Obama admin retains Bush position on rendition secrets

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us/10torture.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

NYTimes wrote:

In a closely watched case involving rendition and torture, a lawyer for the Obama administration seemed to surprise a panel of federal appeals judges on Monday by pressing ahead with an argument for preserving state secrets originally developed by the Bush administration.

In the case, Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian native, and four other detainees filed suit against a subsidiary of Boeing for arranging flights for the Bush administration’s "extraordinary rendition" program, in which terrorism suspects were secretly taken to other countries, where they say they were tortured. The Bush administration argued that the case should be dismissed because even discussing it in court could threaten national security and relations with other nations.

During the campaign, Mr. Obama harshly criticized the Bush administration’s treatment of detainees, and he has broken with that administration on questions like whether to keep open the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. But a government lawyer, Douglas N. Letter, made the same state-secrets argument on Monday, startling several judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“Is there anything material that has happened” that might have caused the Justice Department to shift its views, asked Judge Mary M. Schroeder, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, coyly referring to the recent election.

“No, your honor,” Mr. Letter replied.

Judge Schroeder asked, “The change in administration has no bearing?”

Once more, he said, “No, Your Honor.”

About 20th on the list of reasons why I voted for Obama: the Ds of the land need to see their leader using whatever tools are necessary to get the job done. When Bush did it they screamed bloody murder. Prosecute him, they screamed. What will they scream now?

And I always figured Obama's approach would change after he started getting the national intelligence reports. "Mr. President? Here is a list of the bad people out there, and here is what they want to do." "OK, let me change my underwear, and then let's do whatever we need to do to prevent this."

The ending of Guantanamo Bay as a resource for dealing with the assholes of the world makes rendition the only option. We can't take them to Cuba. We can't take them to the US. Fine, we'll take them to Egypt, and the public won't know a thing about it.

And if we get the wrong guy, well shit happens. And if Egypt tortures after they told us they wouldn't, well shit happens.

Yep. I can't agree more. Funny how "The Man" will change his tune when he gets on the inside and figures out what reality is. Not in the least bit surprised.

Maybe the difference is that he will let it occur with a conscience, in a limited capacity, as a last resort, not so much as Standard Operating Procedure.

Who says it was anything but? How does anyone know for sure? There is a reason some things are not released to the public.

Undertoad;532796 wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us/10torture.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

About 20th on the list of reasons why I voted for Obama: the Ds of the land need to see their leader using whatever tools are necessary to get the job done. When Bush did it they screamed bloody murder. Prosecute him, they screamed. What will they scream now?

And I always figured Obama's approach would change after he started getting the national intelligence reports. "Mr. President? Here is a list of the bad people out there, and here is what they want to do." "OK, let me change my underwear, and then let's do whatever we need to do to prevent this."

The ending of Guantanamo Bay as a resource for dealing with the assholes of the world makes rendition the only option. We can't take them to Cuba. We can't take them to the US. Fine, we'll take them to Egypt, and the public won't know a thing about it.

And if we get the wrong guy, well shit happens. And if Egypt tortures after they told us they wouldn't, well shit happens.

I'm not that surprised by the Obama DoJ's action. I never expected, nor would I want, Obama to abandon all national security measures or make them all more transparent.

The two "safeguards" that are clearly articulated in Obama's EO on Ensuring Lawful Interrogations of Detainees:
[INDENT]abide by US law and international treaty obligations and NOT by the Bush DoJ memo's interpretation of such

the creation of a Special Interagency Task Force on Interrogation and Transfer Policies that provides some level of oversight of the CIAs rendition activities [/INDENT]

But then again, who oversees the overseers when it all remains classified.

To abandon some national security measures completely would be irresponsible....to provide oversight is nearly impossible...so there we are.

We're left with it being a matter of trust that they will be conducted legally until that trust is broken.

Beest;532815 wrote:

Maybe the difference is that he will let it occur with a conscience, in a limited capacity, as a last resort, not so much as Standard Operating Procedure.

You mean act the same but with different intentions?

I'm not excusing Obama on this issue, but using something as a last resort is not acting the same as using it as an SOP.

If a police department needed to charter moving vans to get rid of the bodies of people they shot, I would suspect they weren't using lethal force as a last resort.

I see little evidence that this is different from what Bush did and yet there is no outcry.

TheMercenary;533001 wrote:

I see little evidence that this is different from what Bush did and yet there is no outcry.

So many outcries about an isolated case that may completely misrepresent the administration. Easy to due when critical details are not yet provided.

The example is seriously devoid of any facts to make a conclusion. For example, was the Ethiopian native the rare guilty one who actually was a threat to America? Was he the rare case where national secrets are at risk? Nobody with criticism ever asked that question. And yet that question should have the very first asked before criticizing that government lawyer.

Meanwhile four Iraqis held for years in Guantanamo in direct violation of American legal principles were released to Iraq. Iraq, in turn, immediately released them. Iraq said all four men were guilty of nothing and that no reason existed to hold them. An example repeated hundreds of times.

What we don't yet know is which of the very few are guilty of anything and therefore might threatened national security secrets. Until something real comes from this example, the example does nothing but hype wild speculation.

For criticisms here to be valid, one must first prove these men were the massive majority who were not guilty of anything. Instead, the responsible response is to have no opinion until judges rule and therefore provide a fact.

TheMercenary;533001 wrote:

I see little evidence that this is different from what Bush did and yet there is no outcry.

The ACLU is certainly outcrying.

I am sorry. I do not find the ACLU as a credible source. Any group that supports child molesting men and their right to exploit children does not get my vote.

TheMercenary;533040 wrote:

I am sorry. I do not find the ACLU as a credible source. Any group that supports child molesting men and their right to exploit children does not get my vote.

Anyone who would protect a Republic from becoming a Monarchy, Democracy, Oligarchy, Anarchy, or Dictatorship? You would oppose them?

A specific reference to The American form of Government explained. in the post entitled The American form of Government

TheMercenary;533040 wrote:

I am sorry. I do not find the ACLU as a credible source. Any group that supports child molesting men and their right to exploit children does not get my vote.

[INDENT][/INDENT]

You can't dispute the facts....

NAMBLA states that they are on an important, historic mission. They state that their mission is simple. Abolition of age of consent laws that classify sex with children as rape. NAMBLA is the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

Charles Jaynes, 25, reportedly viewed the group’s web site shortly before the killing of Jeffrey Curley, a 10 year old boy, slain in 1997. Jaynes also had in his possession some of NAMBLA’s publications. Also convicted in the killing was 24 year old Salvatore Sicari. Sicari, convicted of first degree murder, is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Jaynes’ second degree murder and kidnapping convictions enable him to seek parole within the next 20 years. Was this a case of misunderstanding? Does this fit with NAMBLA’s philosophy of man/boy love that is non violent? Hardly. Prosecutors said Jaynes and Sicari were sexually obsessed with the boy, lured him from his Cambridge neighborhood with the promise of a new bike, and then smothered him with a gasoline soaked rag when he resisted their sexual advances. They then stuffed him into a concrete filled container and dumped it into a Maine river. Non violent? No. Loving? No.

The ACLU is a supporter of NAMBLA, representing the organization in the civil case related to the aforementioned murder. The ACLU is representing NAMBLA PRO BONO. Their official position: “In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.” I am repulsed. Repulsed by the idea that my children may not be able to say “…one Nation, under God” in school some future day .. thanks to the ACLU .. but this disgusting, vile organization is supported due to freedom of speech?

In February 2005, the FBI arrested three NAMBLA members at Harbor Island as they waited for a boat that undercover agents told them would sail to Ensenada for a sex retreat over Valentine’s Day with boys as young as 9. The FBI also arrested four additional NAMBLA members in a Los Angeles marina where they also planned to set sail to the same bogus retreat. These men are a cross section of people you and I might interact with regularly: a dentist, a special education teacher, a substitute teacher, a handyman, a flight attendant who is also a psychologist, a paper company employee and a personal trainer. How horrific to know that a number of these men had daily interactions with children! As noted in court papers, most of these men told the undercover agent they had been sexually involved with children historically, including boys they met on the Internet and others. Looking more closely at these men, at least one of the men is a member of NAMBLA’s national leadership, a second organized their national convention in 2004 and a third has been a NAMBLA member since the 1980s. Thank God these criminals have been discovered so no more boys are harmed.

So what of Charles Jaynes? The Boston Herald reports that Jaynes is now battling efforts by his victim’s mother to uncover whether NAMBLA is bankrolling Jaynes’ prison canteen. There were court affidavits from two inmates claiming Jaynes engages in sex acts in the prison without discipline, shows off his victim’s autopsy and has a fat canteen account courtesy of NAMBLA. While one of these inmates has now recanted their story, questions are still present about what NAMBLA is doing for Jaynes while he is in prison. I won’t link to NAMBLA’s disgusting site, but they do have a Prisoner Program for those convicted of pedophilia. The program on their website clearly states that they do not financially support prisoners, but provides instruction on what type of information should be sent to these criminals. Here’s what NAMBLA says about those incarcerated for, what they believe, are unfounded criminal acts: “Incarceration is a terrible thing. For a boy lover ground into the criminal justice system, it is an especially harrowing fate.” What about the fate of that 10 year old boy whose lifeless body was stuffed into a container and tossed away into the river?

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/

TheMercenary;533040 wrote:

I am sorry. I do not find the ACLU as a credible source. Any group that supports child molesting men and their right to exploit children does not get my vote.

Problem is, outside of the confines of Rush Limbaugh's drug-addled brain, they did no such thing.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

TheMercenary;533126 wrote:

You can't dispute the facts....

What facts? The article states a partial transcript of ACLU's press release, and takes it out of context. Nowhere in your article does it say the ACLU supports anyone's "right" to molest children".

TGRR;533212 wrote:

What facts? The article states a partial transcript of ACLU's press release, and takes it out of context. Nowhere in your article does it say the ACLU supports anyone's "right" to molest children".

In fact, Merc's reliable source and "facts" took the ACLU's association with NAMBLA in an related case completely out of context.

Putting aside the fact that NAMBLA is a despicable organization promoting sex with minors....

The ACLU represented a man associated with NAMBA in a case involving sodomy with a minor. In the state where the crime (and yes, the ACLU called it a crime) occurred, the penalties for anal intercourse with a minor boy were much harsher than vaginal intercourse with a minor girl.

That disparity in sentencing was the point of law raised by the ACLU. Never did the ACLU defend the act itself, defend MABLA's organizational "mission" or argue that sex with a minor, of any nature, should not be a crime.

The ACLU often represents despicable organizations and sleezy individuals ...whether its the Nazi party's right to free speech or Limbaugh's right to privacy regarding his medical records.

Its important to look beyond the defendant to the points of law that the ACLU raises.

Redux;533221 wrote:

In fact, Merc's reliable source and "facts" took the ACLU's association with NAMBLA in an related case completely out of context.

Putting aside the fact that NAMBLA is a despicable organization promoting sex with minors....

The ACLU represented a man associated with NAMBA in a case involving sodomy with a minor. In the state where the crime (and yes, the ACLU called it a crime) occurred, the penalties for anal intercourse with a minor boy were much harsher than vaginal intercourse with a minor girl.

That disparity in sentencing was the point of law raised by the ACLU. Never did the ACLU defend the act itself, defend MABLA's organizational "mission" or argue that sex with a minor, of any nature, should not be a crime.

The ACLU often represents despicable organizations and sleezy individuals ...whether its the Nazi party's right to free speech or Limbaugh's right to privacy regarding his medical records.

Its important to look beyond the defendant to the points of law that the ACLU raises.

Any time you have a group dedicated to impartial law, people who hate impartial law will attack that group based on the most egregious cases they have handled.

Likewise, when you have someone brainwashed to hate civil liberties, that person will distort facts, cite irrelevant or out of context cases, etc, to slam anyone who defends rights.

Redux;533221 wrote:

In fact, Merc's reliable source and "facts" took the ACLU's association with NAMBLA in an related case completely out of context.

Wrong. Dress it up as you want it is still a pig.

ACLU defended this child molester's right to publish.

ACLU defends child-molester group
Asks judge to throw out lawsuit against NAMBLA for 10-year-old's murder

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 13, 2000
1:00 am Eastern


By Julie Foster
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com




The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to dismiss what it calls an "unconstitutional" lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group's members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy.
The $200 million civil lawsuit, which charges the North American Man-Boy Love Association with wrongful death, was originally filed in Massachusetts Federal District Court on May 16.

As reported in WorldNetDaily, Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes picked up fifth-grader Jeffrey Curley and took the boy to the Boston Public Library where Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website. Later, the men attempted to sexually assault Curley, but the boy fought back. Attempting to restrain him, Jaynes gagged the 10-year-old with a gasoline-soaked rag, eventually killing him. The men put Jeffrey's body in a tub with concrete and threw it in a river.

According to Curley family attorney Larry Frisoli, Jaynes kept a diary in which he wrote that he turned to NAMBLA's website in order to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do. The killer had been stalking Curley prior to the boy's murder and possessed various materials from the clandestine group.

The ACLU argues that the newsletters and other NAMBLA materials in Jaynes' possession, which contain ''photographs of boys of various ages and nude drawings of boys,'' are protected speech under the Constitution. The material does not ''urge, promote, advocate or even condone torture, mutilation or murder,'' ACLU attorneys wrote. ''Examination of the materials that have been identified by the plaintiffs will show that they simply do not advocate violation of the law,'' the dismissal motion states. ''But even if that were the case, speech is not deprived of the protection of the First Amendment simply because it advocates an unlawful act."

Both killers are now serving life sentences. The family filed the lawsuit against NAMBLA and the Internet service provider that hosted its site, arguing their son might still be alive were it not for the group and its website.

But the ACLU believes NAMBLA is being unconstitutionally ''sued for their ideas.'' According to court documents from the ACLU, the case raises ''profoundly important questions under the First Amendment,'' because NAMBLA is not being sued for making any particular statements, but simply for creating an ''environment'' that encourages sexual abuse.

''What they don't like is what NAMBLA stands for,'' said John Reinstein, legal director of the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU. ''They don't like their ideas or the notion that someone else would have accepted them,'' he told the Boston Globe.

The Curleys won a $328 million wrongful death case against their son's killers earlier this year, but since both men are penniless, Frisoli called it largely a moral victory. WND reported in July that Frisoli was preparing a class-action lawsuit against NAMBLA. If NAMBLA loses the class-action suit, individuals and parents of children who were involved in sexual relationships with members will be able to collect damages.

According to Frisoli, NAMBLA has anywhere from 300 to 1,300 members, depending on which time period is selected for the lawsuit, translating to thousands of children that would constitute the class in the suit.

TheMercenary;533040 wrote:

I am sorry. I do not find the ACLU as a credible source. Any group that supports child molesting men and their right to exploit children does not get my vote.

How is whether you find them credible relevant? They aren't a source that's saying there's an outcry, they are outcrying themselves. As the most prominent group in terms of outcrying against Bush's rendition program, they seemed the obvious group to check whether there was "no outcry" against Obama.

As for the non-sequitur about NAMBLA, of course they defended the right to publish. That's Amendment 1.

Happy Monkey;533498 wrote:

How is whether you find them credible relevant? They aren't a source that's saying there's an outcry, they are outcrying themselves. As the most prominent group in terms of outcrying against Bush's rendition program, they seemed the obvious group to check whether there was "no outcry" against Obama.

As for the non-sequitur about NAMBLA, of course they defended the right to publish. That's Amendment 1.

So you defend them defending child molesters? WOW!

World Net Daily.

:lol:

TheMercenary;533504 wrote:

So you defend them defending child molesters? WOW!

I think he's defending the first amendment.

Why do you hate the first amendment?

TheMercenary;533485 wrote:

Wrong. Dress it up as you want it is still a pig.

ACLU defended this child molester's right to publish.

That isn't what you said earlier. You said they defended NAMBLA's "right" to fuck children. That is not what your link says.

TheMercenary;533504 wrote:

So you defend them defending child molesters? WOW!

I support them defending the right to publish. That's Amendment 1.

You don't draw the line at the sexual exploitation of children? Strange how on the one hand we defend their actions to publish, via the ACLU, and throw them in jail for viewing it: http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=533631&postcount=1

There is a line in every sandbox.

I don't support their right to publish nude photos of children. Neither does the ACLU.

Anyone or any organization which supports their existance in any form supports their activities by proxy.

And that proxy is the Constitution and the rule of law.

Happy Monkey;533705 wrote:

And that proxy is the Constitution and the rule of law.

Not according to the FBI and various State and Federal LEO.

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1476

TheMercenary;533717 wrote:

Not according to the FBI and various State and Federal LEO.

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1476

Since when does the FBI interpret law?

TheMercenary;533697 wrote:

Anyone or any organization which supports their existance in any form supports their activities by proxy.

And in that world of black and white, it also proves that the United States government was the primary supporter of the IRA.

tw;534952 wrote:

And in that world of black and white, it also proves that the United States government was the primary supporter of the IRA.

And in fact WAS the IRA.

TGRR;534821 wrote:

Since when does the FBI interpret law?

They certainly enforce it.

Related to rendition.

It will be interesting to see what Obama and Holder do with a new DOJ internal report that concludes that DoJ attorneys may have "deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted to justify torture."

A Torture Report Could Spell Big Trouble For Bush Lawyers

I will be the first to criticize Obama if he lets it slide.

I put money on it that nothing happens. Maybe a few uber-libs in Congress will use it to divert attention from the pork in the latest Stimulus Bill, but other than that, nada. Obama is going to protect his right to do what ever he wants and he moves power into the executive branch like nothing Bush ever did or has been seen since the days of FDR. It will just be used as a distraction.

TheMercenary;535161 wrote:

I put money on it that nothing happens. Maybe a few uber-libs in Congress will use it to divert attention from the pork in the latest Stimulus Bill, but other than that, nada. Obama is going to protect his right to do what ever he wants and he moves power into the executive branch like nothing Bush ever did or has been seen since the days of FDR. It will just be used as a distraction.

I guess we shall see.

But if the conclusions of Bush's own DoJ -OPR report are correct, as reported, it is certainly more serious than something to divert attention. It it at the heart of Bush's torture policy.

I dont expect you to agree with that.

No, I would agree with you on that point. Absolute proof will be difficult.

And on top of that every administration will get info fed to it that others think it wants to hear, regardless of what Obama or any of his lacky's tell the public.

***standing back to avoid the lightening strike*** ;)

taking back the lightening strike after I saw past...."I agree with you"

The Bush DoJ has been the most political and unethical in our lifetime. The DoJ is the one department that is supposed to be above politicization.

I dont expect any future president to sink to that level.

Redux;535167 wrote:

The Bush DoJ has been the most political and unethical in our lifetime. The DoJ is the one department that is supposed to be above politicization.

Eh, I don't believe that. There have been numerous shady governments in the US before Bush came along.

TheMercenary;535193 wrote:

Eh, I don't believe that. There have been numerous shady governments in the US before Bush came along.

See http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=535215&postcount=165

IMO, the worst politicization of the DoJ in our lifetime.

Redux;535217 wrote:

See http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=535215&postcount=165

IMO, the worst politicization of the DoJ in our lifetime.

See


http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=535219&postcount=166

TheMercenary;535221 wrote:

See


http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=535219&postcount=166

Repeat.....I have to laugh at the way you guys keep finding a way to excuse the actions of the Bush administration.

Redux;535226 wrote:

Repeat.....I have to laugh at the way you guys keep finding a way to excuse the actions of the Bush administration.

How is that? All I did was refer back to the thread you linked to. I have to laugh at the way you have a selective memory when it comes to corruption in Government immediately before and long before Bush.

TheMercenary;535124 wrote:

They certainly enforce it.

But that's not what we're talking about, here.

The legislature makes the laws, the FBI goes out and catches the bad guys as defined by those laws, and the judiciary interprets the law as it applies to the case in question.

This is not a difficult concept.

Redux;535167 wrote:

The Bush DoJ has been the most political and unethical in our lifetime.

Bullshit. J Edgar Hoover was worse by himself than the entire Bush DoJ. He would have beaten Mukasey to death with his purse for being a wimpy little nancy boy.


Granted, you might not have been around for him...

TGRR;535374 wrote:

But that's not what we're talking about, here.

The legislature makes the laws, the FBI goes out and catches the bad guys as defined by those laws, and the judiciary interprets the law as it applies to the case in question.

This is not a difficult concept.

Absolutely. I fully understand it. Nor was it the topic of discussion. This has become nothing more than a side bar at the bench.

TGRR;535376 wrote:

Bullshit. J Edgar Hoover was worse by himself than the entire Bush DoJ. He would have beaten Mukasey to death with his purse for being a wimpy little nancy boy.


Granted, you might not have been around for him...

I am thinking this is just an age thing with Redux. Granted, I don't remember Hoover but it was not far from the times I do remember.

TheMercenary;535416 wrote:

I am thinking this is just an age thing with Redux. Granted, I don't remember Hoover but it was not far from the times I do remember.

Hoover was a titan. He knew we hated him, he knew WHY we hated him, and he didn't care...mostly because he had the goods on EVERYONE.

That fucker INVENTED illegal wiretapping. He was a monster, and the world will never know his like again.

TGRR;535418 wrote:

Hoover was a titan. He knew we hated him, he knew WHY we hated him, and he didn't care...mostly because he had the goods on EVERYONE.

That fucker INVENTED illegal wiretapping. He was a monster, and the world will never know his like again.

You do mean the Western World, because the East Germans, Russians, Chinese, Burmese, Iranians, Saudi's and a shit load of others were as bad if not worse than Hoover could ever have dreamed of, and their history is much more recent.

TheMercenary;535422 wrote:

You do mean the Western World, because the East Germans, Russians, Chinese, Burmese, Iranians, Saudi's and a shit load of others were as bad if not worse than Hoover could ever have dreamed of, and their history is much more recent.

Balls. Hoover would have eaten them for breakfast.

Look what he did using (ina manner of speaking) our rules. Then give him Yugoslavia under Tito, and he'd fucking EVERYBODY.

Yep. Agreed.

TheMercenary;535416 wrote:

I am thinking this is just an age thing with Redux. Granted, I don't remember Hoover but it was not far from the times I do remember.

Hey...I'm old as dirt. I was playing with my cap gun when Hoover was around.

And right after Hoover died, we got John Mitchell as AG...a crook in his own right.

Redux;535479 wrote:

Hey...I'm old as dirt. I was playing with my cap gun when Hoover was around.

And right after Hoover died, we got John Mitchell as AG...a crook in his own right.

Sure.

Redux;535479 wrote:

Hey...I'm old as dirt. I was playing with my cap gun when Hoover was around.

And right after Hoover died, we got John Mitchell as AG...a crook in his own right.

Ah, yes, but his wife, Martha Mitchell, kept us amused. I used to love how she'd insist on introducing every unofficial speech he gave, and then she'd totally fuck him over by saying something stunningly stupid right before giving him the podium. My favorite:

"People have been given their freedom to a greater extent than ever before, and I think that's quite wrong."

Or who could forget this little gem:

"We can't have people all running around unregulated, you know."

TheMercenary;535501 wrote:

Sure.

Crooked as the day is long.

TGRR;535709 wrote:

Ah, yes, but his wife, Martha Mitchell, kept us amused. I used to love how she'd insist on introducing every unofficial speech he gave, and then she'd totally fuck him over by saying something stunningly stupid right before giving him the podium. My favorite:

"People have been given their freedom to a greater extent than ever before, and I think that's quite wrong."

Or who could forget this little gem:

"We can't have people all running around unregulated, you know."

Hey that sounds lik Biden. :lol2:

TheMercenary;536617 wrote:

Hey that sounds lik Biden. :lol2:

No, Biden is dumb in a different way. Think of him as Luca Brasi.

TheMercenary;533675 wrote:

You don't draw the line at the sexual exploitation of children? Strange how on the one hand we defend their actions to publish, via the ACLU, and throw them in jail for viewing it: http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=533631&postcount=1

There is a line in every sandbox.

OK, so why is you don't have a problem applying the first ammendment differently to some people, but when it comes to the second ammemdment, it is sacrosanct for eveyone? Hipocrisy rears its ugly head...

sugarpop;537370 wrote:

OK, so why is you don't have a problem applying the first ammendment differently to some people, but when it comes to the second ammemdment, it is sacrosanct for eveyone? Hipocrisy rears its ugly head...

Nope. The Second Amendment only applies to legal US citizens who follow the law as currently written. If you use your right as an excuse to violate other peoples right you just may lose it. Another purpose of government.

TheMercenary;537492 wrote:

Nope. The Second Amendment only applies to legal US citizens who follow the law as currently written. If you use your right as an excuse to violate other peoples right you just may lose it. Another purpose of government.

So what part of what the UCLA defended violated the law?

?

Griff;537629 wrote:

?

:lol:

I blame the drugs.

TGRR;537651 wrote:

I blame the drugs.

I blame Bush.

Oopps, no that would be the job of the Demoncrats.

TheMercenary;537492 wrote:

Nope. The Second Amendment only applies to legal US citizens who follow the law as currently written. If you use your right as an excuse to violate other peoples right you just may lose it. Another purpose of government.

I could make the exact same argument about the first ammendment. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

sugarpop;537960 wrote:

I could make the exact same argument about the first ammendment. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Nope. I just don't support those who support child molesters.

TheMercenary;538088 wrote:

Nope. I just don't support those who support child molesters.

I don't support child molesters. I do support the first ammendment, as I support the second ammendment. Not everyone should be able to print whatever they want (child pornography), and not everyone should be allowed to own a gun (kids or mentally unstable people). You, on the other hand, are a hypocrite. I still love you though. *smooch*

sugarpop;538453 wrote:

I don't support child molesters. I do support the first ammendment, as I support the second ammendment. Not everyone should be able to print whatever they want (child pornography), and not everyone should be allowed to own a gun (kids or mentally unstable people). You, on the other hand, are a hypocrite. I still love you though. *smooch*

Check the laws, Mentally unstable people and kids are not allowed to own guns. Check your facts before you start throwing BS around. Mk.

TheMercenary;538508 wrote:

Check the laws, Mentally unstable people and kids are not allowed to own guns. Check your facts before you start throwing BS around. Mk.

Really? Then why is the NRA so fucking opposed to trying to keep guns out of the hands of those people? And your arguments support that reasoning.

Great, show me the link where "the NRA so fucking opposed to trying to keep guns out of the hands of" mentally unstable people. As far as kids go, they should be oriented early to the proper use of guns, gun safety, and the laws that are on the books. Kids cannot buy guns legally in the US. They can and should be allowed to shoot them.

The NRA is opposed to ANY kind of gun control. Even gun control that would have prevented certain obviously unstable (or underage) people from aquiring guns, who went on shooting sprees, killing and injuring lots of people.

sugarpop;538554 wrote:

The NRA is opposed to ANY kind of gun control. Even gun control that would have prevented certain obviously unstable (or underage) people from aquiring guns, who went on shooting sprees, killing and injuring lots of people.

Actually that is somewhat wrong.

Well people aquire cars and drive and kill. Why don't we get rid of cars? Cars must be the problem. People have nothing to do with it. I think every time someone dies from lung cancer from smoking they should hunt down and kill one person who smokes. Because a shit load more of people die from smoking than from guns.

Driving cars requires licenses, and there are any number of government programs to discourage smoking.

I doubt the NRA would support gun licenses or anti-gun PSAs.

Happy Monkey;538763 wrote:

Driving cars requires licenses, and there are any number of government programs to discourage smoking.

I doubt the NRA would support gun licenses or anti-gun PSAs.

Good for them.

Get your mitts off of my rights, please.