The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

General Discussion Topics

Did someone re-elect Chaney president?? Who is this guy???

The Black Vault Message Forums has a considerable number of niche forums to place your post. If you can not find a home for it, and the topic doesn't fit anywhere else, then post it here.

Postby Lashmar » Tue May 26, 2009 10:47 am

pandasex wrote:He is a hop skip and Bushism away from a heart attack.


That’s just bad karma if Buddhist are out to get you. :lol:



Edit: sorry misread it. :oops: you said Bushism not Buddhits :lol: :lol: :lol: I got a bit carryed awayway. :lol:
Read between the lies
User avatar
Lashmar
 
Posts: 5795
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: UK

Postby pandasex » Tue May 26, 2009 10:49 am

i said i read

not practice :lol:


i will say i would kill a person before a an animal or bug
BURNING MAN, burning man, BuRnInG mAn,
User avatar
pandasex
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Cole_Trickle » Tue May 26, 2009 1:02 pm

Questioner101 wrote:Chain-gangy...and Rummy were the puppet-masters who convinced "Oil-man" Bush to attack Iraq, for the stupid reason Bush's father couldn't march to Baghdad. Where's the oil?
Where's the "democratic" country of Iraq? It's still a theocracy, and still bombs soldiers off the map, daily. Haliburton has made a small fortune on armaments. Tricky Dicky is laughing all the way to the bank....

Question is, why isn't it Bush out there speaking after Obama?? (Could it be because he's totally inarticulate??) Dick is trying to keep from going to court on war crimes, by diverting the lens away from "it wasn't bad torture...it was useful...it gleaned tons of information...."
Really?? And where is Osama Ben Laden these days? Wait, he didn't hole up in Iraq....never mind.


Spot on! I've posted this before on another thread, you're exactly correct.

Bush Jr isn't speaking simply because his Father Bush Sr has probably told him to keep quiet, after all Bush Sr and his gang have been running things ever since Nov of 63. Pretty transparent for those willing to accept the facts as they are.

Protocol smotocol, Daddy has Jr under wraps and will until the day he dies. Period. There were obvious violations else there would be no " Dust up " over such. You can bet Cheney is all about saving his bacon, anything else is just fodder for the MSM. Cheney can't even hunt Pheasant without putting others in danger, WTF can't people grasp about his inability to run an OP????????? Like I said ~~he's being told to run his yap by the PTB, why else would he subject himself to such butchering. If I were him I'd go back to Wyoming and close my freaking hole!

Cole
User avatar
Cole_Trickle
 
Posts: 2709
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby greeney2 » Tue May 26, 2009 1:54 pm

Bush Jr isn't speaking simply because his Father Bush Sr has probably told him to keep quiet, after all Bush Sr and his gang have been running things ever since Nov of 63.


Even Computer guys puff of smoke theory made more sence than this.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Aquatank » Tue May 26, 2009 8:15 pm

The picture is the inturpetation is not clear cut, as to what is, and is not considered torture legally.


Then guards raping prisoners inclding minors isn't torture? Persons in authority who refuse to stop it aren't complicit? Monthly slashing of testicles with razor blades is not torture?

Greeny there seems to be a point where a law or phrase whose meaning was once common knowlegde of the definition gets lost, meanings so blatantly obvious to the originators and users it is impossible to imagine anybody misuderstanding the word. But apparently in laws this happens quite often because they list new subsections all the time explaing the definitions of things. Let me qoute the first few lines not from some current yakety yak article but from my 1965 copy of Encyclopedia Brittanica
"Torture, the general name for innumerable modes of inflicting pain, and especially for those employed as an incident of judicial process. From this point of view torture was alaways inflicted as a means of eliciting evidence from a witness or from an accused person either before or after condemnation: or as a part of the punishment. The second was the earlier use."

Okay thats a textbook common knowledge definition, that apparently lawyers & legislators have screwed around with to get around bans against it. Brittanica goes on to say the US constitutions ban on "cruel and unusual punishment is a ban on torture."

BUT WAIT!!!! Theres More, there is a definition when BusH II Started Office in the USA in the USC of exactly what constituted Torture, and which have been violated since 9-11-2001 and section 2 A,B,C,& D have been used by the governement in violation of the law and the US Constitution.

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 2, 2001]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 2, 2001 and January 28, 2002]
[CITE: 18USC2340]


TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 113C--TORTURE

Sec. 2340. Definitions

As used in this chapter--
(1) ``torture'' means an act committed by a person acting under
the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or
mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to
lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical
control;
(2) ``severe mental pain or suffering'' means the prolonged
mental harm caused by or resulting from--
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened
administration or application, of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or application of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
personality; and

(3) ``United States'' includes all areas under the jurisdiction
of the United States including any of the places described in
sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49.

(Added Pub. L. 103-236, title V, Sec. 506(a), Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat.
463; amended Pub. L. 103-415, Sec. 1(k), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4301;
Pub. L. 103-429, Sec. 2(2), Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4377.)


Amendments

1994--Par. (1). Pub. L. 103-415 substituted ``within his custody''
for ``with custody''.
Par. (3). Pub. L. 103-429 substituted ``section 46501(2) of title
49'' for ``section 101(38) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49
U.S.C. App. 1301(38))''.


Effective Date

Section 506(c) of Pub. L. 103-236 provided that: ``The amendments
made by this section [enacting this chapter] shall take effect on the
later of--
``(1) the date of enactment of this Act [Apr. 30, 1994]; or
``(2) the date on which the United States has become a party to
the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.'' [Convention entered into Force with
respect to United States Nov. 20, 1994, Treaty Doc. 100-20.]

Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in section 114 of this title.
http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=39293738915+4+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve


Then we have Geneva convention laws which we are party to and duly bound to under Article 6 of the US Constitution
"1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. "
Clearly saying Detention and PROHIBITING torture. cruel treatments and mutilation all of which have been carried out by the USA and still are. Those violations are warcrimes.

When Bush II entered office this was the US Code on torture so those involved would get punished as follows.:

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 113C--TORTURE

Sec. 2340A. Torture

(a) Offense.--Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts
to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct
prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned
for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.--There is jurisdiction over the activity
prohibited in subsection (a) if--
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,
irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(Added Pub. L. 103-236, title V, Sec. 506(a), Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat.
463; amended Pub. L. 103-322, title VI, Sec. 60020, Sept. 13, 1994, 108
Stat. 1979.)


Amendments

1994--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103-322 inserted ``punished by death or''
before ``imprisoned for any term of years or for life''.

Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in sections 2332b, 2339A, 3286 of this
title.
http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bi ... n=retrieve

Now it is my understanding large sections of congress were accomplices & complicit to this crime which means they should serve time if prosecuted under the law including Obama among those now of high rank and currently complicit in it.

Justice must be served.
Aquatank
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: Midwest USA

Postby Cole_Trickle » Wed May 27, 2009 4:52 am

greeney2 wrote:
Bush Jr isn't speaking simply because his Father Bush Sr has probably told him to keep quiet, after all Bush Sr and his gang have been running things ever since Nov of 63.


Even Computer guys puff of smoke theory made more sence than this.


Keep pushing it!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... topic=9000

Any clue~?

Cole

I hope to one day rid you of your narrow minded unrealistic view of your surroundings and open your eyes to an obvious reality that at present is beyond your grasp simply because you refuse to accept it!

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbrewton.htm

All fiction~~is that it? :lol: :lol:

Some good reading material:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo ... apatsy.htm

Clemard Joseph Charles was recruited by the CIA in 1963, the same year the agency was sponsoring and paying exile and rebel groups to try to overthrow Papa Doc. We know Charles was recruited by the CIA then because of the findings in the late 1970s of the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

The committee was investigating the assassination of John F. Kennedy and tracking a man named George DeMohrenschildt, a White Russian count with extensive ties to the CIA. DeMohrenschildt had moved to Texas, worked in the oil business and befriended Lee Harvey Oswald. In fact, there is some evidence that DeMohrenschildt was used by the CIA to keep an eye on Oswald. DeMohrenschildt had met Charles in Haiti, where he had business interests, including a share in the government sisal hemp operation. DeMohrenschildt was also keeping an eye on Clint Murchison's meat-packing business and cattle ranches there. At one time he had worked for Three States Oil and Gas, one of Murchison's oil companies.

DeMohrenschildt was also on close, friendly terms with Houston oilman John Mecom, Sr., according to a Houston private eye familiar with the Russian count. And the count and George Bush apparently knew each other. Bush's name and his Midland, Texas, address were in DeMohrenschildt's address book.

One CIA contract agent, Herbert Atkin, has reported that DeMohrenschildt's real job in Haiti in 1963 was to supervise a CIA-sponsored plan to overthrow Duvalier.

In May 1963, DeMohrenschildt arranged a meeting between Clemard Charles and Dorothy Matlack, who was Assistant Director of the Army Office of Intelligence, the U.S. Army's liaison with the CIA. According to DeMohrenschildt's CIA files, which the assassination committee obtained, the purpose of the meeting with Matlack was to arrange a rendezvous between Charles and a CIA representative. DeMohrenschildt attended the meeting with the CIA, to Matlack's surprise. "She did not know what role DeMohrenschildt was serving, but felt he 'dominated' Charles in some way," reads the committee's CIA memo, which then reported that Matlack stated, "I knew the Texan [DeMohrenschildt] wasn't there to sell hemp."


Finally, the kicker in the CIA memo: "Because of the potential political information Charles could give about the current situation in Haiti, the CIA became the primary contact with Charles."

That puts Charles's ability to obtain two aircraft from the United States in 1964 during an embargo and his subsequent 1967 jailing by Duvalier in a whole new light. For it was in 1967 that Mitch WerBell, along with some Haitians and Cuban exiles, were caught planning an invasion of Haiti from Florida.

WerBell was a veteran of the OSS office in China during World War II along with E. Howard Hunt, Paul Helliwell and John Singlaub. He told author Jonathan Kwitny that he did not work "for" the CIA, but "with" the CIA. He said the distinction was that he got paid by private groups and not by the CIA.


Pete Brewton, The Mafia, CIA and George Bush (1992)
User avatar
Cole_Trickle
 
Posts: 2709
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Dibs » Sun May 31, 2009 9:53 pm

Cracked.com ran a comic with the Obama speech and Cheney's speech as a back and forth conversation told as if they were in a Batman comic.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-torture ... man-comic/

...and now I totally see Cheney as the Penguin
User avatar
Dibs
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 7:47 am

Postby Cole_Trickle » Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:16 am

:lol: :lol: Kind of typical of those afraid to say what they really feel or mean, so they spoof it. Still a pretty solid indication of what people with half a brain really think of it all! Keep the focus on the other guy and stay in the shadows~~~Now where have I seen that before? :lol: :lol:

Cole
User avatar
Cole_Trickle
 
Posts: 2709
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby mael » Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:58 am

_Billy_ wrote:In other words Jaackass you think we should choose a king and do away with elections. This country voted for Obama, the majority, but you don't agree with the process. If anyone was unqualified it was Bush, what a dumbass.


Some choice! Which would you vote for? Waterboarding with sulphuric acid or a daggar up the ringpiece?
User avatar
mael
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Previous

Return to General Discussion Topics

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 5 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 4 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests