Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Rand Paul tells the GOP crowd that the force must be strong in order to reject Darth Cheney's use of "torture" and his defending of it   (motherjones.com) divider line 212
    More: Interesting, Sen. Rand Paul, Liz Cheney, GOP, humans, Bush administration, torture, harsh interrogations, Andrew Napolitano  
•       •       •

1103 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Apr 2014 at 10:04 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



212 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-10 08:08:32 AM  
it's weird that the guy who literally thinks police in america should use drones to kill liquor store robbers actually acknowledges that waterboarding is torture
 
2014-04-10 08:12:56 AM  

Jackson Herring: it's weird that the guy who literally thinks police in america should use drones to kill liquor store robbers actually acknowledges that waterboarding is torture


Baby steps.
 
2014-04-10 08:19:54 AM  
Let it be know that at 7:10am this morning that Rand Paul's stopped clock showed the correct time.

/Couldn't agree with him more on this one singular issue.
 
2014-04-10 08:22:37 AM  
I'm sure Cheney is heartbroken. So he'll need a third one.
 
2014-04-10 08:24:07 AM  
this is how clownishly evil conservative torture apologists are

a man who thinks liquor store robbers in america should be executed by drone with no due process thinks you are going too far
 
2014-04-10 08:38:01 AM  

stpauler: / Couldn't agree with him more on this one singular issue.


Both Paul's have this problem - if you catch them at just the right moment, they sound inspired. And seven seconds later they are back to being bat-shiat insaine.
 
2014-04-10 08:48:25 AM  

Jackson Herring: this is how clownishly evil conservative torture apologists are

a man who thinks liquor store robbers in america should be executed by drone with no due process thinks you are going too far


Pretty damn much.

What's worse: the chicanery that was involved in setting up Gitmo and the "enemy combatant" tripe has effectively tied our hands in ever getting these folks free. For all the handwringing and fingerpointing that Obama hasn't just opened the doors, folks seem to forget that he can't, because of the actions of the last Administration. And for the same reasons that the last Administration realized that it had its own tar baby once they got their new toy.

Cheney should have been brought up as a war criminal, and damn those who supported his bullsh*t, and damn us all for letting him do it in the first place.
 
2014-04-10 09:07:16 AM  

vartian: stpauler: / Couldn't agree with him more on this one singular issue.

Both Paul's have this problem - if you catch them at just the right moment, they sound inspired. And seven seconds later they are back to being bat-shiat insaine.


It's like looking at a pointillist painting.  Look real close and that point looks good.  Draw back and look at the larger picture and it ain't pretty.  And in Paul's case probably rather chaotic.

I will grant him this point, though.
 
2014-04-10 09:42:02 AM  
If you had to pick ONE issue that makes me hate the GOP and the right-wing, it's how they decided to go and defend torture.
 
2014-04-10 09:45:46 AM  
Paul, though, noted that he was not in favor of prosecuting Bush or former vice president Dick Cheney

"Sure, they've committed crimes against humanity, but I think giving them the cold shoulder should be punishment enough."

F*ck you, Rand Paul. These assholes deserve to be in prison for the rest of their lives.
 
2014-04-10 09:49:34 AM  

impaler: If you had to pick ONE issue that makes me hate the GOP and the right-wing, it's how they decided to go and defend torture.


Even as a military man, the GOP presidential field in 2008 just completely lost me with their collective torture pep rally.  John McCain was the lone voice among all those yuk-a-f*cks to remind the room "hey I thought we were supposed to be the good guys?  Any of you people been tortured before?  I'd raise my hand but, you know, the torture and all that."

hubiestubert: What's worse: the chicanery that was involved in setting up Gitmo and the "enemy combatant" tripe has effectively tied our hands in ever getting these folks free. For all the handwringing and fingerpointing that Obama hasn't just opened the doors, folks seem to forget that he can't, because of the actions of the last Administration. And for the same reasons that the last Administration realized that it had its own tar baby once they got their new toy.


Our prison in Gitmo is exactly the definition of a tar baby.  Nobody wants these guys back, nobody wants them imprisoned in a regulated prison on US soil, and our evidence is so thin, coerced, or non-existent against them that we can't tell the masterminds from the innocent that got f*cked over for a bribe.
 
2014-04-10 09:54:14 AM  
I love how he says we shouldn't have prosecuted them for the same reasons we didn't prosecute Nixon.

These guys were Nixon's cabinet - if we had prosecuted Nixon we wouldn't have had these disgusting people a second time. Cheney's life shames everyone.
 
2014-04-10 10:08:50 AM  

hubiestubert: What's worse: the chicanery that was involved in setting up Gitmo and the "enemy combatant" tripe has effectively tied our hands in ever getting these folks free.


were the 9/11 aumf repealed, there would be no grounds to hold them
 
2014-04-10 10:13:14 AM  
RAND PAUL isn't against torture.  He just doesn't think the Federal government should be allowed to torture people.  States and private businesses should legally be able to torture all they want.
 
2014-04-10 10:13:15 AM  
R.I.N.O!!!! HE'S A COMMIE LIBERAL LOVING R.I.N.O.!!!!
 
2014-04-10 10:15:00 AM  

impaler: If you had to pick ONE issue that makes me hate the GOP and the right-wing, it's how they decided to go and defend torture.


100% this.
 
2014-04-10 10:22:00 AM  
I think if there were some way to bar the Republican base from voting, there are rational human beings within the GOP that could have productive input on the future of the country. Unfortunately since those voters are in charge of the party, we end up in situations like this, where somebody has to backtrack or denounce something which should be a given, like "We are the United States and we don't farking torture people."
 
2014-04-10 10:24:51 AM  

sprawl15: hubiestubert: What's worse: the chicanery that was involved in setting up Gitmo and the "enemy combatant" tripe has effectively tied our hands in ever getting these folks free.

were the 9/11 aumf repealed, there would be no grounds to hold them


If grounds were necessary, many of them wouldn't be present.  As it is, we've made enemies of even the innocent of the bunch.  There is nothing good about the situation, and I lay this at the feet of Cheney and company.

We shouldn't have let them get away with it, but that doesn't absolve them of blame for doing it in the first place.
 
2014-04-10 10:26:50 AM  

palelizard: If grounds were necessary, many of them wouldn't be present.


you are aware of the difference between the military detaining an individual under war powers and police charging and arresting an individual for a crime, right?
 
2014-04-10 10:27:42 AM  

Tigger: if we had prosecuted Nixon we wouldn't have had these disgusting people a second time.


And THAT's why RANDPAUL is a moron. Forgetting the past...something something repeat it.

Not prosecuting from Bush/Cheney on down to the PFCs who actually poured the water means another crew will use some shiatty-ass justification (a bit like flag-tassels, ain't it? "Oh no, these guys aren't 'prisoners of war', they're 'enemy combatants', so don't you worry about any Ge***** Conven*****") to ignore them, leading other yahoos (RANDPAUL's ideological descendants) to cover for THEM, and the cycle goes on.

The whole point of laws is that we enforce them. If we stop enforcing them, what the fark's the point?

// maybe we should send W and Cheney on a beer run, then hand RAND the keys to a drone room for 15min...
 
2014-04-10 10:29:14 AM  
Liz's senate run should indicate which way the wind is blowing as far as pro-torture hawks are concerned.
 
2014-04-10 10:34:13 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Liz's senate run should indicate which way the wind is blowing as far as pro-torture hawks are concerned.


I don't think torture was the thing that killed that sick dog.
 
2014-04-10 10:40:41 AM  
You're going to see a lot more of this sort of thing.

Until fairly recently, the libertarian wing of the GOP and the neocon wing have made common cause against the social conservative wing. But with the electoral draw of social issues in decline* at least at a national level, the cracks between the libertarians and neocons are free to open up.


*Yes, I know it may not look like it sometimes, especially at local levels, but opposing gay marriage is already a lost cause, marijuana legalization is coming, and in general social conservatism is no longer tenable as a national strategy.
 
2014-04-10 10:42:31 AM  

Diogenes: HotWingConspiracy: Liz's senate run should indicate which way the wind is blowing as far as pro-torture hawks are concerned.

I don't think torture was the thing that killed that sick dog.


Well at the very least her touting her pro-torture bonafides had no discernible impact.
 
2014-04-10 10:43:36 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: RAND PAUL isn't against torture.  He just doesn't think the Federal government should be allowed to torture people.  States and private businesses should legally be able to torture all they want.


Well obviously, otherwise how could explain why department stores get away with the "music" they play all the time?
 
2014-04-10 10:44:11 AM  
If I'm reading the article right, it's an "old news is so exciting" thing, as all the Rand Paul quotes seem to be from 2009.
 
2014-04-10 10:44:21 AM  

impaler: If you had to pick ONE issue that makes me hate the GOP and the right-wing, it's how they decided to go and defend torture.


except wide swaths of the democrats also either endorsed, tacitly approved, or failed to act which makes them guilty too. In fact Rand and Ron Paul were nearly the only 2 who consistently, persistently, and vocally opposed it beginning to end.  Only a handful of Democrats came close to that.
 
2014-04-10 10:44:52 AM  

Jackson Herring: this is how clownishly evil conservative torture apologists are

a man who thinks liquor store robbers in america should be executed by drone with no due process thinks you are going too far


I've re-read that statement and I'm not entirely convinced he's down for using drones on suspects, mostly that he's retarded in that he does not understand just when police are allowed to use lethal force against suspects (it's not to stop them from getting away). Granted a minor distinction and he's still dumb as the day is long and no one is incorrect in assuming the worst given this is Rand Paul we're talking about here.
 
2014-04-10 10:46:32 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Diogenes: HotWingConspiracy: Liz's senate run should indicate which way the wind is blowing as far as pro-torture hawks are concerned.

I don't think torture was the thing that killed that sick dog.

Well at the very least her touting her pro-torture bonafides had no discernible impact.


I think torture was just one of the ingredients in the miasma of suck she had to offer.
 
2014-04-10 10:47:32 AM  

sprawl15: you are aware of the difference between the military detaining an individual under war powers and police charging and arresting an individual for a crime, right?


I am.  But plenty of the detainees are there based on flimsy info, bribery, or just running afoul of their neighbors. And after this time, even without the authorization for military force, I don't think we'd release them--or we likely would have already.
 
2014-04-10 10:54:34 AM  

hubiestubert: What's worse: the chicanery that was involved in setting up Gitmo and the "enemy combatant" tripe has effectively tied our hands in ever getting these folks free. For all the handwringing and fingerpointing that Obama hasn't just opened the doors, folks seem to forget that he can't, because of the actions of the last Administration.


Bullshiat.  Obama absolutely can release everybody from Gitmo without Congressional approval.  The power of a president to pardon (or reduce the sentence without a formal pardon, which is what I would recommend) is absolute according to the constitution, subject to no review by the courts or Congress or anybody else.

Now, this means that we have a couple hundred non-so-nice folks roaming the streets of America, but that's what happens when you torture people and hold them without trial for a decade or more.  If you arrest a serial killer or child molester, but have no evidence that could be used in court he actually did the crime, you let them go.  Same goes with terrorists.  I don't care if Gitmo doesn't violate the letter of the constitution, it certainly violates the spirit of it.

Of course, this action would probably be significantly unpopular, hurting the Democrats electorally, and might result in terroristic acts by those released (the two reasons I'm sure Obama hasn't done it).  But it's the right thing to do, constitutionally, morally, and the overall right thing for the country in the long term.
 
2014-04-10 10:58:50 AM  

palelizard: But plenty of the detainees are there based on flimsy info, bribery, or just running afoul of their neighbors.


they are all there under war powers. they are detained under the idea that if they are released they will return to the fight. that some of them may be charged by civilian or military courts has little to do with it

revoke the war powers, it removes all justification to hold anyone who is not explicitly charged, and such charges will have to meet all timely trial requirements. detaining them otherwise becomes explicitly at odds with international - and constitutional - law
 
2014-04-10 10:59:48 AM  

impaler: If you had to pick ONE issue that makes me hate the GOP and the right-wing, it's how they decided to go and defend torture.


Meh, once they did it they had to defend it. You should be more worried that on 9/12 the American people called for blood and torture was just the panacea. The Bush administration never asked was torture effective, no they just said why wouldn't we torture.

Then their media conspirators put on that farking torture porn abomination that is the show called 24, and my fellow citizens ate that shiat up.
 
2014-04-10 11:01:39 AM  

factoryconnection: Even as a military man, the GOP presidential field in 2008 just completely lost me with their collective torture pep rally.  John McCain was the lone voice among all those yuk-a-f*cks to remind the room "hey I thought we were supposed to be the good guys?  Any of you people been tortured before?  I'd raise my hand but, you know, the torture and all that."


The cherry on top was that John McCain is an asshole.
 
2014-04-10 11:02:22 AM  

Geotpf: hubiestubert: What's worse: the chicanery that was involved in setting up Gitmo and the "enemy combatant" tripe has effectively tied our hands in ever getting these folks free. For all the handwringing and fingerpointing that Obama hasn't just opened the doors, folks seem to forget that he can't, because of the actions of the last Administration.

Bullshiat.  Obama absolutely can release everybody from Gitmo without Congressional approval.  The power of a president to pardon (or reduce the sentence without a formal pardon, which is what I would recommend) is absolute according to the constitution, subject to no review by the courts or Congress or anybody else.


I'm not sure the power of pardon goes to those who have not been tried and convicted of any crime. He can order them released, certainly, but he has been specifically barred by Congress to spend any money whatsoever on transporting them anywhere, in the US or otherwise. So no, he really doesn't have the authority to set them free.
 
2014-04-10 11:03:39 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Liz's senate run should indicate which way the wind is blowing as far as pro-torture hawks are concerned.


Liz dropped out of the race, I am sure she is still pro-torture, pro-daddy
 
2014-04-10 11:04:00 AM  

Geotpf: (the two reasons I'm sure Obama hasn't done it)


Allow me to enter into evidence Congress and state governors.
 
2014-04-10 11:04:47 AM  

nmrsnr: I'm not sure the power of pardon goes to those who have not been tried and convicted of any crime. He can order them released, certainly, but he has been specifically barred by Congress to spend any money whatsoever on transporting them anywhere, in the US or otherwise. So no, he really doesn't have the authority to set them free.


And this.
 
2014-04-10 11:06:38 AM  

vartian: stpauler: / Couldn't agree with him more on this one singular issue.

Both Paul's have this problem - if you catch them at just the right moment, they sound inspired. And seven seconds later they are back to being bat-shiat insaine.


Charlie Pierce at the Esquire Politics Blog has what he calls the five-minute theory: When Ron or Rand Paul speaks (or really, any other libertarian), they're capable of making sense for no more than five minutes before saying something so completely ridiculous that they lose all credibility.
 
2014-04-10 11:16:05 AM  
nmrsnr:I'm not sure the power of pardon goes to those who have not been tried and convicted of any crime.

It does.  And even then, if you want to argue that they aren't civilian prisoners, guess who the Commander-in-Chief of the military is?

He can order them released, certainly, but he has been specifically barred by Congress to spend any money whatsoever on transporting them anywhere, in the US or otherwise. So no, he really doesn't have the authority to set them free.

I'm sure someone would be willing to volunteer to come pick them up.
 
2014-04-10 11:18:17 AM  

nmrsnr: Geotpf: hubiestubert: What's worse: the chicanery that was involved in setting up Gitmo and the "enemy combatant" tripe has effectively tied our hands in ever getting these folks free. For all the handwringing and fingerpointing that Obama hasn't just opened the doors, folks seem to forget that he can't, because of the actions of the last Administration.

Bullshiat.  Obama absolutely can release everybody from Gitmo without Congressional approval.  The power of a president to pardon (or reduce the sentence without a formal pardon, which is what I would recommend) is absolute according to the constitution, subject to no review by the courts or Congress or anybody else.

I'm not sure the power of pardon goes to those who have not been tried and convicted of any crime. He can order them released, certainly, but he has been specifically barred by Congress to spend any money whatsoever on transporting them anywhere, in the US or otherwise. So no, he really doesn't have the authority to set them free.


Nixon was never charged with a crime, but was issued a blanket pardon by Ford.

Obama can not spend money on transferring Gitmo detainees to the United States proper.  However, once their sentences are commuted by Obama, they are no longer Gitmo detainees and such laws no longer apply.
 
2014-04-10 11:18:48 AM  

BMFPitt: It does.


us v wilson:
A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.
 
2014-04-10 11:20:35 AM  

NotoriousW.O.P: vartian: stpauler: / Couldn't agree with him more on this one singular issue.

Both Paul's have this problem - if you catch them at just the right moment, they sound inspired. And seven seconds later they are back to being bat-shiat insaine.

Charlie Pierce at the Esquire Politics Blog has what he calls the five-minute theory: When Ron or Rand Paul speaks (or really, any other libertarian), they're capable of making sense for no more than five minutes before saying something so completely ridiculous that they lose all credibility.


That guy is brilliant and funny.
 
2014-04-10 11:20:51 AM  

nmrsnr: I'm not sure the power of pardon goes to those who have not been tried and convicted of any crime. He can order them released, certainly, but he has been specifically barred by Congress to spend any money whatsoever on transporting them anywhere, in the US or otherwise. So no, he really doesn't have the authority to set them free.


I think they can be pardoned if they haven't been tried.  Ford pardoned Nixon.

We could just throw open the gates to Guantanamo and release them into Cuba.  That definitely would have no unintended consequences.
 
2014-04-10 11:22:03 AM  
"Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting information. It is ultimately self-defeating as a means of control, and so one wonders why it is still practiced. The only possible reason must be... pleasure." - Rand Paul
 
2014-04-10 11:22:32 AM  

sprawl15: BMFPitt: It does.

us v wilson:A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.


Let me repeat myself:

Nixon was never charged with a crime, but was issued a blanket pardon by Ford.
 
2014-04-10 11:23:30 AM  

palelizard: I think they can be pardoned if they haven't been tried. Ford pardoned Nixon.


and in those cases what happens is that any future convictions for which the person was pardoned have their sentences commuted. it's a pre-emptive pardon, not a "don't investigate that guy". that isn't allowed, as it'd allow the president to circumvent the laws themselves
 
2014-04-10 11:24:33 AM  

Geotpf: Let me repeat myself:

Nixon was never charged with a crime, but was issued a blanket pardon by Ford.


which is still as irrelevant as when you Boobiesed it
 
2014-04-10 11:25:35 AM  

sprawl15: and in those cases what happens is that any future convictions for which the person was pardoned have their sentences commuted. it's a pre-emptive pardon, not a "don't investigate that guy". that isn't allowed, as it'd allow the president to circumvent the laws themselves


What do you imagine the point of that statement is with regard to the topic at hand?
 
2014-04-10 11:26:02 AM  

Geotpf: Nixon was never charged with a crime, but was issued a blanket pardon by Ford.


Obtuse-o-meter hitting red line.
 
Displayed 50 of 212 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report