I guess you can chose to belive what you want.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/...ure/index.html
I belive the reason torture was brought back into play was to justify that war. Of course we'll never get the whole truth to the situation, but I think its fairly obvious that they eventually got the desired answers they were looking for. the problem was, anyone with any sense knew that the answers were unreliable (as is always the case with torture).
And I'll admit, how the article words it, they did not get reliable information from the torture. But its not reliable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRkLy...eature=related
That's a good chain of videos to look at. Especially the part where Ali Soufan gives his remarks. The only person in that hearing that takes into consideration that torture may work is Sen. Graham. Yet there isn't a shred of evidence that it worked, and a lot more evidence pointing to where it didn't.
Quote:
|
"You really don't understand the Constitution of Constitutional law at all, and I'll leave it at that. That statement simply reflects ignorance of the intent and function of the document."
|
And you don't understand that it was written by human beings, therefore its not perfect. I explained to you that the real problem is that we've fallen under a central banking system and have allowed the amount of money that we're in debt influnce decisions that are made by the state and federal governments.
First I want you to read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt
It'd also be helpful to understand the 6th article of the constitution.
"Smaller jurisdictions, such as cities, are usually guaranteed by their regional or national levels of government. When New York City over the 1960s declined into what would have been a bankrupt status (had it been a private entity) by the early 1970s, a "bailout" was required from New York State and the United States. In general such measures amount to merging the smaller entity's debt into that of the larger entity and thereby gaining it access to the lower interest rates the large one enjoys. The larger entity may then assume some agreed-upon oversight in order to prevent recurrence of the problem."
Here's the base of the problem when it comes to going in debt. The person who loans (or even gives) you the money has the right to know that the money is spent for the reasons it was loaned for. If you can't agree to the terms that came with accepting the money, then its your responceability not to take it.
I belive that California put themselves into this situation by making bad decisions, and I don't have an issue whatsoever with the feds overseeing the money that was given to the state. I live in california, it makers no sense how many state workers have been fired and who have had to take a 10%+ pay cut when the government is giving us billions.
To only push for what 1% is doing is being overly reasonable if you ask me.
I think the base disagreement we have on this issue is that you belive that the current administration is the source of the problem.. while I belive that circumstances both caused by the state itself, and by broken financial policies of the past is what the problem is.
The fact still remains that Obama isn't breaking the law, and the agreement of California taking that money had to have included some ability for the federal government to oversee it and make sure that it was used for the purpose that it was intended. Our 5 month old president didn't get california into the predicament to where they had to accept such terms.
In other words (to sum it up), the Federal government wasn't the one to take the state's power. It was the state's that compromised their own power by agreeing to take the money. It was the state's decision to agree to it, and it was the state's fault they got into such bad shape.