lol that was my point too :p. Well surprises like those arent bad at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
Thank you too John!
Printable View
lol that was my point too :p. Well surprises like those arent bad at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
Thank you too John!
I try to be open-minded, I just seem to disagree with you on some things. Believe me, I am very happy to continue this discussion; I do have a specific question for you about the BBC:Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
Do you remember when the BBC reported that Tony Blair's statement that Iraq could have WMDs ready in 45 minutes was exaggerated? Do you remember how Tony Blair got really angry, and then the chairman and director general of the BBC both resigned, and its vice-chairman publicly apologized?
Why were they sorry? Was it in fact true that Iraq could have WMDs ready in 45 minutes? If a news source made a factual criticism (and, as we all know, a massively understated one), and then people got angry... and members of the staff were fired... doesn't that demonstrate that the angry people have some sort of executive oversight?
I really don't know how to interpret the above, recent example except by concluding that people at the BBC should be afraid of losing their livelihoods if they challenge the government line.
That is indeed a generalization. I will agree with the "all government is bad" part though, if by government you mean compulsory statist authority and by bad you mean unethical.Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
Not at all! You're welcome to your opinion, I'm welcome to mine, and (I believe) we're welcome to criticize each other's. No-one need ever worry about offending me; I've got very thick skin.Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
I think you were actually talking to me if you look back. I asked: "Is it completely irrelevant that they are funded by a government?" and you said "I make my determination from that, not from who owns who or how it is funded." I was the first person in the thread to bring up funding's influence. Or maybe your post was a complete non sequitur?Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
That is kind of a thought-terminating cliche, not really a question. Put another way, maybe you meant "you're very opinionated". Indeed, I am! You are too.Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
way back in the day, or so my favorite american history professor would say, the Monitor used to report the news like this:
So and so on the following date at the following place and time said this: "whatever speach etc it was in its orriginal entirety" , no editorial comments no explanations that was it, the speakers words, no sumations , no "spin" etc,,,,,,,
that is why it originally achieved its stunning reputation as an unbiased news source
today the Monitor has a single page ussually dedicated to airing its own views on an issue, with a light religious overtone, if yu dont want to read it yu just skip to the next article,, i havent seen them use the "quote alone style" in thier reporting recently but that doesnt mean they have completely abandoned it eaither
i have seen them allow more reporters to editorialize pieces though, and they dont allways try to balance the piece with an opposing view point,
as far as political leanings i havent noticed the Monitor take a stance one way or the other (alltough the individual contributors sometimes do) and in that respect i think its one of the best newspapers out there and as non-partisan as it can be without resorting to thier old format (which my professor said was frankly a little lengthy and boreing as they didnt edit the reports)
i love the bbc and npr as well as colours television , pbs and link, all of which i get on satilite i also have several news blogs on my email page and i am an avid reader of a variety of books and information sources (though i will argue wikipedia is hardly a credible source as any tom dick and harry can amend whats in it) though wiki is trying to change that,,
of course an individuals perspective is dependent on a wide variety of things from the way they were raised to peer pressure ,to thier intelectual capacity etc etc, all parts of the whole,, i really dont believe any one person should be catagorized simply based on a single belief in a single topic or generalization,,, which is why it may sound like i snub ya if yu call me a radical, and i call ya one back (thats to anyone not any one)
the only way a news source could be completely "free" is if it was completely economically, culturally, politically and socially independent,
it would also have to be held to the highest ethical standards
these are things many claim (because who would claim not too) yet few approach
i have seen blatent bias in every majior news channel on tv even from cnn to fox, from msn to (my beloved) dailey show even cctv and yes on occasion bbc and npr (yes i find news on the dailey show sometimes more accurate than the regular channels)
the ultimate judge on your news is you,, take it or leave it, with or without the grain of salt
The Monitor received its reputation by doing great stories not just by regurgitating quotes. They have been a great newspaper for over 40 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Also, editorializing on the editorial page is perfectly legitimate and there is no need to have opposing viewpoints to editorials and opinion pieces.
And this brings up one of the MANY problems with FOX. They pride their lies and half-truths on the fact that they are "Fair and balanced." Meaning, to them it seems, that if you have some Liberal on you can say anything because you have an opposing viewpoint.
Objectivity is NOT balanced and not even fair a good part of the time. It is telling the truth of the situation as close to impartial as possible.
The way it was explained to me in J-school. If a serial killer is murdering people and he is discovered and tried and found guilty. His "side' of that issue is moot. Being fair would be him given voice to say how he lovede killing so he is not really at fault for anything.
Yes, the reporter may give us insight into why the man did it, but we do not have to give him voice to all his crazy "reasons."
And even though FOX news claims it is fair and balanced it is neither. Fox News is total fiction 99 per cent of the time.
And even then personal bias would be at work. Don't get me wrong. Objectivity is almost impossible to achieve. But it is worth striving for and their ARE news organizations out there that are striving for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
I take exception to this because a person may look at the 700 club as their news source or FOX as their news source.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Any journalist can tell you those two are not valid news sources. An expert can help people refine their choices to include TRUTHFUL sources.
It seems to me that ANY news source which happens to coincide, most of the time, with a person's own beliefs will always be considered valid by that person! Those news sources which tend toward the conservative side, such as FOX, are considered reliable and trustworthy by conservatives because they say what those conservatives want to hear. Those news sources which tend to be liberal are considered equally valid and reliable by liberals.Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
Claiming that FOX News "makes up 99%" of their stories is both irresponsible and unjustified. They would not hold on to their audience if that were true. What they MAY do, however, is only tell those parts of a story which focus on their own prejudices and agendas. This is true of ANY news media.
I'm often struck when reading articles in a newspaper or magazine by the fact that, whenever something particularly nasty and "juicy" occurs, reporters frequently claim that "so-and-so did not immediately return calls made to confirm or deny this story" or something to that effect. This tells me that the reporter or editor didn't want to print any dissenting views so they called after business hours, or at a time when no one was likely to answer and didn't wait for any return call. It's far more important to them to get the story out there, first, before someone comes along and tells the truth. Whether this is so or not I can't say, but that's what I feel when I see that, and I immediately suspect whatever story they are trying to sell me.
The only way you can hope to get the true story is to get it from many sources, both pro and con, and bet on the fact that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Of course they would hold their audience. COmpletely because, to their base they ARE telling them exactly what they want to hear.
AND there are a lot of news sources that focus on objectivity and not their own prejudices.
You are welcome to believe that FOX is telling the truth. A lot of misled people do believe this. But Roger Ailes is biased and the facts they DO cover ARE colored by their own prejudices.
But my point is that what FOX does is NOT news. There are few REAL journalists over there. And most experts will bear this out.
And to generalize that ALL news sources do what FOX does is irresponsible and totally unjustified.
And yes, that is the problem today. Many News organizations, are more concerned with getting the story out there quickly and beat the non-News orgs to the story. There was a time when Network News organizations were not messed with. But now they have to make a profit. Therefore most news orgs sensationalize and comment on the news like FOX does.
But to generalize and say everybody does it is wrong and unjustified. BBC does not, NPR is still fairly good at getting it right. But even they have responed to the false claims of a Liberal Bias and have backed off of stories to not leave that impression.
But Fox news is NOT to be trusted. It IS by a lot of people, but that doesn't mean that it is worth being trusted.
this reminds me of mien kamf where hitler keeps repeating the same statement over and over in different ways every few paragraphs to make sure the propaganda sinks in
what i am saying is every single journalist out there regardless of the type of media he or she uses for comunication is not perfect and not being perfect does in fact weather inadvertantly or overtly taint the information they are reporting with a slant of some kind
even when they think they are not, and btw i wasnt talking about the editorial page which is purely an opinion piece earlier, i was talking about editorialized news stories, which is what editing is: when you change and report anything else than just the facts, reduce a statement considered news worthy or change in anyway the details even by omission of events occured, even routine sumarizations for space are a form of editoral use
now i get it you hate fox news,lol,, but i agree with Thorne on this one and i dont even watch fox news, the few times i did see it it was just like cnn or msnbc, same sheet different day,
and as far as a made up liberal slant for npr,,pfft, i dont care what one party or the other says about it, they are like a juicey version of pbs, except i can allways call in on a saterday morning to find out what is wrong with my car
So the Hitler references come out. classic.
I only repeat myself when what I am saying is misinterpreted. You are welcome to believe what you want. ANd since you bring out propaganda and hitler references, just like with Virulent I will stop wasting my breath.
This all came about because I gave my expert opinion about valid News Sources. And I don't trust Fox News and never will. But not because I simply hate them. I have my reasons and it has to do with my profession. FOX has sullied the reputation of good strong journalists.
Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch have a major agenda. You belittle those that don't agree with you, I get it. But whether you believe it or not I know what I am talking about.
BUt why I am a wasting my breath. You are well-entrenched in your opinion and you WANT me to be wrong.
I am so sorry everybody for giving my opinion of valid News Sources.
Evidently it doesn't matter where you get your news. As long as they are telling you what YOU want to believe in, then it is a good news source.
An expert opinion will just get you into trouble because they might say some things that don't meet your view of how things are.
Truth and objectivity don't matter, only that they can give you what YOU want to hear.
John, I wasn't disagreeing with you about Fox. In fact, I do agree, though perhaps not as vehemently as you would like. Their straight news programs are relatively truthful even though they are biased and slanted towards the conservative viewpoint. Those other programs, such as Hannity's, are NOT news programs. They are, without apology, politically motivated.Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
What I was trying to say, and thought I had said, is that, to one degree or another, ALL news sources are biased, at least somewhat. Some are more-so than others, true, but they are all guilty of the same thing. That's why I said people should get their news from many sources, and not depend on just one or two which feel comfortable.
And, while you may be an expert witness in this issue, it is obvious that you bring your own prejudices into this discussion. There's nothing wrong with that, we all do it. It's natural. Just try to understand that other's don't necessarily see things in the exact same light. That doesn't make them wrong, just different.
Personally I like to get as unbiased and in depth news as possible. I dont care much for the 2 minute news and then jump to another topic.
Also there is a HUGE difference between different news sources in how biased and trustworthy they in fact are.
BBC has great news and so does Swedish tax paid news but there are some not so great news sources in both Britain and Sweden alike just like there are in the US.
I used to get Fox news (as a mistake by the cable company :p) for about 6 months and to me those news were a joke.
CNN is decent compared to that but still were talking about 2 minute stints about something and then jump to something different and no real in depth information about anything really.
I dont really care if the news isnt to my liking opinionwise but as long as it is solid news, trustworthy and to the point.
Every news is going to be slanted somewhat but as I said, there is a huge difference between the different news agencies, newspapers and tv news.
What I find kinda funny is how little of international news you get in the US when you look through some US newspapers. The news is pretty much US only. Isnīt the american people interested in news that isnt domestic?
gotto love a good discussion. Kinda strange though that a discussion that started off at waterboarding continued on to be about what is news and not :p
Logic1, you are right, as far as American news sources go, the rest of the world doesn't exist or at least rarely and you can totally forget about the southern hemisphere. Again another reason why I like the BBC.
All good conversations drift from their original topic.
Why is that?. I mean I know you will find news from Iraq or Afghanistan since you have an interest there so to speak but the rest of the world?Quote:
Originally Posted by claire
Isnt the american populace interested in what is happening or is the domestic news "enough".
I know that it would be simple enough to just write about what happens in this town only, that has less than 300k inhabitants and still make a decent enough newspaper but people here actually wants to hear/read/know what happens around them.
Drifting further away happily ^^
I don't think there is a simple answer to that question. I think you are partially right about there being enough domestic news. Europe and the USA are very roughly the same size - about 10,000,000 km2 (4,000,000 sq mi). Our largest state, Texas, is about the same size as the largest country in western Europe - France at roughly 700,000 km2 (260,000 sq mi). We are so used to being surrounded by people who are more or less of the same culture and speak the same language, that we forget about what else is out there. Also I think Europeans got used to having interests in the rest of the globe during the colonial period and that interest and awareness has stuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic1
Hopefully the elections this fall will give us an administration that will be willing to work with the rest of the world, rather than the spoiled brat, self centered approach we've had for the last 8 years. Then perhaps we and our news media will realize that there are other people out there and that they matter very very much. Whether we like it or not we are going to have to learn to share and get along.
sorry you feel that way John the hitler reference wasnt "aimed" at you specifically so much as i was making a observation about everyones tendency to say the same things over and over again in a very emotional manner, if i wanted to bring such an allegation to your doorstep i would do so with verve and put your name on it, i will say however that it seems you only seem to want to state your opinion and then jump on anyone that disagrees, which is a typical human response,
well as far as international news i have seen a tendencey in smaller countires to kind of, hold a few sources for themselve and then just adopt a larger countires majior news for thier own outlets like in japan you got three channels in japanese and one in english at least when i lived there,
i also have noticed most countries ussually have news channels and or papers in thier own language and not much to offer in any tounge forgien to thier own , which is quite natural
the news sources available to americans are actually pretty broad, i can get information in a very wide variety of languages and from a wide variety of countries, especially on sattelite dish, not to mention the internet,, and if i could read arabic or russian i am sure i could find publications if i wanted too from those areas, you just have to look for them because they are not right up in your face like cnn or fox
main stream media in every country has a tendency to cater to thier audience,, i dont go to japan expecting to see stories on the usa all the time etc,
though i do agree with claire in that i think the majority of americans dont pay attention to any news other than what the big mainstream media scources are presenting them,
which is ussually the case in everycountires population to some degree which may indeed be changeing as populations become more cosmopolitain and people expand thier intrests outside thier own boarders more often
which brings us to eurocentric thinking and how america has adopted this tendency by proxy as scions of their european forefathers,
hows that for a possible thread drift?
I promised myself I wouldn't post but I won't let this stand. Reading back over the thread it becomes VERY obvious where the Hitler reference was aimed.
If you think its obvious, then you must see the reasoning behind it; you do repeat your claims quite a bit. I don't understand why the correlation seems to concern you so much. The fact that Hitler was repetitious has nothing to do with why he is vilified.Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
I'm a non-smoking white male vegetarian of north European extraction; so was Hitler. Ergo, it is perfectly accurate to say that I have an awful lot in common with Hitler! Despite that, I am not a genocidal fascist.
I don't understand this either. I think I've been pretty civil; further, I'm not making esoteric claims, but rather asking concrete, refutable questions. I do appreciate that you won't answer them though, and I respect your choice. For what it's worth, I am sorry that I've offended you, it was never my intention.Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
pauses on my way out to whipe the mud off my legs
i am sorry if you feel like it was aimed at you John,, mabey you identify with it too much for some reason idk (i have heard of stranger fetishes)but it wasnt directed at any one individual just because it was the intro to the post i made with it or that that post came in line right after your own, doesnt mean it was a respomse to something specific you or anyone else said, and you have of course reineforced the observation i made in the pervious post, so thanks for jumping on it and asssuming again, it simply goes to prove the points i made about knee jerk human responses
wouldnt you rather discuss the issues instead of focusing on personal aminosity?
or should the thread drift to a disscussion on mud slinging?
which is an interesting political tradition started back in the early days of the U.S. congress, the captial building in those days had wooden stairs underwhich the oposition party would hide and sling mud on to the backs of the other sides legs after they adjourned from a successful vote
How sad it is that we've fallen so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
On a related note, I read a hilarious anecdote the other day... Zimbabwe is now 28 years old, and is indeed having some problems. When the United States was 28 years old, the vice president challenged the secretary of the treasury to a duel, and blew him away.
LOL. Excellent point Virulent.
I do believe that Mr Burr went on to attempt the formation of a seperate country in the west after a debachle over the election of Jefferson over him for President.
Well one might say appointment as the actual vote was so close congress had to choose one cantidate over the other.
Not the first time an election was controvesial.
I have said too much about water boarding in another thread.
I will say this about journalists though, they are sophists by any other name.
Again I find it necessary to respond. I have answered eveything you have asked. I explained why the BBC and NPR are two good news sources. You not accepting those answers is not the question. So your assumption is wrong IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virulent
And if I repeat myself it is because what I have said has been misinterpreted and misrepresented because of the prejudices of the posters. I have written THIS before. I DO have strong opinions and I don't like repeating myself. But if I am misrepresented I will answer that charge even if it means repeating myself.
dejavu is a sign that they have altered somthing with the matrix
One, in particular you did not answer that I was wondering how you explained is below; I think this came after you started giving me the silent treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
I beg to differ, Anyone over the Age of 35, that is a Natural Citizen of The United States, by that it simply means any person Born in the United States and is born as a citizen and not Naturalized, can run for President which is 1 reason the Gov Of California could never run unlress the Constitution was changed , it is the American Electorae through Primaries that ultimately Decide which 2, 3 or 4 Perosn's actualy run in the gneral election, the Politcal Parties are simply an affiliation and do not dictate who runs in for thier Party, The Republican had countless Candidates which dwindeled down to a few as the Primary season continued, The Democrats the same scenrio, Neither Party dictated who would run, who could run or who could not run, this was decided by the Individuals and the Americna People utlimately decided who they wanted to run in each Party, so the Field of Contenders is based on who wants to Run andwho the American People decide to vote for, Neither the Repulican or Democratic Party make this decison til after the Coventions when the "Nonine In Waiting" is made offical, also if they can get enough support we have had many election with a Third Party Candidate not dictated by either Major PartyQuote:
Originally Posted by Virulent
but you offer great comments
The Main Problem with WAterboarding is even if those subjected to it say things how is anyone to know what they say is true and they aren't just saying it to save thir own lives??
While everyone here is entitled to express their opinions within the guidelines of this forum no one is, or should ever feel, obliged to respond to questions put them directly.
Anyone not wishing to respond to questions put to them, directly, should be respected and not goaded into responding.
I think portions of this thread have gone way past thread drift, so let's move back to the original topic, please.
thank you
Great clip and essay. I heard about this a week ago and have watched it at VF's website a few times. It's especially valid that Hitchens is the one doing the demonstration because no one could suspect him of wishing to exonerate the prisoners at Gitmo who have to face that method. "If this isn't torture, then nothing is" - damn right.
Absolutely! John56, if you thought I was attempting to pressure you to respond to my question above, I apologize for that misconception. By no means would I want to compel you to do anything. I was just pointing out that you hadn't, since you noted that you had answered all of my questions, in case you wanted to answer that one, for your own purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Bragi
LOL, I guess the goading never stops. And I never posted anything about your goading me, the quote you referenced was from Alex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virulent
I didn't answer every single posting of yours because you have your opinion and you are not going to change it so really, why continue to argue.
Oh look, I have to repeat myself again, I am liable to hear about THAT again I guess, Oh my, whatever will I do.
I DID answer your questions, saying that the BBC and NPR are too of the BEST not the perfect News entities. And the single incident you expressed happened because of the same problem that has hobbled CORPORATE news entities in this country.
Politics was allowed to grasp control of the Media outlets and use its influence. Same thing has happened here, Respected and objective News Anchor Dan Rather was ousted as scapegoat by a COrporately owned media outlet. Why, because of a political party influencing a story.
Happens a lot in little dictatorships around the world. But letting it happen in countries like the U.K and THe U.S. is scary.
But it DOES NOT change the fact that the BBC attempts to stand fast against those forces attempting to change it. Is it PERFECT, Not at all, but it still works. Or do you think we should throw out anything that is not perfect and doesn't make mistakes?
(That was rhetorical, I don't need an answer. :-) )
Now, just to let you know will be the last question I answer about this. Just so there won't be any misunderstandings.
lol, dan rather screwed up on national tv and it wasnt the first time of course he wasnt president at the time and able to squirm out of it like a certian former gov from arkansas
frankly i was shocked anything happened at all,
he needed to retire years ago,, but really who's fault was it that he didnt get his scources checked? i mean a big tv station like that one yu would think they have a whole staff to check scources, of course the push to get anything remotely controvesial out for the rateings ussually outwieghs most facts now days especially
with television
as for the waterboarding, we filled up a whole threads worth of posts on it in the is waterboarding torture thread, i am against and allways will be period, and so is my husband too, the usa should not condone torture of any kind and as my owner said in a previous post on the other thread, the survival instructors (which he was one) when teaching resistence techniques to our piolts dont mince words when they talk about waterboarding they call it what it is, ....torture
Dan Rather was scapegoated by the network. He was a good reporter. And if he "needed" to retire, what does that say about John McCain. It may be your opinion that he should have retired, but many who believed in honest journalism did not.
The facts were correct, the documents MAY have been falsified, but the facts of Bush's "service" were well known by those he served under and with.
And Mr. Rather has NOT retired he is still a respected TV journalist, he just went to a different network. But he WAS scapegoated. And the facts were irrefutable, might do a little a research. Research is always a good thing to do on any story one hears. So very easy to get your facts wrong.
oooo a conspirisy
smh lol, muhahahahaha
but really what has this or that got to do with toutrue and waterboarding (you know the threads topic)
or is it tourture to type so much back and forth
a little berevity to lighten things up it was like three card monty with no money card in here,,,
unless the point is to express by thread drift some kind of corolation between the governmemts propencity to try and dominate the media into doing its will /to the fact that we even know this trajic stuff involving waterboarding and other tourtures has occured/ to the media mabey having gainned ground in the struggle recently vs the gov. for our first amendment rights, which is a bipartisan effort on both sides and alltough may also be political in its nature (the struggle) doesnt change the fact that they are still torturing people
Thread drift is a metaphor for government disinformation? So would this then be Driftgate? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
A little levity now for the obfuscation. Make a unsupportable statement and then call foul because the response to the off-topic unsupportable statement was not on topic.
Brilliant three card monte play.
The US prosecuted their soldiers and officers during Vietnam for waterboarding their prisoners. Why was it outlawed then and a good tactic now?
I agree with youQuote:
Originally Posted by Logic1
At the current time, there appears to be 2 sets of Rules and Regulations, International Laws and The Geneva Convention,, then we have the Bush Laws which apparently allows ANYTHING regardlss of the previous 2
My best assumption is that now, our current leaders set their own rules and regulations, with no regard to Laws or the Geneva Covention, it seems to me no matter what they do, it is ALWAYS done as they put it, in the "Interest Of National Security"
Not sure if this is relevent to this or not, but even Carl Rove House again, refused to Testify by Subpoena before Congress, Bush said he refeses to let Rove testify citing executive Privledge "In The Intrest Of National Security"
It will be intersting to see if Congress holds Rove in contempt or not or if the White House again, invokes uses it's "Executive Privledge" to get around this, keeping in mind now that Rove is not even an employee of the Goverment anymore or the White House in any event
But this is just my opinion
Also, if I am not mistaken, Bush has invoked "Excective Privledge" or "In The Interest Of National Security" to skirt issues, more then any other Presdient in US History,ect please correct me if I am wrong on this
You might be right there mkemse.
Though its possible he is a close second to Jefferson and mabey even Wilson in that department. Those two went outside the letter of the law every chance they got. It was called implied powers back then, of course with out Jeffersons many improprietes, the Surpreme Court's function to determine Constitutionality wouldn't exist.
Speaking of which the courts are allready getting into Bush's little indescritions conserning constitutional law and implied powers so we may see some more landmark decissions soon.
One thing that never changes:
I haven't heard a single well supported or reaserched statement from the co called experts of obsfucation (the journalists) since they came on the scene.
Thier idea of reaserch is to spout out thier prefered party's dogma like so much gibberish and then act offended if anyone says anything to the contrary dems and republicans alike.
They keep resonding like a yo yo, reactionist and lacking any real vision or understanding, one retort after another.
Look at one of the most famous journalists: William Randolph Herst
Herst told his reporters to give him a story any story weather true or not and he would make the war with cuba happen. Sad thing was he did he set the bar high for his posterity in weaving crapola to the poor ignorant massess.
Just goes to show that sophism is alive and well today, with every thing every journalist ever does.
Thier attempts to control the massess know no boundaries. If they can't win one way they resort to any means they can find. Especially character deformation, they specialize in that one, it's thier favorite.
Lucky us though if we ever have another revolution they will be the first to the fireing squads , just like the lawyers.
The other issue also is that when ask about Waterboarding or anything else "illegal" in context, if Bush does not use "Executive Pridlege" to skirt the issue he will say he can't discuss in the Name of National Security, it is or seems with his to almost always be 1 or the other, as i mentioned above, right now wehave 3 sets of Laws, The Constitution, The Geneva Convention and what ever Bush feels suits him bestQuote:
Originally Posted by Kuskovian