What would be ideal act of civil dis in NH?

[Luke S]

Oops again. I thought they were a Congressional department. Well then that raises a question. Everything else you've said about them aside, I remember Bush saying in one of his speeches, "War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say 'I was just following orders.'" Well we do know that the CIA was going around committing all those crimes in 1996, and they were very serious crimes, and I was talking to a couple people, and those people thought that some of those crimes might have been murders. So if they might have been murdering people all around the world, isn't that a war crime? Shouldn't it at least be further investigated? If the CIA is an executive agency, then Congress can't just step in there and stick up for them and try to protect them from punishment like they might be able to with congressional agencies. So that being said, shouldn't Bush push for them to be the first to be prosecuted and punished for what they did in 1996, since Bush was so adamant about prosecuting war crimes and punishing war criminals, and having it be no defense to say "I was just following orders".

Here's the problem, Luke. Congress is impotent. Ok, let's look at it this way. There's 535 of them, so no one single congressman can do that much. Look at Ron Paul. Then, even when they do get morally outraged, there's this group mentality, because they all have to be reelected and they don't want to say something offensive. So if someone says something, even if it's true, if it's offensive the others will shout him down. Remember a few years back when Abu Ghraib came out, and poor Dick Durbin got up and said something true:  "Well, golly gee, when I see these pictures it reminds me of Pol Pot's gulags. America shouldn't act like this." And who was it who shouted him down? Republicans, sure, but the loudest detractors were members of his own Democrat Party. Why? Because they are worried that even the appearance of agreeing with him would hurt their chances for reelection. So getting Congress to do anything more than a very muted investigation is not likely until the American people are outraged. Then Congressmen will be tripping over themselves to be Holier-than-thou.

As for Bush, do you seriously think that he means what he said? I mean, c'mon. Who was the WWII general who said, "I hope we win this war, cause if we don't we're going to be prosecuted for war crimes"? I can't remember, but one of them said it. The point being that war crimes are for losers. Literally. Bush never intended to investigate himself and his boys for war crimes. Those are standards we hold others to, not ourselves. Bush couldn't, anyway, because then he'd have to indict himself. There's enough evidence that he signed off on the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that would implicate himself. They're all in this together. He's not going to cut off his nose to spite his face. He scratches their backs, and they scratch his.

Yeah but Caleb, I wasn't talking about investigating the Iraq War. I was talking about investigating the 1996 and pre-1996 crimes that the CIA had committed as mentioned in that 1996 Congressional report. That report said that some of those agents could face execution in foreign countries for things that they did (although the report didn't mention the specific things that they did). But if the report said that they could face execution for what they did, then they might have committed murders all around the globe along with all the other "extremely serious crimes" that they committed all around the globe. My point is that Bush was adamant that war crimes must be prosecuted and war criminals must be punished in the Iraq War, and Bush seemed to think that war crimes are very terrible things that need to be prosecuted, so wouldn't it make sense that Bush would want to take a look at that 1996 report, and do further investigation for the purpose of finding out whether these 1996 and pre-1996 crimes committed by the CIA included murders? Because if they did include murders, then going around the globe killing people for no good reason is a war crime in a lot of people's books, including mine.

Now before I kinda automatically thought that Bush did want to do this investigation, and that the reason why he wasn't doing this investigation was that the CIA was a congressional agency, so if he did try to do that investigation, then Congress would kick up a big stink and protect its own, and then nothing good would end up coming from it. But now I just found out that the CIA is an executive agency, not a congressional agency, so obviously that doesn't apply. So my question is why is there no investigation into these 1996 and pre-1996 crimes committed by the CIA taking place, since Bush seemed so adamant about prosecuting war crimes and punishing war criminals???

The only thing I can think of is that Bush is totally oblivious to the 1996 report and doesn't even know about it. Maybe if Bush knew about it, he'd do something about it. Maybe somebody should tell him about it. But wait, if the CIA is an executive agency, then shouldn't Bush automatically know about the stuff that went on in the CIA? Or maybe they hid what they did from Bush? I'm very confused.

[Caleb]

Luke, the CIA doesn't do these things just because. They commit these crimes because they are engaging in covert ops, designed to ensure that the government of each nation is Washington-approved. And none of this stopped in 1986. This has been going on since the end of world war II, when the OSS (which was the predecessor to the CIA) was smuggling NAZI war criminals like Klaus Barbie out of Germany and putting them to work for the CIA in Central and South America. It continues to this day. Don't for a moment think that just because something isn't on the CBS evening news that it isn't happening. The CIA continues to be doing its support work in keeping foreign regimes "friendly" to the US, often in the face of strong opposition by the local populace. Every presidential administration approves of this action because it supports the goals of the US State, which is to control resources and achieve what the Pentagon calls "full spectrum dominance" to ensure American hegemony. So Bush isn't going to challenge the CIA or hold it to account, nor will any other President for that matter, because the CIA is doing the dirty work in a mostly quiet fashion that he could never convince the American people or Congress to do openly.

[Caleb]

The only thing I can think of is that Bush is totally oblivious to the 1996 report and doesn't even know about it. Maybe if Bush knew about it, he'd do something about it. Maybe somebody should tell him about it. But wait, if the CIA is an executive agency, then shouldn't Bush automatically know about the stuff that went on in the CIA? Or maybe they hid what they did from Bush? I'm very confused.

The President receives a daily intelligence briefing. He is not kept in the dark regarding the activities of the Intelligence Agencies. Actually, all past presidents are also privy to the intelligence briefings. I think Carter tries to stay in the loop, as does Bush Sr. I hear that Clinton doesn't care anymore, so he doesn't receive them.

[Free libertarian]

 Luke there is nothing noble about killing innocent people regardless of the color of their skin or their nationality or their religion. The United States foreign policy of being world police has led to many people dying, millions over the years I'd bet.  "Defending America" is not the same as policing the world.  I have a son about your age, he's a marine, I fear for his life. War is not a game or just a topic for argument to me. It's very real and frightening to think under the guise of phony Patriotism we send our sons to die.  I wish he were not in the active military, which is I think by definition unconstitutional, perhaps somebody can elaborate there as I'm not 100% sure of the "rules" for maintaining a standing army these days.
 If our country were really invaded or occupied I believe I would defend myself and others. I believe if WE (the US) invade another country those people will behave the same way and defend themselves. So to call somebody an insurgent in their own country while we are the foreign occupiers is an interesting word twist and a bit Orwellian.  

Sure I like to jerk your chain about your freedom hypocrisy and hemp, but for you to fail to see that we are aggressors is amazing.  I am anti-war, but I am not "from the left".
I am not a chicken-chicken.  I raise chickens and eat them.  Call your adulation for Bush anything you want, but he's authorized murder, condones spying on us and is a pompous ass-ass.  He isn't protecting us from anything and has put the world farther from peace.  Ask a Viet Nam vet if they felt like they were defending this country, when we butted in over there. Most just wanted to come home, many did, in a flag draped casket.   Ask GW about Viet Nam ...oh wait a minute he was here doing drugs, and getting DWI's uh never mind. After all was said and done  what did our presence in Viet Nam accomplish Luke?
 
Read your history books, but don't burn the pages, most of the old books  were printed on hemp paper. Of course your version of "freedom" may encourage burning some books or censoring the media huh?  
Skip the parts about where American citizens of Japanese descent were incarcerated during WWII for the crime of being Asian though okay?  Yup we "freed" the world, but put slanty eyed Japs in jail right here while we were freeing the world...contradiction Luke?

If you grew up in the US you've probably lead a very insulated life, war is hell and to glorify it or justify it by saying we were attacked is a ploy. The Germans used it during WWII to fool their population, the Neocons used it recently. You bought it just like generations before you did.  Dropping bombs on innocent people and calling their deaths "collateral damage" is a form of terrorism don't you think?  How about the KURDS? Are they bad guys now Luke? We were their buddies just a while ago, now so we can keep Turkey happy we let them bomb the Kurds...must be good to be the world police and get to decide who lives and dies huh? So we fucked them over, oh well onto the next pawns.  

Why do we spend so much on "defense" relative to the rest of the world? Have you ever researched who profits from war? You might check out GW's ancestor's, war was very good to them, they profited from arms deals.  Do you find it just a little curious...Dick Cheney...Haliburton? Unnaccouted spending, no bid contracts? Why aren't you and Mitt Romney's boys over there defending old red eyed chickens like me Luke? You guys think we should be there, so how come you don't get your butt down to a recruiter?
Because you're afraid or because you know we aren't in any danger of being attacked by a foreign country? Don't give me that BS about finishing college either...your country needs you Luke! Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country! Do you suppose JFK had just smoked a big fatty and was lounging around with one of his many girlfriends enjoying an after glow when he thought that one up? Jeez Luke how do you explain a DEMOCRAT having the balls to kick the Russian's out of this hemisphere during the Cuban missile crisis? How come that left leaning President didn't play his appointed role in Luke's world and cave in?  Aren't all Democrats (except for Hillary) anti -war and all Republicans hawk-hawks?  Come to think of it Roosevelt was Prez during WWII, Truman during Korea and Johnson during Viet Nam. All Democrats...jeez Luke what would Bill O'Reilly say about that?
I thought only Republicans were allowed to be hawk-hawks? What gives?  This kind of stuff reminds me of the end of the book Animal Farm when you can't tell the difference between the Pigs and the humans. Repulicans? Democrats? Sometimes it's hard to know who's who?

 Since this thread was originally about civil disobedience, here's something you ought to consider, question authority. Have you registered for the selective service (draft) Luke? Send them a letter saying you're pro-freedom and you've changed your mind, that when we see the Chinese navy is in the harbor you'll think about it but until then you'd prefer not to get involved in policing the world on foreign soil, you have  degree to obtain.
 You're free to do that aren't you, I mean this IS a free country right?  

   

[FTL_Ian]

How many hours have been spent on this troll?

Can he just be banned?  If not, perhaps there could be a "Troll Zone" forum wherein the trolls, once identified, can not venture outside and commence hijacking of threads.

[Luke S]

How many hours have been spent on this troll?

Can he just be banned?  If not, perhaps there could be a "Troll Zone" forum wherein the trolls, once identified, can not venture outside and commence hijacking of threads.

Ian would you make up your mind?? First I'm a troll, then I'm not a troll, now I'm a troll again?

And second of all, I didn't hijack the thread. Tom Sawyer started bugging me about stuff I said on other threads, and that's how it got off topic. Because of Tom Sawyer. Not because of me.

[Luke S]

Luke there is nothing noble about killing innocent people regardless of the color of their skin or their nationality or their religion. The United States foreign policy of being world police has led to many people dying, millions over the years I'd bet.  "Defending America" is not the same as policing the world.  I have a son about your age, he's a marine, I fear for his life. War is not a game or just a topic for argument to me. It's very real and frightening to think under the guise of phony Patriotism we send our sons to die.  I wish he were not in the active military, which is I think by definition unconstitutional, perhaps somebody can elaborate there as I'm not 100% sure of the "rules" for maintaining a standing army these days.
  If our country were really invaded or occupied I believe I would defend myself and others. I believe if WE (the US) invade another country those people will behave the same way and defend themselves. So to call somebody an insurgent in their own country while we are the foreign occupiers is an interesting word twist and a bit Orwellian. 

Sure I like to jerk your chain about your freedom hypocrisy and hemp, but for you to fail to see that we are aggressors is amazing.  I am anti-war, but I am not "from the left".
I am not a chicken-chicken.  I raise chickens and eat them.  Call your adulation for Bush anything you want, but he's authorized murder, condones spying on us and is a pompous ass-ass.  He isn't protecting us from anything and has put the world farther from peace.  Ask a Viet Nam vet if they felt like they were defending this country, when we butted in over there. Most just wanted to come home, many did, in a flag draped casket.   Ask GW about Viet Nam ...oh wait a minute he was here doing drugs, and getting DWI's uh never mind. After all was said and done  what did our presence in Viet Nam accomplish Luke?
   
Read your history books, but don't burn the pages, most of the old books  were printed on hemp paper. Of course your version of "freedom" may encourage burning some books or censoring the media huh? 
Skip the parts about where American citizens of Japanese descent were incarcerated during WWII for the crime of being Asian though okay?  Yup we "freed" the world, but put slanty eyed Japs in jail right here while we were freeing the world...contradiction Luke?

If you grew up in the US you've probably lead a very insulated life, war is hell and to glorify it or justify it by saying we were attacked is a ploy. The Germans used it during WWII to fool their population, the Neocons used it recently. You bought it just like generations before you did.  Dropping bombs on innocent people and calling their deaths "collateral damage" is a form of terrorism don't you think?  How about the KURDS? Are they bad guys now Luke? We were their buddies just a while ago, now so we can keep Turkey happy we let them bomb the Kurds...must be good to be the world police and get to decide who lives and dies huh? So we fucked them over, oh well onto the next pawns.   

Why do we spend so much on "defense" relative to the rest of the world? Have you ever researched who profits from war? You might check out GW's ancestor's, war was very good to them, they profited from arms deals.  Do you find it just a little curious...Dick Cheney...Haliburton? Unnaccouted spending, no bid contracts? Why aren't you and Mitt Romney's boys over there defending old red eyed chickens like me Luke? You guys think we should be there, so how come you don't get your butt down to a recruiter?
Because you're afraid or because you know we aren't in any danger of being attacked by a foreign country? Don't give me that BS about finishing college either...your country needs you Luke! Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country! Do you suppose JFK had just smoked a big fatty and was lounging around with one of his many girlfriends enjoying an after glow when he thought that one up? Jeez Luke how do you explain a DEMOCRAT having the balls to kick the Russian's out of this hemisphere during the Cuban missile crisis? How come that left leaning President didn't play his appointed role in Luke's world and cave in?  Aren't all Democrats (except for Hillary) anti -war and all Republicans hawk-hawks?  Come to think of it Roosevelt was Prez during WWII, Truman during Korea and Johnson during Viet Nam. All Democrats...jeez Luke what would Bill O'Reilly say about that?
I thought only Republicans were allowed to be hawk-hawks? What gives?  This kind of stuff reminds me of the end of the book Animal Farm when you can't tell the difference between the Pigs and the humans. Repulicans? Democrats? Sometimes it's hard to know who's who?

  Since this thread was originally about civil disobedience, here's something you ought to consider, question authority. Have you registered for the selective service (draft) Luke? Send them a letter saying you're pro-freedom and you've changed your mind, that when we see the Chinese navy is in the harbor you'll think about it but until then you'd prefer not to get involved in policing the world on foreign soil, you have  degree to obtain.
  You're free to do that aren't you, I mean this IS a free country right?   

I don't get it, first you're telling me to go over and fight in Iraq, and then you're telling me to do "civil disobedience" and deregister from Selective Service (if that's even possible) and tell them I won't fight? That doesn't make any sense.

Free Libertarian, the object of the war is to stop Al Qaeda. And if I had any say about it, there would be another objective added on to the war, too, called "Stop the Mexican Military from Invading the Southwest". So if you or any of your other libertarian friends have a better idea for stopping Al Qaeda than Bush's war plan, I'd honestly like to hear it. And if you and your libertarian friends have a good idea for stopping the Mexican Military then I'd like to hear that, too.

Oh, and that's a liberal, leftist lie that Dick Cheney is a war profiteer. He isn't a war profiteer. He is an absolutely outstanding vice president, and I wish he could be McCain's vice president too when McCain gets into office. Now what liberals do is they point to the fact that Halliburton is getting contracts in Iraq, and Dick Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton. Well them and you calling him a war profiteer doesn't make any sense now, does it, as he was the former CEO. Former, Free Libertarian, former. Not current. Former. That means he isn't getting the money. The new guy who is now the CEO is getting the money.

Oh, and don't even try to give me that "Oh, if you don't like democrats, then you can't like JFK and FDR" line. You are much older than me, so you know full well that things were different in the days of JFK and FDR. I think that JFK and FDR were outstanding presidents, although the way that FDR increased the size of the federal government really concerns me a lot, and it continues to haunt us in a lot of ways today.

Now I have to go to dinner, but I will be back.

Oh and Ian, I forgot to say that I didn't force anybody at all to "spend hours" on me. So please don't act like I did.

[Luke S]

Luke, the CIA doesn't do these things just because. They commit these crimes because they are engaging in covert ops, designed to ensure that the government of each nation is Washington-approved.

Of each nation? Of each nation? Do you mean of each nation out of a group of certain nations, or do you mean each and every nation?

And none of this stopped in 1986.

I think you meant 1996.

This has been going on since the end of world war II, when the OSS (which was the predecessor to the CIA) was smuggling NAZI war criminals like Klaus Barbie out of Germany and putting them to work for the CIA in Central and South America. It continues to this day. Don't for a moment think that just because something isn't on the CBS evening news that it isn't happening. The CIA continues to be doing its support work in keeping foreign regimes "friendly" to the US, often in the face of strong opposition by the local populace. Every presidential administration approves of this action because it supports the goals of the US State, which is to control resources and achieve what the Pentagon calls "full spectrum dominance" to ensure American hegemony. So Bush isn't going to challenge the CIA or hold it to account, nor will any other President for that matter, because the CIA is doing the dirty work in a mostly quiet fashion that he could never convince the American people or Congress to do openly.

Oh, so the CIA is doing this with Bush's knowledge, and Bush isn't doing anything about it because you say it's still going on and Bush is in on it. And Congress isn't doing anything about it because in short, they can't. And this has never, ever stopped, and is going on even to this very day in 2008.

Damn, damn, double dog damn.

So let me guess: because of this, you all have reason to believe that the Iraq War and the War on Terror have more to do with this CIA-President agenda that we're talking about now than it does with fighting terror.

Damn.

You know what. I have a friend who knows a lot more about this sort of stuff than I do.

I'm going to go away now, and I'm going to talk to my friend about this. And then I'm going to think about it for myself, too. And when I'm done talking to my friend about it and thinking about it, then I'm going to come back.

[Russell Kanning]

they seem to like this one

[Tom Sawyer]

Tom Sawyer started bugging me about stuff I said on other threads, and that's how it got off topic. Because of Tom Sawyer. Not because of me.

Snitch 

[Lloyd Danforth]

Back on topic. Civ Dis. A bunch of us go to the statehouse, all but one carrying effigies of Luke S., the one carrying Luke.  Then we burn them!

[Russell Kanning]

cold .... but I do have to admire the idea of burning something

[Lloyd Danforth]

Horrible, painful death...............but, by Fire!!!


Knew you would be on the fence

[NJLiberty]

Geez, I'm gone for one day and now we're burning Luke?

Seriously though, burning an effigy sounds like a fine idea to me, doesn't have to be Luke though. I can think of far more deserving people than he.

George

[Free libertarian]

 Luke in my last post I was trying to give examples of how sometimes things aren't what we've been lead to believe. I don't have all of the answers. But I have alot of questions.  Sorry if my previous message was confusing, I had just gone out to pledge allegiance and must have caught a whiff of old glory. I'll try to be more concise here.

Your version of freedom, is different from mine, your still thinking that somehow our rights are given to us
by a government or a bill of rights. The fact that our rights are taken under the guise of "legality" or to protect us changes nothing. Freedom means the right to be left alone doesn't it?  Government doesn't permit freedom Luke, you just have it. So if  freedom doesn't come from the government how can they take it away without it being theft? Voluntary cooperation is a good thing, edicts from somebody who knows "what's good for you" isn't freedom, no matter which flag it's wrapped in. That's a bullshit scare tactic Hitler and his cronies used to get a nation of Germans fooled. Tell them they're being attacked...works the same in any country. It worked here after 9/11, although alot of people are finally questioning some things.

You say you are pro freedom, clearly your version of freedom includes authoritarian infringments on anothers free will, you are intolerant in some areas. Being intolerant and pro freedom is contradictory isn't it? You are not consistently pro freedom, but you like to say you are.

Concerning Bush, you consistently avoid answering the contradictions about him? Why? Funny that he only got community service for his drug arrest...wonder if he'd still be in prison today if he'd also committed the crime of being black while getting high? Do you think his ancestors would have been able to profit off WWII if they'd have been Japanese Luke? Kinda hard to do that if you're a Japanese American in a prison camp in YOUR OWN COUNTRY!
Something about Bush I find funny, I heard after a night of youthful partying hard GW drove home with a, get this, "trash can" under his car...so I guess not everybody throws trash in the street when they're high, your boy picks it up...good job Georgie! I guess in retrospect I've been too hard on him.

Your style of we know what's best for you government, put U.S. citizens in jail during WWII, no trial, no choice, tough shit you're coming with us... How do you explain that happening in a pro freedom country? The irony is you were told in school we saved the free world during WWII.  Yet we imprisoned our own citizens here...Hmmm. How did that happen Luke? Why?

Concerning me telling you to sign up for the military etc. I was jerking your chain. Sometimes I'm a wise ass like that...sorry.  I'll be more direct.  If you joined the military you would soon be counting the days until you could get out. A draft is an example of involuntary servitude isn't it? Do you support slavery?
You can't  give your notice in the military Luke...Do you suppose this would work? "hey guys I got another job here's my two weeks notice"...Why can't we do that Luke? Because when you are in the military you don't have any rights. You are a tool. Does the constitution even authorize the size military we have? Or our being at war on GW's whim and not declaring it? How come one guy has brought us two wars without any just cause or uh "proper authorization"?  Is he above the law? Is he the decider?    
We are under no threat from an external army, the biggest threat we face is domestic and it ain't from pot smokers ...it's from the type of people you idolize.
I do find a great deal of irony that our Prez and V.P.  both hid out during Viet Nam, yet you think they are John Wayne types.  The only good thing Cheney has done with a gun was to shoot a lawyer. Of course that can be excused because he was drunk at the time, if he'd have been smoking pot he might have just grazed him with some trash right? Oh yeah, did he have a valid hunting license on him?

Concerning your next hero, John McCain he's a senile imbecile who couldn't remember how to spell C-A-T if you spotted him the C and the A. He was a POW...okay we got it. So that qualifies him to be President? If he'd never been a POW he'd be selling used cars to old people in Arizona. "Yes, my friends we have a special Patriots day sale today. If you'll commit your economic stimulus check as a down payment, we'll throw in this Islamo Fascist Extremist radar detector for free and give you up to a 100 years to pay this off"...At least HE knows water boarding is torture, ironically maybe the Viet Namese did beat SOME sense into him.

You have confused Patriotism with blind faith and unquestioning loyalty to the state. We could have a great country Luke, but more government control from the left or the right won't make that happen.  
It's okay to leave people alone in this country and across the world, why can't you see that we are Imperialistic and have been for a long time? It's so obvious or do you consider 700 bases in 130 different
countries with a "defense" budget almost as big as the rest of the world combined a coincidence?
I've also heard our "free country" incarcerates the highest percentage of it's citizens...we have more people in jail for stupid shit than the rest of the world? Yep, we're #1 !! Still think we're the leaders of the "free world" Luke?

  While we say we are bringing freedom and democracy to the world we arrest our own citizens at airports for carrying nail clippers Luke? Or we open their mail and spy on them? Or incarcerate them for smoking a plant? How many people die from alcohol or "legal drug" overdoses or government sponsored murder vs  pot Luke?  Do you want to touch that one? Hemp was made illegal for economic reasons Luke.
Google Hemp prohibition, be open minded do some research, be "pro freedom" learn the history you won't find in your school books. You'll learn how laws were and are made to protect financial interests. Be careful though your government could be watching your internet computer usage so be careful which hemp websites you visit...
 
In a previous comment somebody said they'd buy you a beer. I'm a forgiving person, recant your turning in people for smoking pot, and swear off watching Bill O'Reilly for a month and I'll buy you a six pack of hemp flavored beer if you ever come to NH. We've stolen this thread long enough, let's start a new one call it arguing with Pot Heads and chicken chickens or anything you want. I'll talk to you there. My apologies to the original creator and users of this thread. Sorry for pursuing the arguing with Luke thing here. We should not have submitted you to all of the B.S.  for so long.  Luke, let's throw all of our trash in one neat pile and I will quit chasing you from thread to thread? Agreed?