AP: Obama Team Debating Violating UN Convention On Torture
By Susie Madrak Monday Jan 19, 2009 9:00amVia Talk Left, this disconcerting news:
President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to prohibit the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques by ordering the CIA to follow military rules for questioning prisoners, according to two U.S. officials familiar with drafts of the plans. Still under debate is whether to allow exceptions in extraordinary cases.[...] Obama's changes may not be absolute. His advisers are considering adding a classified loophole to the rules that could allow the CIA to use some interrogation methods not specifically authorized by the Pentagon, the officials said. They said the intent is not to use that as an opening for possible use of waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.
As Glenn Greenwald points out, such a "loophole" would constitute a violation of the UN Convention on Torture, codified as a crime under US law.
Big Tent Democrat:
If the AP is correct in its story, the incoming Obama Administration is contemplating committing crimes under US and international law. If this is what Obama plans to do, may I recommend that he first withdraw the United States from the UN Convention on Torture and ask for the repeal of US law that codified the Convention. Thus, while Obama may be engaged in barbarous actions, at least he will not be commiting a crime under US law.
Well! I know I feel better already...
Login or Register to post comments.
Obama and crew at the inauguration:
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/swear_dees.jpg
Southpark did an episode with a similar bend.
Great report Susie. Thanks for helping to hold his feet to the fire. Its understandable trying the previous admin for war crimes is not an easy task, but how quickly and easily he could slip into the same behavior.
heh he
... is that really the case? Are we being fooled again? Time will tell ... that's for sure ...
See my comment @ 4:30 - 2nd page. Both the AP sources and Talkleft's post are highly questionable.
Obama cabinet nominee says under oath unequivocally that waterboarding is torture
Two BUSH ADMINISTRATION sources tell the AP anonymously that Obama "may" be considering something that "may" allow waterboarding sometimes.
One of these things is just a teeny bit more believable - unless you have an agenda that does not necessarily include actual facts.
to torture, as long as it isn't made public. Just like the good ol' days.
"according to two officials familiar with the drafts."
Familiar because they wrote them before they were rejected?
You believe AP?
seem almost desperate to attack President Elect Obama. Any negative report about what Obama might do or might be considering is just ammo for further attacks from them.
Were the two officials named? Is this just more unnamed sources BS? Does the story even make sense (considering the potential political cost to Obama?). No matter, let's just call Obama the same as Bush and move on....
are they rhetorical, or did you not read the AP story?
President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to prohibit the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques by ordering the CIA to follow military rules for questioning prisoners, according to two U.S. officials familiar with drafts of the plans. Still under debate is whether to allow exceptions in extraordinary cases.
...snip...
Obama spokeswoman Brooke Anderson did not have an immediate comment Friday about the drafted plans, which the two officials discussed only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.
Two anonymous US officials who aren't aurthorized to comment? Those could be Republicans.
Bush officials who commited these crimes and could be prosecuted? Oh, my. AP would never use such sources.
But it's such a vague piece. I think the aim of the AP article is to disturb shit, create dissent.
So many people read things into this that can't be proven to be there. Two US officials could be anyone involved in the Federal government- the aritcle may as well have credited "two dudes". Getting worked up by what two dudes are saying, with no proof (like memos or e-mails) to back up their stories? Much ado about nothin'.
He's been screeching uncontrollably and running around in circles at each and every rumor about Obama since the election.
He is NOT a reliable source any more than the 2 Bush administration people quoted anonymously by the freekin AP!
EOM.
well thanks for the notice of my talking points, glad you have been able to overlook facts, bobby boy! its people like me and cc that are remindeing you of obummers words and stated policys, as for attacking him i might say i only use his words to ask questions from, i wont repeat his policys you know what they are and i assume you approve of them , i will remind you of them as the year goes by and you see your change fly out the window, the truth is that neither the democrats or republicans are going to work for the good of the country, as most democrats sold us out a long time ago, and the republicans own the house the senate and the president, not one word on obummers admiration of all things republican rayguns to be admired , bush is a swell guy , and tonights obummers party for john mccain, man it dont get any better then that!
I'm glad to give you confirmation that I noticed your talking points.
im so ashamed of myself ,it seems others on here have been able to think for thierselves allso, but i cant take credit for thoes who actually have been able to think for themselves and not just be a part of the obama herd, i guess my problem is i actually listened to obummers statements and saw him for the republicanlite he is! or as you might say right of center!
I'm a voter-for-Obama whose confidence has been shaken by him many times lately, but I'm really wondering if there isn't some purpose to all this hullabaloo.
I read yesterday or the day before that the CIA is really pressuring Obama to let them continue to have the freedom to operate as they decide is best. I think this was a response to his suggestion that all interrogation must be conducted under the rules of the Army Field Manual. [As an aside, the AFM already has some loopholes in Appendix M that leave the door wide open for torture.]
Yet he MUST know that he will be pilloried and lose all confidence of Americans if his administration gives way to the CIA.
I think he's doing the kind of negotiating that he probably did as a community organizer. He's considering all sides, while at the SAME TIME publicizing their position. If the outcry is loud and angry enough against giving the CIA what they want, he can say to them, "See? This is why torture cannot continue. It taints me and it taints you."
Mind you, I'm not an Obama apologist, and I'll be heading the pack to tar and feather him if he really intends to allow any torture whatsoever to continue. I just think, in this case, he may be making all this public for a reason, to see if there's some kind of solidarity against torture.
We'll see, of course.
before trying to destroy him??
i know that is asking too much
seems that progressives cant stand even a little joy in their lives
People like Bill Clinton that take the easy way out instead of doing the right thing have given us a reason to by this way.
Thought he was a conservative. Conservative Democrat sure, but a conservative.
are often just the flip side of the ultra-conservative right. Instead of being happy with the election of a President who is closer to their end of the spectrum than his predecessor, many "progressives" can't wait to go on the attack against the new administration.
Some of us just don't trust politicians and people in power.
Oh REALLY! Well let me fill you in that A) Progressives are NOT the flip side of ultra-conservatives at all! And B) Obama isn't actually that Progressive! Have you ever opened a dictionary? If you were to do so and look up the word proggressive you might actually learn something.
in quotes. I'm referring to people who claim to be "progressive" but spend much of their time and energy attacking agents of change because the proposed changes aren't radical enough. All this does is make the changes more difficult to effect.
those that actually are concerned about neoliberalism and a continuation of supply-side economics, those that are concerned about domestic spying, those that are concerned about the return of clintonism, etc, are considered, by you, as people merely claiming to be progressives? phhpt
true progressives would never give a democrat a free ride. for they would know that the right wing, corporations and establishment figures are pulling obama to the right and trying to water down his promised "change", and its the job of the progressives to continue to pressure from the left.
is a fine thing.
To undermine from the left ... just helps the right.
It's a question of degree. When does pressuring become active undermining? Kneejerk attacks on Obama for things that he has not done or for failing to meet an idealized standard do not hold his feet to the fire and can only hurt progressive causes.
Read through the comments. You can easily distinguish between people who want to hold him to campaign promises or to try to move him a little further to the left and those who have already concluded he's no different from Bush and should be attacked at every opportunity.
With you I assume you mean torure and slaughter when you say "joy"?
... we've been burned ... it's kind of hard to feel the joy ... and why we wonder ... is there joy?
Obama and Bush can hang out and chill together...
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_I_always_...
Obama hanging out with a bona fide psychopath and says he's a great guy; doesn't want to look to the past for criminal behavior, wants to look forward to new opportunities.
Feel suckered yet?
You should.
Truth B Told
Excellent link. One has to wonder why C & L did not have a post concerning this story. Perhaps because it would demonstrate why Obama has absolutely no intention of prosecuting someone whom he considers to be a "great guy." One also has to wonder how long it will be until many Americans and most liberals will begin to express buyers' remorse for having voted for such a false hope candidate of change like Barack Obama.
Given the alternatives, if Obama moves as far to the right as I'm afraid he will he'll ALWAYS be better than the alternative we were offered. There will never be any remorse from this progressive about voting for him, there will be remorse about "what could have been" though.
That said, it'll be MUCH easier voting Green or for Nader now that "they" are back hiding in the shadows. Then we can really start doing the right[sic] things.
Different Anonymous
I used to think the same way you do at one time until I began reading and researching and realized that the Democrats [and that would include Barack Obama] are not much different than the Republicans. If you have any semblance of an open mind, you may try reading such books as The Democrats: A Critical History by Lance Selfa which reveals how the Democrats through much of their history have catered to the interests of big business and U.S. imperialism and/or Savage Mules by Dennis Perrin which amply demonstrates how the Democrats have been just as anxious, if not more so, than the Republicans to engage in wars of aggression against third world countries or The Liberal Defense of Murder where Richard Seymour examines how liberals in many different countries throughout the years have waged war [as Obama is advocating] and have tried to justify doing so because of humanitarian reasons.
All of the above books are very well written and do an excellent job of getting its points across though Savage Mules perhaps may be the most accessible of the three for the average lay person to read.
Politically, the country has a center right party and a far right party to maintain the fiction of representative government in what is in fact a one party corporate state. America has never had a liberal government and will not have one now. As always, the few liberal politicians there are at the federal level remain marginalized within the Democratic Part and confined to the House of Representatives.
well i for one seems to be the most used words here besides hes not even swore in yet and your throwing up his words back at him, but i for one cant wait to see them playing 18 holes and laughing at the suckers!
that George W. Bush is a good guy.
YouTube DID have this video on with all the juicy words, now here's a classic video that shows exactly what it is that Obama must just love about GWB:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phyrx3VuwcM
BTW, I do NOT feel suckered. I knew this all along.
So basically we would be going back to the old way of doing things where the preznit claims we don't torture but the CIA does and they still do rendition. And people wonder why other countries view us as hypocrites.
Yeah,
USA looking for loopholes to use torture in extraordinary situations,
Israel Using phosphorus Bombs just for smoke in extraordinary situations but absolutely not for its chemical properties (which is illegal). Wow I feel relieved now that those two governments have reassured us, how good and compassionate they are.
http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=55&p=24885&s2=21 (warning gore images from use of WP in Lebanon)
We don't call it torture, and just call it S&M?
Sign me up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ5LaSPThfc
The AP is tainted, dishonest, another Republican tool. They're probably saying what they HOPE is true, or just trying to anger us DFS or "Libs". Better keep a salt-shaker on hand when reading the AP.
officials who arfe familiar with the drafts." AP
According to one reader familiar with AP, bullshit.
Like, not ignoring the intelligence (Bush to briefer, "you've covered your ass now"), setting humane policy around the world (no unqualified backing of Israeli genocide of the Palestinians) and cooperating with other countries. That would go a long way to eliminating the "need" for any torture for intelligence.
However, torture for fun is a different story. In that case, have David Addington do it.
Can you imagine if this story was leaked in 2001?!! Do you think Bush would have still been a hero if people had known Bush didn't care, and then 9/11 happened?
Bush was given a brief. (Presidential Daily Memo, august 6th, 2001. Bin Laden determined to attack united states) And he didn't care, and 9/11 happened.
There was no outcry.
So what was your point exactly?
Like I trust the CIA.
Somewhere between not so much and not at all.
Torture is like potato chips, you can't stop with just one.
So, what if this guy might be a "special case" but we have to torture him to see if he has the information we think he has. And, nothing gets false positives like torture. So now you need to round up and torture the poor slobs he just mentioned, since they may be special cases now too.
Its all well and good to try and tightly define "special case" but that hasn't worked to limit the scope in the past.
Sun, 01/18/2009 - 17:36 — Hechicera
Torture is like potato chips, you can't stop with just one.
__________________________________________________________________
What would be the dip?
Seems appropriate.
If it is an American being tortured, perhaps Ranch.
Wouldn't we have to flash-fry our prisoners first?
But healthier! Americans are big on health these days.
We leave the healthiest looking corpses strewn around now days.
Does this make me think of poached ... potatoes?
Sunny side up?
george the DIP SHIT.
yup!
I hope this explains the situation. Because if Obama's team really is thinking along these lines then I'll have to work my butt off to see him in a courtroom at the Hague too!
I don't care who you are, if you want to commit war crimes I will work to see justice is done.
They needed confessions to justify their invasions. Remember, their plans were in place before Bush took office.
This issue of torture is going under the rug pronto and I assume this will let Bush and his " Handlers" off the hook. Pretty slick Obama.
First FISA, then Torturing, and probably no investigations into Bush and his criminal cabal. CHANGE YOU CAN MOFOIN BELIEVE IN!!!!
Obama is controlled by the ELITE BANKERS, the SHADOW GOVERNMENT, and his own puss party. What a waste of hope.
there eric!
Is he pushing the Amero? Is he talking about devaluing the dollar?
Has he talked about a new world order, where the world is divided up into 3 zones? Under a world president?
Criticise the man for what he does, not for the crazy things you might believe without evidence.
dont want to make an unneccary report to the secret service...but i got this message in my youtube account...and the language is terrible...so i am giving you fair warning
davo16747
...
Obama = ******.........
...
Obama = ******.........
Obama is a ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** i hope his head gets splattered from a sniper all over his family's faces while he is inaugurated its what has to be done. its our only hope.
this message repeats over and over
i dont want to call the secret service and waste their time so im asking for a little help
do i need to report this as a threat?
How many nut's mailing lists are you on?
Yes report it with bush leaving I doubt they will disapear you and torture you with so little time left!
and if they do torture you it will only be a little bit of torture. Call them!
Seriously, at least contact Youtube management.
Any poll be honest?
I mean, duh. He's a right-of-center Republican that ran under the Democratic moniker. The Democratic Leadership has been completely under the control of the Republican Party since before 1980.
OF COURSE, Obama is going do what the GOP orders him to...
Because they know Obama will let them pull his puppet strings..
I hate to say it, but we on the left may have been made victims of a major con job...
I don't really think anyone pulled a con job on liberals, personally I see it as having pulled it on themselves.
Just think about it, this election was the dem's to lose. The dissatisfaction with repubs was so high the dems would have to have really screwed it to lose it. So yes, dems could have picked an actual liberal who would try new policies that haven't been tried in a while to help solve this mess but instead they went for the mythical "electability". For some reason, electability always involves a right wing candidate.
Now combine that with the fact that the media had been heavily promoting both Barack and Hillary for several years and you end up with that result. And please, don't tell me that the media was harsher on Barack/Hillary as the old saying goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity (now look at who was ignored). So the media set up the bait for a fight between the two candidates and the sheeple followed along, that even played out on this site.
Also if people had paid attention to what Barack was actually saying they could have easily determined he wasn't for real change. Just look at an earlier posting where Barack calls for unity and yet still mentions ending the Iraq war wisely and fighting the Afghanistan war in a better way. Both lies as obviously he doesn't plan on ending the Iraqi occupation as he's still leaving what was it, 80k+ troops there plus he hasn't mentioned the fates of all the private contractors aka mercenaries. And how do you fight in a place that has no sense of country, let's be honest and call Karzai the mayor of Kabul which he essentially is. You have people there that don't recognise his government or don't even know who he is. Then add several warlords, let's call them kings to make an allusion to the various European kingdoms before they started merging and eventually formed countries. How do you "win" that war with more troops?
Obama is a mainstream Democrat. It just so happens that centrist Democrats are much more conservative than many of the people who comment at C&L.
This is why I'm surprised at all the vitriol reserved here for those who announced that the US is a center right nation. Of course it is. That's why there are so many conservative Democrats. That's why Obama is a centrist and why Kuchinich had no chance.
Those of you who were expecting a decidedly "progressive" stance from Obama were being extremely unrealistic. He is exactly who the majority of Democrats wanted. A centrist who will reverse much of the damage done during the last 8 years.
the US is a center right nation
I'm from the south, deep south in some places. I'm still down here, and have never lived elsewhere. I'm not seeing this "center right nation". The funny thing is people here in large part may live according to conservative values, but the majority when push comes to shove, want the law to be liberal. I'm guessing its freedom, some libertarian influence with a side helping of government mistrust. Then you factor in the "yankee transplants" and most are pretty much left of center.
I guess it can be summed up by a growing "Pro-Choice" movement down here. I quote that since the stance is: We're pro-choice, but our choice is no abortions. In other words, their values are one thing, but the law they want is another.
So, the point of where are you personally, and where do you want the person governing you to be on the political spectrum are not the same thing.
there are so many issues where the nation leans left, and they tend to be the BIG issues, like healthcare, economic equality, anti-corp, social services, etc.
when any of these become issue in any given election, the right (of both parties) inserts wedge (see, culture war) issues to distract and divide. this is not evidence that we are a center right nation, it is evidence of our distractibility and our failure to see the big picture.
sorry, bob, that is a poor read on the situation
I take it you mean simply that you disagree.
Your view seems very patronizing - that US voters all lean left on the "BIG issues" but are cleverly distracted by conservative politicians who raise "culture war" issues.
I disagree. I think, by and large, Americans vote for the things that are the most important to them. The "wedge issues" you dismiss as distractions are actually touchstone issues of fundamental importance to many/most voters. Many of these voters are social conservatives. The result is the election of ultra-conservative, neo-conservative, conservative, moderate conservative and centrist politicians. Very few liberal or "progressive" politicians are elected. Hence ... center right nation.
Otherwise, you'd have us believe that the country is center left, but just keeps electing conservatives because the voters are sheep. Too patronizing for me.
"Otherwise, you'd have us believe that the country is center left, but just keeps electing conservatives because the voters are sheep. Too patronizing for me."
bingo
that is zactly what i am saying. people that stare at their dwindling 401k accounts in despair, that wonder what happened to the housing market, are confused by the lack of jobs, are befuddled by their falling std of living, and are enraged when we fund wall street malfeasance, yet vote for a conservative b/c they were whipped into a frenzy, believing that gay marriage (or whatever wedge issue)is a threat to their own marriage, are, to me, sheep.
that is why people that try to shut down dissent, or debate, are only being played for fools by the establishment that profits off of silence and acquiesence
can we agree that a big part of the solution is education?
bob i enjoy a spirited joust of POVs, and i appreciate your willingness to take part in a honest exchange of ideas, we definitely have differing views, but finding common ground is never a bad thing
so, yes, indeed, education is crucial.
now... since you mentioned education, let's talk about obama's educ sec'y appointee, arne duncan, and his prefernce for a reliance on standardized testing, hee hee. nyuk, nyuk
Wedge issues are used to obfuscate much more important issues, news of which never reaches those who are sucked in by the wedge issues like gay marriage, prayer in the schools, lapel pins, etc., conservative touchstones.
If there's any "stupidity" in American voters, it's because they don't seek out news sources that discuss important issues, issues in which they can become involved and have opinions just as strong as they have on wedge issues.
I don't think the majority of Americans would measure very conservatively on domestic issues if they knew what they were. But like everyone, we all act on the information we have.
Someday maybe broadcast news will honestly describe Americans' choices to them when it comes to politics. As long as we have hugely popular hate-talk like FoxNews and Limbaugh, America won't change its appearance of being conservative.
.
On Tuesday, Obama will Swear an Oath to do a few things. One, is to "PRESERVE" the Laws of the Land...
... Notice: Absent from that Oath of Office is the exceptions for extraordinary cases.
.
Can we force prisoners to listen to Jonas Brothers albums?
You are an evil, evil person for that idea.
and he's the bestest evil person evah! Love ya, ysb!
:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raq8maAutAE
Originally, I was going to suggest making them listen to Yoko Ono torch songs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpDRl2uD3_c
for the great vids! Yowsah!
"It seems to me that these facts imply that if Barack Obama, or his administration, believe that there are reasonable grounds to believe that members of the Bush administration have committed torture, then they are legally obligated to investigate; and that if that investigation shows that acts of torture were committed, to submit those cases for prosecution, ....... it is not discretionary."
The law doesn't mention anything about looking forward.
While their waterboarding prisoners, are they baptising them at the same time?
"Accept Christ, or meet him personally!!!"
That was the Carolingian way.
Drowning For Jesus....it'd be a big hit at Sunday Mass!
Fear of waterboarding. Seriously I watched the kids getting dunked and held under, struggling, when I was 5 and something told me that just wasn't right.
when I was younger as well. Our minister preached fire and brimstone. Absolutely no sinning. Then he was caught screwing one of the town bigshot's wives. That was it for me.
One of the lawyers who was my paralegal instructor told of once getting a new client who was a local minister. He gave no names or details to tip off who this minister was, but he needed a laywer becaue he was getting sued, and he also wanted to counter-sue. The lawyer asked him why he was getting sued. The minister answered he was caught in bed with a parisioner's wife, and the parisioner chased him naked down the street, and filled his tookas with buck-shot. The lawyer was taking notes and looking thoughtful, and then the minister told him it was okay to laugh. My teacher said at that point he laughed like all get out.
Most of them don't even see the hypocrisy.
I was baptized at 8 as is customary with Mormons. But I've been excommunicated since 1980. I've learned since then if by some long-shot I wanted to joint almost any major church I'd have to be rebaptised, as apparently Mormons, among a few others, practice what is called invalid baptism.
With the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and the Anglicans I can kinda sorta understand it since they're into the whole Apostolic Succession thingamajig but not the rest.
married a very nice girl. But in order to get married, he had to convert to Catholic. Never could understand it. Why does it matter what religion you are to get married? And if marriage is truly a religious thing, why are their federal laws regarding married couples? It never did make any sense. A majority of people would rather see religion out of politics, but then, there it is all over. Right down to the swearing in of a President on a bible, and then the usual Gawd Bless America. Why? Seems ridiculous.
On Richard Dawkin's book "The God Delusion"
That might stir some change.
I doubt I'll ever get sworn in as president, but if I ever do in court it'll be on a stack of Mad Magazines.
On Captain Underpants? I am disillusioned.
I read more than one thing during the average course of the day. I'm finishing up with The Spider: The Hounds of Gotham, Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus, Mad Magazine (I have a subscription), and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. Right now I'm listening to Wagner, but when I get in my car it's likely to be Kate Bush.
It's funny, just now Wagner was playing the refrain that I so closely identify with 1943's Batman, starring Lewis Wilson as the caped crusader.
I'm trying to decide what I'll be reading next. I got my copies of Sun Tzu's the Art of War, Johann Goethe's The Sorrorws of Young Werther, Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto, or Fran Striker's Lone Ranger and Tonto. I've finally got my hands on a copy of Philip Francis Nowlan's Armegeddon 2419 AD.
Funny thing though according to most literary lists, I wouldn't be considered literate because I can't stand Fitzgerald and Hemmingway.
but perplexed. Margot was OK, as was Ariel before alterations. And Fitzgerald caught three TC passes although he cratered after the intermission.
One of my college professors, a gentleman named George Steiner, worked with Fran Striker.
... to my upbringing, my initial inquiries about the marriage ceremony for myself and my wife were made at our parish church, where we were promptly informed the church would have to speak to her former husband (who is a complete schmuck) before obtaining an anullment, that we would have to attend 'classes' (so we could learn what a good Catholic marriage is), and so on.
We opted to have a friend who is a Universal Life minister officiate.
that my aunt had my grandfather baptised post-mortem. I did not realize it but I guess that is a big thing for mormons (although no one in our family ever declared it as a religion.) My Dad wasn't too pleased. His father never was particularly religious.
him after he was dead? How the heck is that supposed to work?
It was long after he was cremated so there wasn't a body sprinkle water on.
LOL, when you think about it CC, how's baptism supposed to work when you're alive?
How does baptism of babies do anything? They haven't done anything yet.
At least under Lutheran, its a promise to the child to raise them under the religion until such date as they are old enough to confirm said baptism. I presume if you never go through confirmation, you are saying that you disagree.
Among Catholic it was to avoid the baby going to the limbo where "unspoken for" babies go if presumably they die before they join a religion. Except they just did away with that. It amuses me that some guy somewhere can just say "Oh thats gone" and some huge part of the afterlife that presumably collected hundreds of thousands of souls .. just .. goes ... *POOF*.
That's the doctrine of the original sin. This is derived of course from the Garden of Eden story of Adam and Eve eating the Forbidden Fruit, most likely a pomegranate, a long held fertility symbol, not an apple.
One is supposedly born into sin, by being born into a mortal body. That sounds all rather Pythagorian and at odds with the Church Councils regarding Gnosticism, Arianism, Nestorianism and Monophysitism.
So they baptize them while the infant is still young, but at age 13 they have a confirmation where they are old enough to understand in part what is taking place.
I believe it was St Augustine who observed disapprovingly, and I paraphrase, that humans are born between where a woman urinates and where she defecates. I'm not sure if that's the St Augustine who went to Kent in England in 597 and started converting the locals to Roman Catholocism.
For centuries people believed that unbaptized children would go to Hell. Unofficially the concept of Limbo was developed, so that the infants would not be seen as screaming in lakes of hellfire. Some German states actually gave unbaptized children to an ancient German goddess named Berchta to care for. She seemed to have some similarity to the Italian Le Befana. In either Greece or Romania, they became the pricolici, a form of vampire that chattered in trees, with glowing eyes, and probably was the cause of why vampires were blamed for mother's milk going dry.
But I can't be more specific, because I'm getting drunk, and my Shepherd's pie is taking forever to cook.
I was raised German Lutheran (to hate Catholics) and married a Catholic. Btw, as of the 1980s you no longer needed to convert to get the church wedding. But, you did need to go through the complete Catholic initiation, promise to raise the kids Catholic and pass two tests.
So, I've been through all this. Twice.
And yeah. The pope "closed", "wrote off", "annulled?" Limbo over a year ago. It still amuses me. Wine or no wine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/world/europ...
"that humans are born between where a woman urinates and where she defecates" that's the same thing that the Wasilla High School sex ed class teaches! No wonder Levi slipped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bizJWtJ0xXo&fe...
It's called Baptism for the Dead. It's why Mormons are so into geneology. The dead are baptized by proxy by a living relative. So I guess on the other side they'll be approached by a couple of nice young men in dark trousers, white shirt and ties riding bicycles.
I once visited a Roman Catholic church and attended mass, and afterwards spoke with the priest. I was 22, and almost fully committed to Witchcraft, but having a look around at other churches. I asked the officiating father about the significance of the body on the cross. And he said it represented the church. So I said, to parisioners are like the arms and the legs, and Jesus the head? That seemed to startle him but he agreed.
We then discussed transubstantiation versus consubstantiation. Apparently the outer reality of the emblems stay the same, but the internal reality changes in actuality. So I asked him if that meant the eucharist and the baptism paralleled each other. When one leaves the font they are not outwardly changed, but may be so internally. At that point the priest started looking at me strange.
"on the other side they'll be approached by a couple of nice young men in dark trousers, white shirt and ties riding bicycles." Now I will die easier knowing what to expect.
Thanks for the background on the Mormons too. Their genealogy research is actually quite beneficial and interesting, I think.
Could be woist.
You could be an hors d'ouvre of Ammut.
It seems someone uses their database to posthumously baptize holocaust victims.
http://baltimorejewish.com/2008/11/12/mormons-continue-posthumous-baptism-of-holocaust-victims/
Which manages to be horridly wrong, extremely revisionist, insensitive and totally ridiculous all at once.
Waiting for a more credible source.
I was about to say, AP, really? C&L is slippin'...
Of course there was the Hebraic/Babylonial tradition of Lilith/Lilitu, who flew about trying to kill the children of Eve (Us), her replacement. People hanged up amulets with the names of the three angels who pursued her to the Red Sea, where she lived in sin with Asmodius producing 100 babies a day, while God would kill 100 of her babies a day. The angels names were Sanvai, Sansanvai, Semangelof.
Of course more effective against Lilith and her Lilim was to list all her names: Lilith, Abitr, Abito, Amorfo, Khods, Ikpodo, Ayylo, Ptrota, Abnukta, Strine, Kle Ptuza, Tltoi Pritsa.
I should mention that according to fairy lore new borns were often kidnapped by fairies and replaced with changlings, their own children, that would probably be killed by a baptism.
That probably why in a 19th century Irish case (Bridget McMurphy?), was tortured and burned to death by her own husband and family, after days of torment, because in his deranged mind he thought her a changling. This so shocked a young Gerald Gardner, that later in the 1950's, he founded the first Witch's covens in England (Gardnerian Witchcraft), after the last Anti-Witchcraft law was repealed. One of his followers Alexander Sanders founded the Alexandrian branch that spread to America.
Sorry, but the fact Obama isn't demanding Bush be put on trial, and the fact he is packing his administration with Republicans is proof that he has either been bought off by the Republicans (as Pelosi has been) , or he is a closeted Republican.
No. he is just bought and sold like all other politicians. The fact he never got a bullet in him yet is to say he made a deal.
I saw the picture with the all living x presidents. He was snuggled into the Bushes and basically he must have agreed to not "fuck up the plan".
While the only man with any real morals and integrity, Jimmy Carter, was left by himself. The lonely corner of humanity while Obama clearly sides himself with the most inhumane crime family among us.
Bill Clinton was a stopgap they were not expecting to lose to. Once another Republican was in office the plan was put back into motion.
But I've already written Obama off as a liar, and someone who seems content to perpetuate Bush's war. If we are still at war by thge end of 2009, I will side with the righties- and hope they can impeach Obama.
your posts is proof the criminals you decry are not very thorough or you are very inconsequential.
because it tells some of us what we want to hear!
A version of Sunshine Patriotism perhaps?
Because I always believe what Big Tent Democrat has to say.
Christ , he's the one hoping everyone gets shot so Hillary can become President.
I found the missing thread.
obama spokesperson, Brooke Anderson , could have denied the allegation, but didn't.
this fits a larger obama pattern, where the reality falls short of the lofty rhetoric.
either we torture, or we don't. if there are jack bauer-type exceptions then, as a country, we torture. either torture works or it doesn't (it doesn't)--so why play footsie with being int'l criminals?
a history of intelligent and accurate posts, but didn't. I always take everything the AP says with a metric ton of grains of salt.
Unless they put sprinkles on it.
the AP sucks, no doubt. no, no, no doubt.
but, still, anderson's lack of comment--being one of obama's spokespeople--opens the door to a lot of speculation.
if she was commenting or noit commenting on drafts she had never seen, officials she had never heard of, debates that are not documented, or whatever other holes exist in the shit for donut offered up to gullible liberals by AP.
as this would only draw attention to the plan to torture.
Where's your Messiah now, you Obamaniacs?
Where's yours.
Fair enough? Atheist and proud of it.
that does not explain your ability to divine the future in regard to the "plan to torture." Please enlighten so we can
then abandon our silly devotionals and rid ourselves of this
powdered beverage concoction coursing through our veins and preventing us from taking a seat alongside the enlightened.
That Barack is constantly calling John McCain and Lindsay Graham to approve all his appointments etc.
They have a major "hands on" position with "the Obama Team". Thank God!!!
I wonder if Obama's calling Palin too, you know, just to make sure he's doing everything to HER satisfaction as well:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/19/americ...
Oh, it's twue, it's twue...IT'S TWUE!!!
Oh God...Oh God...OH GOD...!!!
Four weinerschnitzels my limit baby.
to what the townspeople posting here really think in their heart of hearts about the new sheriff? Or are you just glad to see me?
;)
That was my juxtapositioning of Obama and palin with Sheriff Bart with Lili Von Shtupp.
That was my juxtapositioning of Obama and palin with Sheriff Bart and Lili Von Shtupp.
Lepetomaine administration.
I miss his secretary.
That was my juxtapositioning of Obama and palin with Sheriff Bart and Lili Von Shtupp.
Keep doin the French mistake.
It is a conspiracy to divide us. And damnit, it worked.
Torture is wrong and unconstitutional. Plain and simple. The Rethugs love bringing up the Jack Bauer scenario. "They do it on TV and it works!" If that's the case, let's treat "suspects" like their in a Tom and Jerry cartoon! I'll get the frying pan...
I've got this really great set of ancient heavy cast iron pans. They are perfect!
Now, where am I supposed to show up (with my pans!!!) on MLK day for the volunteering???
Are better at torture than Tom and Jerry.
we all know the only plots uncovered and stopped by Bushco through EIT in their GWOT were those by Wily Coyote.
Everything in this post, and the original AP story uses the conditional tense in just about every reference to this loophole: would, could, may, might, etc. Until Obama actually does something to show otherwise, I'm going to have to call this one media sensationalism.
running up to the election.
Isn't it possible in practice torture will be ended
But they don't want the enemy to know that and think it a possibility?
I don't know if that's advisable, but ain't it possible?
but if so it would be a dumb effin strategy. like shutting down gitmo but pretending it was still in operation.
Login or Register to post comments.