General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)The post you link to refers to prosecution of the press for doing their job.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)The point of the OP is that justice under this administration is really fucked up. The whole system of government seems to be horribly corrupt, and Obama is not helping, if not actively making it worse.
Your failure to change your opinions given new information shows that you do not want to correct the situation.
You are noise.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The point of the OP is that justice under this administration is really fucked up."
Justice in this country has always been "fucked up." I mean, aren't all U.S. Presidents "war criminals"?
When was the last time a U.S. President was tried for war crimes?
Bushco is the most deserving, and there was enough evidence to make a case more than eight years ago.
"Your failure to change your opinions given new information shows that you do not want to correct the situation. "
I don't have to "change" my opinions, they're based on facts, unlike the post I linked to.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Facts that are contrary to your position are ignored. Even you "argument" above boils down to, "well other presidents did bad things, so everything Obama does os okay." That's the argument of someone with only an agenda, and is definitely not valuable for the conversation. Hence, you are purely noise.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"That's the argument of someone with only an agenda, and is definitely not valuable for the conversation. Hence, you are purely noise. "
So your "valuable" contribution to the conversation is claiming that people who disagree with you have an "agenda" and their opinions are "purely noise"?
I can see why you can't engage in a discussion. You're too busy attacking people for their opinions.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)I'm attacking you because you attack everybody who disagrees with what Obama does. The is, as yet, no evidence that you would ever disagree with anything he did, which strongly suggests that you aren't interested in what is right or even what will be good for the country, or world. Your only objective is to deflect blame from Obama.
Most people want to discuss the issues and move toward figuring out the best thing to do for the country/world, however haphazardly the path is. You, on the other hand, only support Obama regardless of some pretty bad things, Manning's torture and domestic spying being at the forefront. Your tactics are often to deflect the conversation away from things that Obama is doing that are wrong. That makes you noise.
It's a mistake for everyone else to engage in a discussion with you, since it diverts them from discussing the actual issues. I hope that by pointing this out enough, people will stop being sidetracked by your diversions.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,164 posts)You speak for a lot of us
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)They whole purpose is to distract and when we get engaged, we are falling for the tactic.
mr clean
(170 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Right on!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I'm attacking you because you attack everybody who disagrees with what Obama does. "
LOL! At least you admit that my point was accurate, and I do not go around attacking other Duers for simply stating their opinions.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Of course I admit I'm attacking you, and I've very carefully explained why. To put it as bluntly as I can, I attack you because you support Obama no matter what he does, even when what he's doing is really bad. It's hard to believe that you support torture, or that you think spying on the entire country is ok, but since you defend Obama for doing these I have to either believe you do think it's ok, or that when you defend torture or spying, that's not your real opinion and hence, that you are not stating your real opinion.
I think it's the latter. If so, then arguing with you at all won't get anyone anywhere since it's not a real conversation. It's like when Republicans says things like, if we cut taxes, the economy will add jobs. They know it's not true but adding jobs isn't their goal - it's just to give more tax breaks to the rich, who then funnel some back as campaign contributions. Arguing with Republicans then is just a diversion away from the real issues, and it prevents us from solving the real problems.
When someone argues with you, they're being deflected from the real issues and are kept from actually fixing the problems we face.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"It's hard to believe that you support torture"
You're creating people in your head and attacking your created personas.
It's hilarious.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)All I have to go on are your posts, which defend Obama regardless of the issue, or attempt to deflect the conversations away from things that are unflattering, such as turture (Manning) or tapping the phone calls and internet traffic of all Americans. So I guess if guessing at your motives constitutes "creating a persona," I am guilty as charged. That still leaves the question as to why you unerringly support Obama no matter what he does.
My main point still stands, however: your goal is to defend Obama against any questions as to why he's breaking the law (or anything else unflattering). New information or issues don't affect your goal, and therefore all you bring to the conversation is noise.
Nobody should listen to you.
hueymahl
(2,447 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)Response to ProSense (Reply #94)
East Coast Pirate This message was self-deleted by its author.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Um that's exactly what you do.
Employing dishonest rhetorical tactics is your stock and trade.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)In fact, some people think that such attacks make them cool.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)More proof that nobody should listen to you.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"So people who disagree with you deranged?"
No.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023504843#post130
Constant personal attacks isn't disagreeing. I'd call it obsession.
"Of course I admit I'm attacking you, and I've very carefully explained why."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023504843#post102
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)because you are a person, or are you implying that it's "personal" in the same way that telling someone they look funny is a personal attack? I'm attacking you because you mislead, divert, and try to make other people stop discussing issues that make Obama look bad.
So if attack you based on the things you do in your posts is personal, then I guess I'm goilty as charged again. More likely, not even you believe that but are trying to make the case (in the same way Republicans "make the case" for lowering taxes on the rich) that this is "personal" to divert people from the real issues that I am bringing up - that you divert all conversations that are not supportive of Obama.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)And one that you've used a lot. Instead of talking about the issues, in this case that you attack anyone who says bad stuff about Obama, you talk about the person. I suppose what you are trying to imply is that I'm defensive and therefore, somehow, my arguments are wrong. Just like Snowden is a "theif," or Manning "broke the law."
Unfortunately this tactic often works, but it is fundamentally dishonest.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Of course I admit I'm attacking you, and I've very carefully explained why."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023504843#post102
You are the one who admits to "attacking" me intentionally. Now you're explaining that you're doing it because I criticize Snowden.
I mean, Snowden is in the news, the leak, the NSA, his flight from the country, his asylum are all being discussed.
Apparently you can't see why anyone would focus on him, which is your problem.
The fact that you think it's OK to "attack" me because I criticize Snowden is fairly bizarre.
I'm not a topic here anymore than you are. You should learn to stick to the issues. If you disagree with support of Obama or criticism of Snowden, rebut the point. Opinions posted here aren't an invitation to "attack" the poster.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)They are designed to divert attention away from the issues people are discussing, often by attacking either Snowden or the people discussing him. Attacking your methods and shining light on them is what's needed to illustrate how destructive they are.
I'm defensive, creating personas, and projecting?
Please proceed.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I'm attacking you because your 'arguments' are dishonest
They are designed to divert attention away from the issues people are discussing, often by attacking either Snowden or the people discussing him. Attacking your methods and shining light on them is what's needed to illustrate how destructive they are."
You seem to think simply "attacking" someone is an argument. I mean, your excuses are completetly disingenuous. You don't like criticism of Snowden so you "attack" instead of rebut.
Here's the deal: Keep "attacking," and get use to criticism of Snowden. He's not above criticism, and your "attacks" aren't going change that.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Now that's projection. Every time anyone brings up anything that puts Obama in a bad light, you deflect the discussion away as much as possible, usually by attacking the person, not by refuting the information put forth. That is disingenuous. And when I point out that you are being disingenuous in your discussions, you claim it's a "personal" attack.
I will continue to argue against your, or anyone's, diversionary tactics as long as you or they continue to use them.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...is that you think repeating this makes sense or makes you look good, especially after repeatedly admitting that you're intentionally "attacking" because Snowden is criticized. You:
Again, learn to deal with criticism of Snowden. You should also learn to deal with support of the President. In fact, learn to deal with being called out for the "attacking" you've admitted to.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)I criticize you for deflecting the arguments away from what Snowden, making it about Snowden and ignoring the content of what Snowden showed us. It's a classic case of shooting the messenger. You can criticize Snowden all you want and I will respectfully disagree, but when you use that purely to deflect from the real issue, that government is collecting all out phone calls and internet data - spying on us - when you ONLY deflect the argument, that's when I will "attack" you.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Have you read the book written based on the personal experiences of Bush's first Secretary of the Treasury while on the Bush cabinet. It's called "The Price of Honor"?
There is no defending George W. Bush. Read that book and you will understand that the Iraq War was always on Bush's drawing table. He lied during his campaign for the presidency when he said he would not meddle in the affairs of other countries. He lied about the evidence supporting his war on Iraq. He was a liar the entire time he was in the White House.
I can't believe that anyone who claims to be a Democrat can defend Obama's failure to prosecute Bush. Bush lied to get us into war. Had he not lied, Congress would not have voted for the War Powers Act. And the rest of them supported or goaded Bush on with his lies. If we were a just country, the moral country we claim to be, they would all be in prison.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)HOURS after 9/11, Rummy, Cheney and the rest of the PNAC goons were looking for ANY excuse, no matter how minimal, to tie the attacks to Saddam. Short of that (well, and after they realized they couldn't go attacking their oil BFFs in Saudi Arabia), they invaded Afghanistan on flimsy reasoning and then drummed up a pre-emptive, tax-wasting turkey shoot in Iraq on brazenly forged "evidence".
Were this a sane country, the entire Bewsh Administration would be in the Hague.
When corporations own everything, laws and morals will be compromised and corrupted to make wealthy people wealthier and defense vigilant and ever-funded. Unless YOU OR I get out of line . . . then it's open season, of course.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Only saying that all presidents do things that are bad. But then, that's used as an excuse to suggest that Obama shouldn't be held accountable for doing anything bad, like domestic spying. That is a huge mistake.
This country's failure to prosecute those in power, specifically Bush & gang for Iraq and torture, the banks for stealing houses from people, or of Bush and now Obama from spying on everybody is seriously undermining any sense that laws apply. The Republicans have often said that economic recovery is hampered by "uncertainty" as to, for example, what will happen with taxes (it's all BS), but what about the uncertainty of people that, if they buy a house, it won't be stolen from them? And not only that, but if it is stolen, that there is no recourse for them, how does that affect certainty in the system?
Add to that the FACT that pointing out the crimes of spying or torture will get YOU in serious trouble, and belief in even a remotely fair system is seriously being degraded.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"There is no defending George W. Bush. "
...should tell that to someone actually "defending" Bush. It wasn't me.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023502570
NealK
(1,850 posts)ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense
Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.
I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323
Credit for finding this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3494587
bobduca
(1,763 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3494587
That's a copycat poster. PDS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122617
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023185307#post11
I stand by the statement, Bush lied.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-ad-president-lied-american-people-and-broke-law
Of course, Bush didn't get a "court order." He bypassed the FISA court and actually eavesdropped on Americans.
What's interesting about the most recent release is that the one incident that wasn't reported to Congress happened during the Bush administration, and it was reported to Congress by the Obama administration.
"There is no defending George W. Bush. "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023502570
NealK
(1,850 posts)And when the current President was a kid he cut down his father's prize cherry tree with his new axe and said when questioned, confessed with the words, "I can not tell a lie."
ProSense
(116,464 posts)NealK
(1,850 posts)Funny. That's exactly what I thought when I read your reply.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I guess that's a defense of Pol Pot in your eyes?
Wow.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Pol Pot slaughtered fewer innocents than Stalin did"
...who is "Stalin" and who is "Pol Pot"?
Let's look at the facts in the context of history.
Iraqi Security Forces (post-Saddam) Killed: 16,623
Coalition Forces Killed: 4,805 (4,487 U.S.)
Contractors Killed: 1,554
Awakening Councils Killed: 1,002+
Iraqi combatant dead (invasion period): 7,60011,000
Insurgents (post-Saddam) Killed: 21,22126,405 (2003-2011)
Civilian casualties: up to about 1 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
Leaked Pakistani Report Finds 147 Civilians Killed By Drone Strikes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023314340
The most-respected estimates, including the estimate of the German government, are 18,000-25,000.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022347168#post93
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)He lied.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And if you read the war powers act, you will note that Bush was asked to give the justifications for his war in Iraq. He provided an insufficient answer in which he lied. Bush did commit crimes. So did the others up there. Recognizing that legally, the prosecutor has the discretion to let them go, but in my opinion, on a moral level, Obama's failure to try those characters for their war crimes was an obstruction of justice. Obama's failure to even try to prosecute the serious crimes of lying about the evidence for going to war makes him an accomplice.
Manning merely told the truth. Bush lied. He lied and he could not have failed to know that he was lying. Think about the Plame case and the research her husband did. The documents were obviously and poorly faked. Bush lied. And the cost in human lives and to the American treasury were devastating.
Bush's crimes will never be forgotten.
1awake
(1,494 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Delphinus
(11,824 posts)Love it. Thank you.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)TBF
(32,000 posts)After the many OPs and threads disparaging Manning you are here to commend EarlG on his comment? Really?
Because to me this is looking pretty disingenuous.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Solly Mack
(90,758 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)And I STILL want to see the Bush Crime Syndicate, pounding rock salt into a rathole at the Crowbar Hotel!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)leftstreet
(36,097 posts)myrna minx
(22,772 posts)young_at_heart
(3,763 posts)I put Cheney at the top of the list. He probably learned about political dirty tricks when he worked in the Nixon White House. "All The President's Men" didn't mention Cheney, but he was there observing. Fortunately, they all eventually were exposed.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)Valerie Plame !
young_at_heart
(3,763 posts)We all know the answer.....hard to fathom!
Mr.Bill
(24,228 posts)Giving info to the enemy? He sold weapons to them. He was rewarded with a nomination to run for the Senate. It's a travesty this man was never tried for treason.
dothemath
(345 posts)gets the nod for saving North's ass. Ol' Jesse, the Rush Limbaugh of his time. He set the stage for Rush, Hannity, Beck and many other faux nooz wannabes. Funny (tragic) how a POS like Jesse can start out as a disc jockey and, will miracles never cease, become a 'statesman' of the republicon party and feed at the public trough for many years, all the while spreading homophobic racism.
Mr.Bill
(24,228 posts)declaring North an "American hero".
RainDog
(28,784 posts)He also said the fascist coup dictators in Central America were like the founders of this nation.
Which just indicates what a fucking fascist Reagan was.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I love it.
Iran-Contra was treason.
JHB
(37,152 posts)...which murked up attempts by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh to charge him (and/or cut a deal for testimony about higher-ups). Walsh was still able to convict him on several felony charges, but they were vacated by a three-judge panel on appeal to review the evidence for taint by the immunized testimony.
The vote on the 3-judge panel was 2-1 for vacating the charges. The two "for" judges were Laurence H. Silberman and David B. Sentelle, who were also on the 3-judge panel overseeing the Whitewater investigation (where they had a very different view of what could be allowed).
According to David Brock's book "Blinded by the Right", Silberman was something of a mentor to Brock during his days as a young conservative in Washington, as part of the crowd that included Ann Coulter, Dinesh D'Sousa, Laura Ingraham, and where he gained prominence by smearing Anita Hill, and engaging in the Arkansas Project to dig up and spin anything they could against Bill and Hillary Clinton. (Back then, Brock was pretty much a classier- and higher-rent version of Andrew Breitbart -- and Silberman helped nurture that).
Edited to add: Sentelle was a protege of Jesse Helms, and Reagan put both of them in the Federal appeals court that oversees Washington.
Mr.Bill
(24,228 posts)Thank you.
Autumn
(44,972 posts)Something is very wrong in our Country. Thanks for posting this.
Divine Discontent
(21,056 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)You got that shit right!
excellent point.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #22)
Ocelot This message was self-deleted by its author.
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)go west young man
(4,856 posts)then pick save image as. Then hit the photo upload button on the Facebook timeline window. Upload and share.
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)for outing Valerie Plame !
JEB
(4,748 posts)That those POS get off Scot free or that a truth teller gets punished for revealing crimes. Sickening.
They would be in jail if we lived in a real country that respected the laws. Sadly, we don't live in any kind of country like that. Just one corrupt from the ground up.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)So he can put it into his post.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)as a nation. It's appalling, and I am ashamed.
K&R
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)This appears to support that.
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)very sobering indeed.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)To show how much our system of "justice" is becoming a pure parade of political prisoners at the "second tier" of our justice system. We in the "first tier" of our "justice" system just get put in prison at world record levels more for things like drug offenses.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And, on a different level, the homeowners out of their homes and the bankers still in their banks. That's a complete mystery to me. How could homeowners have lost out so much when the banks have made out so well?
lark
(23,059 posts)And the fair comes once a year. Don't look for "fair" anytime other than then. Justice can't be found at all these days.
Lenomsky
(340 posts)Speaks volumes! War and Murder is A-ok but just keep quiet about it.
DLevine
(1,788 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,494 posts)list for awhile. What about Wall Street CEOs' like Jamie Diamond?
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)It's Jaime Dimon ...
And I agree ... he's pretty much the head of an international criminal conspiracy, he and the whole board deserve jail.
On-Topic: This whole thing just sickens me. 35 years? SMH, WTF ...
Dustlawyer
(10,494 posts)ever dreamed of. They pay a fine much less than their profits from the crime and keep on keepin on! These crazy gun nuts that are attracted to shooting up schools and little kids need to set their sights on Wall Street instead (pun intended)!
FailureToCommunicate
(14,006 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)Excellent graphic.
I would also like to see one of the various soldiers that have committed torture, rape, and murders.
Most of them did almost no time or walked.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)FlyByNight
(1,756 posts)The Bush 8 pictured above will never be held accountable (at least here in the US).
When it comes to DC: position is inversely proportional to one's level of accountability. The high(er) position means less accountability. The picture speaks volumes.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We need the record of the Bush War Crimes trials.
The record of the Nuremburg trials is a constant measure reminding us that the armies and leaders of nations are bound to a moral and legal code and that they pay consequences when they veer too far from that code.
Mankind and all the nations of the world, need one consolidated record -- a trial transcript and fair judges and juries to announce their opinions and a verdict.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Obama's got your back!
xchrom
(108,903 posts)Auggie
(31,130 posts)Lars39
(26,106 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)And plastered all over America.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)Initech
(100,029 posts)The real criminals walk while we only prove the whistleblowers' point.
benld74
(9,901 posts)Faygo Kid
(21,477 posts)No, we didn't know then about Bradley Manning, of course, but we did know we had been lied into an unnecessary war by a group of criminals.
And we said so at the time, as did many others whose voices were ignored or ridiculed.
And while we were hopeful there might someday be accountability, we knew full well even then it was unlikely.
And so it was, and is. Congrats EarlG on one of your best ever.
William769
(55,142 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He fulfilled his duty to tell the truth and not to commit war crimes better than any of them did.
He did not commit any war crimes. There is no evidence that he caused any deaths.
The rest of those pictured committed war crimes and caused deaths.
This is justice???
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)lpbk2713
(42,736 posts)Not even close.
Divine Discontent
(21,056 posts)malaise
(268,664 posts)Rec
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)Bradley Manning illegally removed classified documents, and illegally distributed them to unauthorized personnel. Paint that with whatever color whitewash you want, it's still a crime and rightfully so.
Pretending he is some sort of hero or that justice was not served, because he is punished for criminal activities he is found guilty of committing is ridiculous.
Want to know why the other eight aren't being prosecuted ? It's either #1 George Bush is so fantastically brilliant in his foresight of the events that would unfold, that he masterfully covered everything and every base to keep his administration clean, -or- #2 Democrats would burn in the investigation as well as Republicans and that would have a negative effect on future elections. Both make me sick to my stomach, but one I just simply can't believe.
The others may be guilty as well, but that doesn't make Manning innocent, nor a hero.
Divine Discontent
(21,056 posts)the atrocities Manning exposed are certainly worthy of making him worthy of whistleblower status. It doesn't matter he was military, because 'they' were the ones committing the crimes that were far worse than Manning releasing evidence of them. He deserves the Peace Prize for what he exposed. As for B*sh, he was not brilliant but he was given enormous power by the SCOTUS to become pResident. A lot can be done from that seat of power...
hack89
(39,171 posts)there was a legal way to accomplish everything wanted to do. He choose to break the law. The senseless thing about all this is that he didn't have to go to prison.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)the road to hell is paved with good intentions, Manning can imagine for the next 35 years what ramifications his release of classified documents will have on ongoing operations. peace prize, what a joke.
Bush and company will never be tried because Democrats will suffer in the process,....THAT's American justice.
Divine Discontent
(21,056 posts)so frankly, I don't care - yeah, he could have done it differently, but I see you could care less about what he exposed (incredibly immoral filth), and the fact no evidence was shown what he did harmed anyone. And your last sentence really comes across as a Republican statement. And frankly, no matter how much Democrats would suffer in trying the war criminals, they'll never be the complete pieces of shit repukes are....
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)George Bush did not commit the atrocities he was able to commit, all by himself. And if the answer is "he lied" then my response would be, he lied to a bunch of gullible ignoramuses that had no business being in a position of authority regarding military deployment. -Or- do you believe George Bush, to coin a phrase....is able to play 8 dimensional chess, and run circles around Democrats ? Occam's razor does NOT tell me that George Bush outsmarted anybody, but I think he was able to bargain for what he wanted, in my mind that makes ALL involved as guilty.
The picture posted with the Bush administration and Manning is representative of the hypocrisy alive and well in politics. Everything Republican is bad, evil and immoral, and even though Democrats have got to be involved for ANY of it to occur........lets not acknowledge that, because it will affect the election of future Democrats. The most Progressive philosophy that anybody can promote to is to first acknowledge that political leadership has outgrown it's use of the American public. We are spoon fed hypocrisy, the American people gobble it up and point fingers at fellow Americans in a self righteous attempt to dominate an intangible argument that is as much fairy tale as it is fact. Meanwhile we are ALL circling the drain pointing our fingers at each other.... and the garbage disposal is on.
If the word "truth" means anything anymore, then EVERYBODY needs to be courageous enough to acknowledge the bloody footprints that lead to ALL doors, BOTH Republican and Democrat. In any case, Manning captured and then released classified military documentation to unauthorized personnel, the end does not justify the means, and I'm glad he was not rewarded with a light sentence.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,164 posts)and its all because it was "illegal"?
Do you ever speed on a highway?
Ever not declared even a small amount on income tax?
Ever taken a hit off a joint?
And BushCo. ALSO was technically guilty of illegal activities...the wiretapping was only one (which was retroactively made legal).
What it boils down to is that One person told the truth...about crimes going on that would never have seen the light of day
And the others told lies and covered up the truth...about their own criminal activity (in which thousands if not millions were violently killed)
but....you know....that's all regardless..
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)to the illegal capture and release of classified military documents, in order to satisfy your views on justice, then I doubt we will ever be able to discuss this.
take care.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)That must make me akin to Steven Hawking, where do I pick up my Nobel Prize in Physics ?
LiberalLovinLug
(14,164 posts)Okay so the illegality of it was NOT the issue with you..do I have that right?
Then what is left?
No one has been reported dead from the revelations...unless you count Kadaffi and his supporters.
All that is left is that the world knows about a lot of underhanded deceptive behaviour by your government.
Not to mention criminal activity in the military such as what is captured in the Collateral Murder video. Most everyone's "views on justice" would deem that behaviour unacceptable.
So what it boils down to is that you just don't want to know. Hands over ears....la la la la la la. The Authorities are right...we should not question.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)Yes I exceed the speed limit, and when caught I pay the fine as dictated by law, it's happened before and it will happen again. I do smoke joints and if caught I will suffer the penalty of law.
If I were to disclose classified military documents to unauthorized personnel I would expect to feel the penalty of my actions. for the next 35 years Manning can contemplate this, while I pay my speeding tickets and smoke my doobies.
"no one has been reported dead from the revelations"...."Kadaffi".....you have absolutely become entertaining and have peaked my interest, .....please continue.
For the record, I also turn right on red lights, I've been known to use my phone while driving, I still use plastic bags at the grocery store because I can carry more at one time, I have an accountant do my taxes so I can't claim to be criminal there but I do buy my cigarettes on the reservation because they are tax free. Oh, and I water my lawn more than the city dictates I am allowed.
Lenomsky
(340 posts)you don't kill anyone when using your cell phone while driving, speeding, smoking a doobie, turn on red etc
So the above are lesser crimes which could lead however unlikely greater crimes.
Manning showed us the Truth he hurt nobody except the elite ... naive yes however roles reversed I'm not sure what each of us would do.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)I know I must sound like this weeks "America's Most Wanted", but you'll have to take my word for it, I'm not hauling ass around town talking on my cell phone smoking dope trying not to run down citizens. But yeah, I have and will use my cell if I need to, I much prefer to smoke than drink but do neither while driving, and turning on red in NM isn't against the law, it's just for us "thrill seekers". I travel NM extensively for work, and if you know anything about NM, there is a LOT of NOTHING between cities, I have been known to exceed the speed limit, and even god forbid...... talk on my cell.
The point was, I understand the risks involved in my crimes, and if caught I'll suffer the consequences. Manning is enjoying the fruits of his crimes right now, and will be for 35 years, and I'm glad for that.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,164 posts)So if you were to happen to be in one of your lovely southern states and perhaps forgot about the local laws concerning mary jane, or inadvertently had a joint stashed somewhere and were pulled over by State troopers.....and were then sentenced in accordance with the state law, like in Louisiana or Arizona:
Under Arizona law, even minor marijuana possession offenses may be prosecuted as felony crimes, punishable by up to 18 months in jail and a $150,000 fine.
In Louisiana, multi-decade (or even life) sentences for repeat pot offenders are hardly a rare occurrence. Under Louisiana law, a second pot possession conviction is classified as a felony offense, punishable by up to five years in prison. Three-time offenders face up to 20 years in prison. According to a 2008 expose published in New Orleans City Business online, district attorneys are not hesitant to target small-time marijuana users, sometimes caught with less than a gram of pot, and threaten them with lengthy prison sentences.
I gather you would gladly accept the sentence. Even if friends and family urged you to fight it and thought it was far too harsh - say a 10 year sentence. No you'd say, I did the crime, I do the time.
............
The reason this relates to the Manning case is that he did a lot of good in releasing those cables, more than just enjoying a joint. He may have even sparked the Arab Spring, which started in Tunisia after the cables revealed corruption at the highest levels. (and American support).
and exposed other crimes and deceptions because of a moral compulsion. For this he gets 35 years. But you seem fine with that.
Do you even understand the concept of a whistleblower? Because it seems you do not. What about Civil Disobedience?...Is this also verboten? I don't understand someone like you.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)one of my lovely Southern States. I'd get a ticket for a joint and be on my way. The comparison between the crimes of classified document release, and smoking a joint was silly, and irrelevant.
Verboten ? cute, but ineffective.
Sure I understand civil disobedience, are you telling me that stealing classified military documents,.....700,000 of them, and then releasing them to an unknown foreign source, qualifies as "civil disobedience" ?
Sparked the Arab Spring? You ARE smoking better weed than me, maybe too much.
I wished he had gotten life, but I'm satisfied with 35 years.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,164 posts)when the Arab Spring started in Tunisia, because then you would have understood that the information about Tunisia's "The Family" and the confirmation of American acknowledgment of their corruption was a huge factor in the final push to take to the streets.
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/the-evidence-that-bradley-manning-helped-start-the-arab-spring.html
The point I was TRYING to make with you about the comparison between the two crimes is totally lost on you I can see. They are both "crimes", but especially in a few of the southern states, the punishment does not fit the "crime". I am assuming you would agree. In fact you most likely do not even consider smoking, or having pot, or even growing it (because how would you get it otherwise) is a CRIME.
I just wanted to be clear that you believe SOME deeds the State says are crimes, you don't agree are. Or maybe I'm wrong and you think you are a criminal and live in a perpetual state of guilt. If that's the case...you are a piece of work.
So I'll just assume otherwise. And if that's the case, you seem to be of a completely opposite mindset in regards to whistleblowers. Whether what they reveal is a benefit to democratic citizens right to know or not...you want the State to throw the book at them.
I can only gather that IF you were not a pot enthusiast, you would be completely backing some Louisiana court sentencing some kid for 20 years after having been caught with a joint for the third time....because pot, like information covered up and stamped "classified" in order to conceal it from the public, (and we are talking about diplomatic cables, not top level secret military cables), is just too dangerous to be set free.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)Your words....
All that is left is that the world knows about a lot of underhanded deceptive behaviour by your government.
Not to mention criminal activity in the military such as what is captured in the Collateral Murder video. Most everyone's "views on justice" would deem that behaviour unacceptable.
My words......
All that is left is what the news decided to tell you, you filled in the gaps and decided that nobody got hurt or is being hurt, or will get hurt. Nobody reported dead except Kadaffi.....jesus christ.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine that if you hold the opposition side to a higher standard than they hold themselves, you may then quite easily rationalize to yourself that some laws are illegal to break, and others... not so much.
So yeah, I can see why you wouldn't wish to discuss it with those who may hold both sides to the same standard.
Good luck!
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)One might also say..........that
Neither political party hold themselves to any sort of "higher standard", because the cost in the next political election cycle is too great. That's why nobody ever sees one party held accountable for thier involvement in the crimes of the opposing party, even though there is absolutely no doubt that things like the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, The Iraq war, Drone surveillance and bombing all require involvement by BOTH parties. They both simply point fingers at each other, recount the horrors committed by "the other" side and wave around a self righteous flag of "higher standards" to disguise their own involvement. And it gets gobbled up, spun around and served up on a silver platter for the carp of society to feast on.
Manning stole classified materials,..... he removed the stolen classified materials from a secure facility, he then distributed the stolen classified materials to an un unknown and unauthorized foreign source. If your belief is that 700,000 pieces of classified materials being stolen and gifted to an unknown source without acknowledging the ramifications to ongoing operations,.... is some sort of obscure higher standard "for the greater good" or "the end justifies the means" then yeah you and I can't discuss this. I wish he was in for life, but 35 years is close enough, and I'd like to believe a treasonous traitor and fink like manning will be given the highest standard of treatment a piece of trash deserves,..... forgotten and thrown away.
Manning? Manning who?.........three weeks.... bet you.
Stuckinthebush
(10,835 posts)But you won't get much traction here with that argument. The current incarnation of DU is a little myopic on this subject.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)if all I ever cared about was getting the correct answers.......I'd talk to a mirror.
I'm curious why people think Bush and company will never be put on trial, and how a "peace prize" is even mentioned in the trial of Bradley Manning.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,006 posts)Divine Discontent
(21,056 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(60,006 posts)hey friend!
Divine Discontent
(21,056 posts)nice maters!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Divine Discontent
(21,056 posts)Republicans fall for those types all the time, and send them thousands in campaign donations...
Hotler
(11,392 posts)Hotler
(11,392 posts)Who is the person below Bush, above Cheney????
MelungeonWoman
(502 posts)Hotler
(11,392 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)that people will come in this thread and go "good job" or well done" or other short statements sounding like they are supportive of what you have posted
what they will really be "good job"ing and "well done"ing will be to congratulate the outcome for manning
and why not? its the outcome they have slavered after in op after op while they spin furiously to protect the real criminals your graphic addresses
what a sad day all around
Hotler
(11,392 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 22, 2013, 08:54 AM - Edit history (1)
Everyone but Manning in the picture that Mr. G posted should be in prison, either here or in the Hague. I do not know who I hate ( hate is such a strong word) the most, these guys or those fuckers on Wall St.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)at the end of the day wall street and these guys are the same guys
gopiscrap
(23,725 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)Embarrassing to say the US has justice.
I'm stunned...you've completely captured the insanity of the situation in 1 graphic.
All I can say is...very well done.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)KG
(28,751 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)And Manning deserves zero.
This is what I'm talkin' about!
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)and used to Be Darth Vader. He committed Treason. Just like Snowden did. Maybe Manning. In order to sentence Manning to 35 years and be justified in doing so you must charge Dick Cheney with the same crime. End of story there are no Buts.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Nice post!
yurbud
(39,405 posts)There probably are and will be more of these various places, but posting one on the White House website makes it harder for them to say haven't seen it, and for others who stumble across it on their site, it will be like a scarlet letter.
Who knows, it might even force Obama to act.
Sign at the link:
http://wh.gov/lg7Lo
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fully-pardon-bradley-manning/4kTTbwrt
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)The best thing to do now is see that he is, but for the efforts of his supporters his sentence would have been much worse.
chaplainM
(767 posts)Unless bribery of foreign officials has been decriminalized.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)marble falls
(56,996 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
mimi85
(1,805 posts)Oops - hit return too soon.
His lawyer says he's eligible for parole in 7 years. Fingers crossed. I don't think this fragile guy would last a day longer - if that long.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Omnith
(171 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)QuestForSense
(653 posts)In court papers filed (Tuesday, 08/21/13), the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law.
"The DOJ claims that in planning and waging the Iraq War, ex-President Bush and key members of his Administration were acting within the legitimate scope of their employment and are thus immune from suit, chief counsel Inder Comar of Comar Law said.
http://warisacrime.org/content/obama-doj-asks-court-grant-immunity-george-w-bush-iraq-war
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)versus
The Too Small To Matter's
Guess who LOSES, every single time?!?!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)THANK YOU.
Gus Lammas
(61 posts)George the Easily-Led Doofus and Colin the Too-Loyal Soldier/Team Player? Let 'em go. Wolfowitz? Life without parole, with Rice getting ten years.
nt