Not trying to seem like I'm riding MMM's you know what....but...:



Also, back when I had absolutely no interest in any other country, I used to think that America was like the top dog. Like it was the best country on Earth. But now I've looked into many other nations, and I now realize how pathetic it is.

The unreasonable fascist.I have actually met a couple of them online. The push behind their rants is simple "I'm proud to be an American".

Ranting may be arrogant, but being proud of your country isn't arrogant.

I could care less about peoples hating America and its Arrogance..

But today Obama did something so politically and ethically wrong, he ruled out prosecution for CIA torture authorized by Bush. dumb, its like saying torture is okay

I think our problem is sometime we do think we are above other nations, we should prosecute these individuals who commited a crime.

I agree with your feelings about this, but there is reasoning behind it. When the previous president gives assures you that your activities are legal and right, it is hard to prosecute the soldiers (who are still serving). I think the prosecution needs to be directed higher up.

What law did they break? Doing what the president told them?

(I don't advocate torture by any means, just had a debate about it in government actually, but I'm being devil's advocate)

I think so to, we cant let this be okay, because imagine how we'd feel if our troops or regular citizens were tortured. We'd be up in arms. I really do feel that someone needs to be punished for this. Unfortunately, I dont think this might happen.

Cridgit001: Its still illegal to torture, and should be punishable by law, I couldnt state the law here, but someone should be held responsible for the torture that went on under the Bush administration. If not its an injustice to America it self.

I don't get Fox News in Japan.

Fundamentalist Muslims have no country, they live everywhere. They have killed in the usual places, like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, but they have also killed in India, Indonesia, Sudan, Kenya, Russia, the Philippines, Sudan, Spain, England, and the US. They would killed in other places as well, and they would kill many more if they had the means.

Is Iran's Jewish community really thriving? They are considered "Dhimmies", and enjoy no civil rights. They are not allowed to build new synagogues, they are not allowed to vote. They are not allowed to speak, pray, or hold hands in public. They are outsiders and serfs, and are only allowed to exist if they accept these conditions and pay a heavy tax to the government. The penalty for disobeying any of these prohibitions is death. They are not thriving, they are merely enduring, as they always have.

With the Americans all in the order. !
Not all in the order with governments (politics)...

Is torture not okay? Exactly what do you define as torture? Waterboarding? Being kept awake for days? Being forced to listen to Britney Spears or Boy George for hours on end? All of these methods are used, and though they are unpleasant, none leave scars, or are life threatening. As a matter of fact, many US soldiers must endure these "tortures" in training, and other methods which are worse. Air Force survival instructors often have their fingernails pulled out in simulated torture, and this is just in training. It hurts, to be sure, but it doesn't kill or cripple.

Saddam was not shy about torture. He didn't mind having someone stand on the edge of a tall building and threaten to push them off if they didn't talk, and he tended to push, whether he got the information or not. He also liked to use things like sulfuric acid, electrical shocks, and even a large wood chipper which he used to shred his victims with. The lucky ones were fed into the machine head-first. The unlucky ones went in feet-first.

Obama couldn't prosecute, even if he wanted to. If he said he did, it was just political rhetoric. If Bush wrote down his intentions about interrogations, and said that they were okay, then they are. The war on terror was authorized by congress, giving the president the ability to make "findings", and these "findings" become law, which makes actions committed in their name legal. Congress can change or reverse these findings/laws later on, but the president would still be immune from prosecution, if you know anything about the article of ex post facto.

If Obama had decided to prosecute, he would never have succeeded, and, on the slim chance he did, he would have opened the door against future prosecutions against himself if he were take similar actions himself (which may be likely), not to mention reducing the ability of future presidents to make quick decisions in a crisis without having to call a special session of congress.