He is an interestign person.
Dave what you think of his views?
and in the American political system how much clout does the vice pres have?
In the UK Prezza is the vice PM. He is a walking disaster. good thing that the voce PM is just a title, without any eral power... unless he gets TB whacked...
and secondly have you noticed that strong leaders have weak second in commands, and weak leaders have strong second in commands.
Cheney is the real neo con on the Bush whitehouse team - i don't really trust him and I don't like him all that much.
His fiscal policies are frightening.
Usually the veep has as much clout as the prez gives him.
It's not so much about institutional power.
In this presidency he plays an important role - al gore and bush did in the previous two.
I heard he is not really stomacable by most american either.. so they keep him away from public meetings etc...
How much clout does he have in the formation of policy?
is he more of a cheerleader, or is he a visionary? or both? neither?
Some of his views are dangerous. Even to the US.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
he's the one that turns vision and philosophy into hard goals.
really the visionaries are paul wolfowicz and karl rove, possibly president bush on domestic affairs.
I don't think his views are all that relevant to US policy, it's rove and wolfowicz that really carry the philosophical clout.
They scare me - they are wilsonian utopians have screwy ideas on domestic policy and calcify federal power under the presidency
Just ran 'cheney' through google news.
does not look pretty.
[url=http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID... CEO denies 2001 Cheney task force meetings[/url]
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/18/torture.vp/] Ex-CIA boss: Cheney is 'vice president for torture'[/url]
[url=http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_con...'NY Times' Wonders If Cheney Is Key Woodward Source [/url]
[url=http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_tom_turn_051118_dick_cheney_3a_w... Cheney: War Profiteer[/url]
pretty scandalous. And all I looked for was cheney in google news.
And I am in no way saying the sources are reliable. especially for that last one.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
lol when push was at his height dick cheney had an approval rating of 30 percent
wow that is low!
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
well right now bush is in the 30s... i hesitate to think of what cheneys is.
Anyway.. I have not had a good nights sleep for about a week now... so I think its better I nod off.
not that i can hold an interestiong convo... I always feed off others. Not much of a talker.
even more surprising I am in sales atm... (and probably why I am not brilliant at it...)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
lol aight ttyl
g'night!
please tell me this is a joke:
[b]"Vice-President Dick Cheney is seeking to legalise torture"[/b]
http://www.freebabarahmad.com/press33.php
He did make such statements...
Not sure wether his colleagues can or will agree...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I don't think he flat out said torture should be legal.
I think he's suggested he is in favor of flirting with the definition though - like the stuff happening at Guantanamo isn't "technically" torture but that's simply because of the definitions near feudal language.
And he says things like the Geneva Convention standards ought not be applied to terrorists because they aren't part of the geneva convention.
So the sum effect of his arguments is that torture should be okayish for terrorist suspects.
The main argument I have with that is 'suspects'.
They may or may not be terrorists.
I do not think anyone should be tortured. If found guilty, they may be punished.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
but surely you cannot put a measuring stick against torture, what is ok and what isnt
is there anywhere where there is more info on this?
I'm complicated on the subject - I consider terrorists (if they are US citizens) to be domestic criminals moreso than military enemies (though surely they are) so they should be afforded all their constitutional rights - including AMD VIII naturally.
The ones that come from abroad though I dunno what to do with... certainly torture is totally out of the question for me. But I am not going to extend the Geneva Conventions to them because I think that affords them legitimacy as "soldiers." And certainly the language of the conventions does not apply.
Nor should they be given constitutional garuntees - they are not US citizens and in fact are trying to destroy the United States.
So I, like the international and US military and political establishments really do not have an answer with what is to be done with them.
That's basically how they end up in Guantanamo - nowhere else to put them.
I think the only two rights I would afford to non US citizens is due process and freedom from torture.
The bare bones sort of stuff.
no no no....
tortue is one of only three absolute Human Rights
no country can get away with it, well shouldbt be allowed to
The Lover is ever drunk with love;
He is free, he is mad,
He dances with ecstasy and delight.
Caught by our own thoughts,
We worry about every little thing,
But once we get drunk on that love,
Whatever will be, will be.
ɐɥɐɥ
what? torture is a right?
what are the other two? birth and death?
:twisted:
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
LOL
i meant the right to not get tortured
The Lover is ever drunk with love;
He is free, he is mad,
He dances with ecstasy and delight.
Caught by our own thoughts,
We worry about every little thing,
But once we get drunk on that love,
Whatever will be, will be.
ɐɥɐɥ
arguing a point, say someone is guilty, and is witholding info that is of importance and could threaten national security.
they know you cant touch them,they will never give the info up.
what happens then??
Thats really the problem.
At that point you are facing the fear of the unknown - the possibility that anywhere for 1 to 1,000,000 americans - perhaps even your family are in danger because this whackjob has something up his sleeve and knows you have boundaries.
It's really a moral dilemna
In such extreme cases torture could be used as long everyone who knew about it kept quiet.
But if govs go around legalising torture in extreme cases that'll be difficult to regulate.
thats the deal
we all know it happens, but dont know to what extent.
if that was publicised everyone would be on their backs. you just cant win
and how can you set limits on these issues?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/21/cia.prisoners.ap/index.html
It's almost like it's a joke to them now...
I think it was John Adams (1st VP) who said: "My country, in its infinite wisdom, has contrived for me the most pointless job yada yada yada.."
basically the VP is regarded as 'a heartbeat from the Presidency' . yep actually that guache. Constitutionally his job is to sit on his back side and I think break a tie vote in the Senate, thats about it, I remember that my mate found it hilarious that there was a need for a President post tempori.
However Cheney has NOT taken a backseat role at all, very atypical, but he has served under 3 (or 4) Presidents.
My approval will improve if it turns he was woodwards main source.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
read that article constantine.
guess they cant reveal methods, then suspects would know what to expect.
watched something on the islam channel today. they said CIA operated on 2 levels. one was fear of the unkown, not knowing how far the authorities would go to get information, and keeping them in the dark.
also ignorance. they may not tell the suspect what they are supposed to have done straightaway. that way they also create fear
Thing about torture is the person will break.
however you will not know wether the person is telling the truth, or trying to stop further torture by saying what s/he thinks the tortureres want to hear.
So any evidence obtained does not have to be true.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Interestingly, Guy Fawkes was tortured into signing his confession.
There's alot more to the story than just Guy Fawkes, but becuase he signed the confession, he is considered to be the guy behind the Gunpowder Plot.
lol and all he got was a lousy holiday
It's not a holiday for him. People burn his effigy.
Yall are weird people...
I hope you know that
Pages