you interviewed a true victim of torture and asked him or her if having a caterpillar put into his or her cell is torture, I suspect he or she would laugh in your face in light of the fact that he or she probably experienced things far worse than we, as Americans, can hardly wrap our minds around. With humility and respect, I share my opinions, and I welcome others to share their opinions with humility and respect as well.

I've read through this thread. And you sure got that right Jayden.

A meaningful dialogue is effectively impossible between the two positions. The liberal position is one of facts and rationally formed opinion. On the other side, Mr. Bush's defenders simply parrot the insane and hateful chatter of right wing talk radio.

I agree that the terrorists are fanatical extremists who are not bound by any code of law or even a spark of human decency. They will commit any abomination to attack America and Americans. They follow no rules and will murder and torture at will. I'm a liberal and I really do believe this.

But all this is utterly irrelevant as it pertains to a discussion of American law and constitutional principles. We have higher standards. We do not not torture prisoners. Anyone who did, and anyone who authorized such actions, broke American law and must be punished.

Why do you Bush defenders....and Obama haters......think that we must lower ourselves to the level of our enemies to effectively fight them? Our laws and our constitution are stronger than their murderous use of terrorist tactics.

Mr. Obama......our President whom you guys despise......(only Republican Presidents seem to be worthy of respect to you people)......made this same point in his last press conference. He pointed out that Winston Churchill, in the darkest days of the blitz during World War II, with London in flames from the nightly bombings, refused to authorize the torture of Nazi spys. It would have been against British principles to do so. And it was unnecessary and counterproductive because IT DOESN'T WORK.

There's a detailed discussion of this issue in the online addition of "The Times of London" dated May 1. It describes the British wartime interrogation policies of Colonel Robin Stephens who commanded their wartime interrogation center, and banned violent interrogation techniques. Yep.....you guessed it.....he held that they are unnecessary and ineffective.

Here is the link if you are interested. But why would I suppose that you people would be interested in the facts? For that matter, why would I suppose that you would read a British newspaper? So terribly UN-AMERICAN.....so *gag** EUROPEAN.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6201378.ece

The thing about torture is...

........it doesn't really get honest results.

If you ask me a question and I simply don't know the answer, I can't tell you. If you ask me again with my head under water, or electrodes attached to my nuts, then as sure as hell I'll tell you something, regardless of the fact that I don't know the fucking answer.

Oh and another thing............

Cheney says it works, and that's a pretty good reason to believe that it doesn't.

He's a nob.

Are you serious?

Liberal hysteria over guns and gun banning is one of facts and rationally formed opinions. Oh yeah, your argument holds water with me. Fact, areas with more lax gun laws have lower crime rates. Fact, areas with strict gun laws have higher crime rates (eg. Detroit, New York City, Washington DC.).

Knife violence is through the roof in England. Guess banning guns worked there too. Violet crime skyrocketed after Australia went gun ban crazy.

Yes I know that this thread is about torture. But I just had to laugh at:

"..... The liberal position is one of facts and rationally formed opinion."

Well, iwant2suckuoff2000, let's all become Christian conservative and vote for a Bush clone, since that is evidentally what you want. Fact: Europe and Canada have MUCH lower death rates from firearms than the U.S. does. Fact: Europe and Canada have very strict gun laws. HMMM..... I wonder if that is a coincidence. I guess not, the preacher at my right wingo wacko fundamentalist church told me not to think of such things. Oh well. I guess I had better go pray and not think. That is after all what iwant2suckuoff2000, wants us all to do. Good bye all.

I see that Jayden's more intellectual and intelligent way is to pickup his toys and leave when someone disagrees with him.

If Jayden chose to unregister simply because of pique over this one lively thread discussion, I'm sorry about it.

But, it was his decision. Perhaps he had other reasons. By the way, I'm curious about why two of Jayden's posts, now listed as "unregistered", have the "STAFF" logo over by the avatar box?

That is rather odd. I'm not sure why it would do that, must be some kind of glitch. I can tell you that we did not remove his account or anything.

Thanks for the feedback on that Ben.