[MENTION=213]TJCoro[/MENTION]
"Under the Bush administration. Obama stopped the practice."
Please bear with me as it's not my area of expertise... But my understanding is slightly different.
I think it was already illegal and that the Obama administration simply added specific names of methods of torture. I recall an Al Jazeera report (I will try and find it later) that suggested all Obama [Administration] actually did was cover up what had happened, didnt bring charges to anyone... Plugged holes that could lead to future criticism of the practice from coming to the USA's door and started outsourcing by moving prisoners to detention overseen by other countries [called Extraordinary Rendition]
Obama also promised to close Guantanamo, but strangely thats still going.
Effectively what i'm saying is that it could be disingenuous to suggest previous leaders havent already overseen exactly what Trump is so criticised for.
"Not sure what you are saying here"
I'm saying that, all the allegations and chasing of Assange started when he tried to bring to light information about the US government. Only time will tell (perhaps we will never know the truth) who is in the right. But the US appears to have effectively tried at every corner to silence and detain Assange.
"For all the trumped-up faux crimes (but never proven) that the opposition leveled against her. Than by all means, lock her up."
Again, time will tell.... But im pretty sure that 30,000 e-mail's take a little longer to investigate. Then There's the thousands of deleted emails.
"Assault is not womanizing. Assault is a crime."
Correct, but using a position of power and influence to gain sexual favour is morraly wrong. There are circumstances where this perhaps could and should be illegal... May even constitute an assault in it's own right.
-
Im am happy to leave the allegations of both Clinton and Trump where they are. I really dont know anywhere near enough about either case to have a defined oppinion. I would never assume a claimant is a liar, and neither would I automatically assume the accused is guilty... Especially when they are a devisive personality who is heading a campaing that 25% of a country are desperate to derail.
"Under the Bush administration. Obama stopped the practice."
Please bear with me as it's not my area of expertise... But my understanding is slightly different.
I think it was already illegal and that the Obama administration simply added specific names of methods of torture. I recall an Al Jazeera report (I will try and find it later) that suggested all Obama [Administration] actually did was cover up what had happened, didnt bring charges to anyone... Plugged holes that could lead to future criticism of the practice from coming to the USA's door and started outsourcing by moving prisoners to detention overseen by other countries [called Extraordinary Rendition]
Obama also promised to close Guantanamo, but strangely thats still going.
Effectively what i'm saying is that it could be disingenuous to suggest previous leaders havent already overseen exactly what Trump is so criticised for.
"Not sure what you are saying here"
I'm saying that, all the allegations and chasing of Assange started when he tried to bring to light information about the US government. Only time will tell (perhaps we will never know the truth) who is in the right. But the US appears to have effectively tried at every corner to silence and detain Assange.
"For all the trumped-up faux crimes (but never proven) that the opposition leveled against her. Than by all means, lock her up."
Again, time will tell.... But im pretty sure that 30,000 e-mail's take a little longer to investigate. Then There's the thousands of deleted emails.
"Assault is not womanizing. Assault is a crime."
Correct, but using a position of power and influence to gain sexual favour is morraly wrong. There are circumstances where this perhaps could and should be illegal... May even constitute an assault in it's own right.
-
Im am happy to leave the allegations of both Clinton and Trump where they are. I really dont know anywhere near enough about either case to have a defined oppinion. I would never assume a claimant is a liar, and neither would I automatically assume the accused is guilty... Especially when they are a devisive personality who is heading a campaing that 25% of a country are desperate to derail.
Comment