|
| Posted by: Perm Dude
- [3682268] Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 14:31
I've been strongly resisting the attempts by the Left to characterize the Bush Administration as "nazis" or as "Stalinistic" (ironically, two completely different political systems).
But the torture debate is a call for closer scrutiny, since the Administration has both used war rhetoric against enemies foreign and domestic, as well as expanded and formalized its own powers to hold citizens and non-citizens alike on charges of "purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.
Read that carefully. The Administration can decide (for instance) that your support of a minority party in Pakistan is enough to get you locked up into a secret prison and held without charges. The Administration can decide that your support of a campaign to move troops out of Iraq is enough as well.
There is very little difference between the aims of this Administration and a police state. The only real difference is that the Administration doesn't believe itself to be advocating one. But if it walks like a police state... |
| | | 1 | Matt S
ID: 33644316 Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 14:48
|
If someone as intelligent as yourself, Fred, can come to this realization, maybe there is hope after all.
The first step is admitting you have a problem...
|
|
| | | 2 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 17:05
|
PD, I tend to agree with your post. I am hard-pressed to completely cynically conclude that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld folks are doing this to be in control, and because they are power hungry, that to some bizarro extent, they do feel like they are doing the right thing to protect us, that the intent is somehow good. But I dunno. I also feel like this insular, xenophobic, stubborn, exaggerated tactics that are then implemented in horrible ways (secret prisons, torture) is so wrong, so incompetent, so short-sighted, that it's like watching "Brazil," the Terry Gilliam movie of a while back. The shame is there are no checks and balances in our gov't to stop this stuff, call hearings, etc. The only thing close to a powerful dissent was Clinton's lashing out at Wallace on the Fox interview. I wish Bill would take the cause. No one else in the dumbocratic party seems to be able to loudly make the arguments you have made, and get folks to listen.
- walk
|
|
| | | 3 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 17:10
|
I just saw (and loved), "V for Vendetta," the other day, and could not stop thinking of "The Chancellor" (John Hurt) as (a more verbally adept) George Bush. Similar arguments! Eeeeeeesh.
- walk
|
|
| | | 4 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 18:25
|
Excellent post PD! I couldn't agree more. I just finished reading this revealing story about David Addington, a Cheney man who is the architech behind the Executive power grab.
Most Americans, even those who follow politics closely, have probably never heard of Addington. But current and former Administration officials say that he has played a central role in shaping the Administration's legal strategy for the war on terror. Known as the New Paradigm, this strategy rests on a reading of the Constitution that few legal scholars share, namely, that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries, if national security demands it. Under this framework, statutes prohibiting torture, secret detention, and warrantless surveillance have been set aside. This story made me ill. Addington and this administration knew that there are many prisoners in Guantanimo whom are completely innocent yet refused to investigate for to do so would be a capitulation to "political enemies" who have demanded we follow the Geneva Conventions.
It's too bad Toral and Madman don't contribute anymore, I'd like to hear from them their take on Addington and his views on executive power.
I honestly believe that the fate of our Constitution is riding on the elections in just a few weeks. Look, that sounds alarmist, but if you consider what has been revealed so far in the press and compare it to the minor crimes the Nixon Adminstration committed in comparison, it is warranted. Without Congressional hearings, we do not know the extent to which this adminstration has ignored laws like FISA. With attorneys like Addington advising the administration, I would expect a Constitutional showdown: the adminstration refusing to testify or submit records upon Congressional request, then upon judicial request. Who would enforce a subpeona order that the adminstration flaunts? After reading that article, I believe Addington would never give anything a Democratic controlled Congress requested, ever. I hope that more intelligent advice is followed.
|
|
| | | 5 | Species Leader
ID: 07724916 Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 18:48
|
Even Bush apologists would have a hard time ignoring the abuses of power under the guise of 'The War on Terror' -- and while these power grabs are certainly signs, for us to worry about any police state-like reign at this point seems a bit over the top.
However, it would scare the living $hit out of me if GWB somehow skated around the FDR amendment and lasted beyond 2 terms by envoking some executive priviledge and refusing to leave the White House.
|
|
| | | 6 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 19:00
|
His own party wouldnt allow it. That would be too blatant, even for them. What concerns me, is whther or not the American voter, has truly awakened to what they did by re-electing this administration. If not, the Reps will carry the day, and then I sincerely fear for the Constitution and the laws as we've known them in this nation.
|
|
| | | 7 | Perm Dude
ID: 3682268 Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 21:02
|
I've been reading about Addington as well, Zen. My impression is that he is an amazingly smart man. And without a moral compass.
It is difficult to turn away from this problem, when the reports seem to move from anectodal to the results from a trend the Administration would rather we not hear about. The story of Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen seized while changing planes in New York, then sent to a secret prison in Syria, and tortured until he said the untruths they wanted to hear is only the latest.
We've been hearing about Gitmo for years now. The reason many of these people are being held is that the Administration is hoping the evidence catches up with their incarceration. And in a democracy this is exactly backwards.
We lose our moral backing for the War on Terror by rejecting our own morality and legal code in fighting it. We have had the chance to do the right thing, and the Administration insists on doing the wrong thing while simultaneously saying that it is the only way to do it and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor.
The sad part, to me, is that the American people were very willing to throw their lot in with the President. He seemed to be focused and willing to draw upon the resources of the country to root out this evil that tried to hurt us. And he squandered it by making it a political campaign.
|
|
| | | 8 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 13:22
|
We have had the chance to do the right thing, and the Administration insists on doing the wrong thing while simultaneously saying that it is the only way to do it and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor.
What would the right thing to do be?
|
|
| | | 9 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 13:31
|
I just think it is strange that someone would say we are on the verge of being a police state it seemed ok to in prison our own citizens for being of japanese descent in WW2. Fear makes people do funny things.
|
|
| | | 10 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 13:33
|
Considering that it was a Democrat president that did that, yes it is strange indeed boiken .
|
|
| | | 11 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 49848118 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 13:39
|
What does FDR's party affiliation have to do with Japanese-American detainment?
Are you really suggesting that modern day leftists are ok with that practice because FDR was a Democrat?
|
|
| | | 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 18830276 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 13:43
|
Apparently they can't condone what is going on so they have to go back 65 years in order to slam Democrats.
How far has the Right fallen? They can't even be against torture of US citizens if a Democrat says they are against it.
|
|
| | | 13 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 13:44
|
Not entirely sure, Mith , I would like to see more comparisons made of W's handling of detainees to FDR's treatment of an entire race instead of comparing W to Stalin, Hitler, etc. But I doubt the MSM would sully the golden image of FDR to do that.
Did we lose our moral backing in World War II by placing Japanese-Americans in camps? Did that make us the bad guys or does s#it just happen in war?
|
|
| | | 14 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 13:47
|
Apparently they can't condone what is going on so they have to go back 65 years in order to slam Democrats.
Sorry Perm Dude, but with the way elections have been going over the past 75 years or so, one would have to go that far back to reference a Democrat president's approach. ;)
They can't even be against torture of US citizens if a Democrat says they are against it.
I'm for torture? I do know that I am against detaining a race of people in concentration camps because of their skin color or race.
|
|
| | | 15 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 49848118 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 13:52
|
I would like to see more comparisons made of W's handling of detainees to FDR's treatment of an entire race instead of comparing W to Stalin, Hitler, etc. But I doubt the MSM...
You're now implying that you have MSM comparing the Bush Administration to Hitler and Stalin. Where?
Did we lose our moral backing in World War II by placing Japanese-Americans in camps?
I sincerely doubt you'll find many on he left today who will defend that policy, regardless that FDR happened to be a Democrat.
|
|
| | | 16 | Perm Dude
ID: 18830276 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 13:54
|
Boxman, you can certainly try to derail the point of the thread, but it isn't going to happen. You're welcome to comment on the actual point at any time, instead of saying what other actions you favor or disfavor.
|
|
| | | 17 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 13:57
|
do know that I am against detaining a race of people in concentration camps because of their skin color or race.
Are nationality/religion justification? I asking, not accusing. Because thats the premise being used by our sitting administration.
Re FDR, many of us here abouts from the left, are already on record as having condemned the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII. Besides which, we arent dealing with that historic issue. There is nothing we can do about it today. Whats going on today though, is something we can do things about.
|
|
| | | 18 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 14:06
|
Mith: You're chopping my words up. Here's my quote that you took 1/2 of.
But I doubt the MSM would sully the golden image of FDR to do that.
Where did I say the MSM was saying Bush = Hitler? You know as well as I do that elements of the left have made that incorrect assertion. The MSM has a historical case to be used as a comparison, but I haven't seen them champion it.
Sarge:
Are nationality/religion justification? I asking, not accusing. Because thats the premise being used by our sitting administration.
When has W said that we're going to lock up Muslims because they are Muslims? By that I mean, randomly rounding up people who are Muslims, with no suspicion whatsoever, and detaining them for an extended period of time. I will agree that there are cases where we've made mistakes and I cannot stomach that any easier than you can. But there is a difference between mistakes and policy.
I wonder how much of what Perm Dude is doing is a knee jerk reaction when he says The Administration can decide (for instance) that your support of a minority party in Pakistan is enough to get you locked up into a secret prison and held without charges. The Administration can decide that your support of a campaign to move troops out of Iraq is enough as well. .
|
|
| | | 19 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 14:12
|
when i made reference to interment camps in WW2 i was using them as an example of what people will do when they do what they think is best and the fact that they more socially acceptable was the fact that country clearly saw the japanese as an enemy. I am sure that if a true war was going on against a clear enemy this whole torture/imprissionment problem would be totally acctable. Just as i am sure that i was take everyone here back to 40's you would not be speaking out against internment camps.
|
|
| | | 20 | Perm Dude
ID: 18830276 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 14:22
|
Boikin, back in the 40s the fear of a Japanese invasion was quite real. FDR responded by setting up the camps. It was wrong, of course, and many people (particularly in Washington State, and in particularly Bainbridge Island) spoke out strongly and eloquently against the thing.
But FDR never tortured people. He never spirited them away to other countries. And that is where the comparison falls apart.
|
|
| | | 21 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 49848118 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 14:31
|
Where did I say the MSM was saying Bush = Hitler?
I said you implied it and the reason I cut up your words was to get down to the apparent core meaning. If you didn't intend to imply that MSM has compared Bush to Hitler and Stalin then your word choice was very sloppy.
Post 13 asks for more comparisons made of W's handling of detainees to FDR's treatment of an entire race instead of comparing W to Stalin, Hitler, etc. Comparisons from whom? Now read your next sentence. If you say you didn't intend that inference so be it but I'm sure that I'm not he only one who read it that way.
Anyway, your point is misguided (especially your Democrat tie-in) since both in this forum and elsewhere you'll find far more support for detainment of Japanese-Americans in the 1940s among the right than you will among the left. Good for you for not buying in to the political right's support of that policy.
You know as well as I do that elements of the left have made that incorrect assertion.
So what? "Elements" from both sides make all kinds of assertions. The very first sentence typed in this thread, PD questions those very characterizations.
I wonder how much of what Perm Dude is doing is a knee jerk reaction when he says
Knee jerk reaction to what?
|
|
| | | 22 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 14:34
|
But there is a difference between mistakes and policy.
Only if the mistakes are acknowledged, corrected and steps are taken to eliminate them in the future. None of which, hold true with this administrations practice of detaining people w/o charges, w/o investigation and w/o legal representation.
|
|
| | | 23 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 14:38
|
Actaully i see no difference in situations given there was real threat. Secondly you know that during WW2 prisoners where spirited away and brought back to the states and if you think torture did not take place you are on crack. also there was a great fear of japanese invasion but the reality was nothing close to that and the threats of japanease invasions where introduced and perpectuated by the government.
|
|
| | | 24 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 49848118 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 14:40
|
Secondly you know that during WW2 prisoners where spirited away and brought back to the states and if you think torture did not take place you are on crack.
I'd like to see some evidence that Japanese-Americans were taken outside of the country and tortured.
threats of japanease invasions where introduced and perpectuated by the government.
Please back that one up, too.
|
|
| | | 25 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 14:43
|
MITH please reread brought back to the states i would like to know how you got taken outside of the country from that.
|
|
| | | 26 | Perm Dude
ID: 18830276 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 14:43
|
It isn't so much a "knee-jerk" reaction as it is a reading of the actual text of the actual law.
Perhaps Republicans have morphed completely into anti-Republicans, where the text of the law no longer means anything. It would fit the other morphing of Republicans into pro-big government, fiscally irresponsible, and civil rights suspending whatevers.
Not long ago Republicans were "originalists," stating that the law is what is says it is and no more--indeed, for the judiciary to do otherwise to "make law" and that was out-of-bounds for the judiciary.
Now we have "a bill allowing the president the right to seize anyone in this country, detain him or her without charges indefinitely and torture them in secret." (Andrew Sullivan).
Whatever happened to small-government Republicans, who believed that the best government was one that did exactly what is was allowed to do and no more. People who believed that the free marketplace of ideas and rights is worth more than anything else in this country.
This whole thing started to go off the rails when the Administration started fighting a political war in going after Saddam. Bad move made even worse by the Administration confusing being resolute with being right.
|
|
| | | 27 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 49848118 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 14:46
|
i would like to know how you got taken outside of the country from that.
Up to that point all of the discussion regarding WW2 detainment referred specifically to the policy of detaining Japanese-Americans. I assumed you were still on-topic. Silly me.
|
|
| | | 28 | Perm Dude
ID: 18830276 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 14:51
|
When did Republicans become such Relativists, too?
|
|
| | | 29 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 14:53
|
MITH you are correct then again i dont know why i would want to spirt some away from the states when the camps where here, stupid me.
as justification for lack of japanease threat go look it up find me a source that states the japanese where a threat to invade the US. It is reletively easy to see the logistically it would be nearly impossible for japanese to carry out a successful invasion of the US and what little propiblity there was of invasion ended after the battle of midway and yet the internment camps still exsisted.
|
|
| | | 30 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 49848118 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 15:07
|
then again i dont know why i would want to spirt some away from the states when the camps where here, stupid me.
Well I asked because it obviously didn't seem right. Regardless, you should know that the detainment camps the Japanese Americans were kept in were much different from prisons. That doesn't make it OK, of course.
as justification for lack of japanease threat...
I didn't ask you to justify you claim that there was no threat of invasion from Japan. I asked you to show me that threats of japanease invasions where introduced and perpectuated by the government
If the detainment policy was falsely justified by an invasion threat that didn't actually exist then what was the point of it all?
|
|
| | | 31 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 15:13
|
There absolutely was a real threat of a Japanese attack on the States. That's not even debatable.
|
|
| | | 32 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 15:46
|
MITH the piont was that the situations where the same and threats of japanease invasions where introduced and perpectuated by the government should show you how similiar they really are. Do you not see the pattern here.
intoduction who else is going to intoduce it, MITH i believe you where just lecturing me yesterday on how people need guidence in religion but some how a more complecated thing such as war they do not?
perpetuation is easy to show by the fact that camps where still open after any real japanese threats where over and movies such as 'Little Tokyo, U.S.A.' which was supported by anti-japanase government propoganda.
|
|
| | | 33 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 49848118 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 16:02
|
Boikin I really hope you don't take this as an insult but I (and I think others) would appreciate it if you'd take an extra minute to proofread. Believe me I know my own poor grammar and spelling an diction can be annoying but I frequently have trouble understanding your posts.
I really don't know what anything you've written in the first paragraph of post 32 means. The situations [were] the same? What situations?
[introduction] who else is going to [introduce] it, MITH
Its my opinion that the Japanese did a fine job of that themselves.
perpetuation is easy to show by the fact that camps where still open after any real japanese threats where over and movies such as 'Little Tokyo, U.S.A.' which was supported by anti-japanase government propoganda.
I hate to play gotcha, but a minute ago you said there were no real threats. I haven't seen Little Tokyo, so again, that doesn't help.
|
|
| | | 34 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 16:24
|
Boikin I really hope you don't take this as an insult but I (and I think others) would appreciate it if you'd take an extra minute to proofread. Believe me I know my own poor grammar and spelling an diction can be annoying but I frequently have trouble understanding your posts. no appology necessary there, you are completly correct and the worse part is that i do reread the stuff allot of the time. It all just makes sense in my head sometimes probably because i work all day with numbers.
hate to play gotcha, but a minute ago you said there were no real threats more like I got my self see earlier comment. I ment to say when all theoritical threats where over not real.
Its my opinion that the Japanese did a fine job of that themselves. that is your opninion, though I am sure you have posted at least once talking about how Bush administration has used proganda to multiply fears of the people. which gets back to my original point that bush adminstration is mearly replaying past events and that somehow we think they are different.
|
|
| | | 35 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 374522815 Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 18:54
|
that is your opninion, though I am sure you have posted at least once talking about how Bush administration has used proganda to multiply fears of the people.
I have. Presented with quotes and contextual facts and timelines and links to support my arguments. I don't see any of that from you.
|
|
| | | 36 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 158152715 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 01:19
|
Posting while PWI, admits it this time,
Congressman Ron Paul, U.S. House of Representatives, June 27, 2002
...
Some argue that we already live in a police state, and Congress doesn't have the foggiest notion of what they're dealing with. So forget it and use your energy for your own survival. Some advise that the momentum towards the monolithic state cannot be reversed. Possibly that's true, but I'm optimistic that if we do the right thing and do not capitulate to popular fancy and the incessant war propaganda, the onslaught of statism can be reversed.
To do so, we as a people will once again have to dedicate ourselves to establishing the proper role a government plays in a free society. That does not involve the redistribution of wealth through force. It does not mean that government dictates the moral and religious standards of the people. It does not allow us to police the world by involving ourselves in every conflict as if it's our responsibility to manage a world American empire.
But it does mean government has a proper role in guaranteeing free markets, protecting voluntary and religious choices and guaranteeing private property ownership, while punishing those who violate these rules- whether foreign or domestic.
In a free society, the government's job is simply to protect liberty- the people do the rest. Let's not give up on a grand experiment that has provided so much for so many. Let's reject the police state.
|
|
| | | 37 | Matt S
ID: 45621302 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 02:05
|
What the F*&% do Japanese internment camps have to do with the Bush administration???
Reading the discussions in some of these threads is like observing an ADD test group for a drug that is not working.
|
|
| | | 38 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 10:20
|
Good one, Matt S! I just read through this thread, and was dismayed to see the effective derailment of PD's most excellent points by comparisons to Japanese internment camps during WW2. While that was awful, it's irrelevant to the current discussion.
Bush and his nuts are, well, what PD said in post #26. Perfect. And of course, the first post.
This administration and its stubborness and refusal to admit any mistakes just digs itself deeper and deeper into a relative "dictatorship" by any of our U.S. standards, and I wonder if freakin Bush & Cheney and Rumsfeld should just invade itself, since we have WMD, or committing torture, are threats to ourselves (and other countries), and have created a situation in Iraq that now has formally been documented by our own spy agencies as exacerbating global terrorism and threats to Americans. Talk about a very ironic vicious cycle. The only things that keep me sane about it are watching the Daily Show, Bill Mahr, Keith Olbermann, and Stephen Colbert.
- walk
|
|
| | | 39 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 11:29
|
MITH here you go sited reference i could go and get more for you if you really need them.
Re 37 and 38: acctually they have everything to do with it. As i was trying to piont out before is that this is mearly a repeat of how things have played out before and as I stated many other times in other threads, you guys love to piont out what is wrong with world but can never ever piont out what causes these problems. Some how the idea that you might be part of problem and not part of solution scares you. With that said this thread really did get dragged way off topic. sorry.
|
|
| | | 40 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 11:44
|
I respect that you want to use past examples to indicate the causes of current situations, boikin. Perhaps I did not see the forest through the trees, but I felt that the examples of previous wrongdoings in this regard turned into a discussion of whether it's apples and oranges or a party blame game thing.
Ultimately, I am interested in this discussion cos it's about what this administration is doing, and it's "live" and very current, and seemingly growing. Sometimes, as you indicate, the comparisons then take on a life of their own, and distract from a discussion about the extent of the current/original issue at hand (Bush's turning this country into a police state).
- walk
|
|
| | | 41 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 12:19
|
Walk to rephrase the piont might make it seem a little more on topic. There is a tendency for excutive part of the government to try and take more powers anytime there is a war or percieved imanent threat to the country. The Bush administration is mearly continuing this general pattern. The argument should not be is the admistration trying to take more power but why are they trying to take more poser.
A) do they over estimate the threat the terrorist pose to the country and are doing what they believe is best for the country.
B) do they fear the terrorist in the since that one terrorist attach on the country would bring the admistration down. A policy of adimistration self preservation.
C) Are they just mearly power hungry. Using terroism to push forward there own power hungry agenda.
D) A combination of the above and/or none of the above.
And as follow up question is the terrorism thread real or is the admistration trying to decieve us of there real danger.
|
|
| | | 42 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 12:22
|
And to answer my own question i thing things started out as (A) but as reality began to set out they began to relize that the threat was not a great as originally thought the admistration began to fear that any successful attach would bring them down.
As for the war iraq i have allways believed that it was some personal vendetta bush had to revenge his father for not taking saddam out after the first gulf war and mocking saddam did in the years to follow.
|
|
| | | 43 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 12:23
|
C) Are they just mearly power hungry. Using terroism to push forward there own power hungry agenda.
And right there, you have oyur answer boikin. This administration, has seemingly done everything it can, do erode the powers of The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. They have IMHO, usurped legislative authority into the Executive Branch, and largely nuetered the inherent "checks and balances" which have in the past, prevented power grabs such as is being done by this admin.
|
|
| | | 44 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 12:27
|
sarge - one problem that i have with answer (C) is to what ends. for powers sake? it is easy to say they are power hungry but what would there goals be?
|
|
| | | 45 | Perm Dude
ID: 45822289 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 12:30
|
I have to echo boikin's reservations on the point. I don't think the Administration is "power hungry" in the traditional sense of the term. I think they have a clear goal that is rooted in a love of the country.
But their planning sucks. And coupled with an inability to be flexible (comes from their self-declared "mandate" I suppose) we have a real problem when things start to go wrong.
|
|
| | | 46 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 49848118 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 12:38
|
The argument should not be is the admistration trying to take more power but why are they trying to take more poser.
Boikin, there's no evidence that I know of to show that our torture (sorry - interrogation) policies have changed since the early days of the War of Terror. We've simple rewritten (sorry - clarified) the rules to support our policy.
The only way post 41 works if if you are referring to power grabs that occurred in time shortly after 9/11. If that's the case, I think its telling that one explanation option that you did not offer was that there was a legitimate imminant threat. At the time that the Patriot Act was signed, there were very few who did not feel it was apropriate to expand the government's authority in response to the attacks, whether you like the Patriot Act, itself, or not.
|
|
| | | 47 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 12:38
|
For the purpose of "handing off" to their neocon brethren, the ability to continue what they have begun. The American populace has become too accustom to being told "for your safety", and is far too accepting of that line for each and every degradation of civil liberties.
|
|
| | | 48 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 12:50
|
MITH - why are they grapping more power? that is logical question. your are both right and wrong about post 41 it was reference to all actions since 9/11 if you read my post in 42 i thought the power grap had changing causes as time changed. they could have merely ended the 'intergation prisons' when they saw that threat was not what it orriginally percieved to be, but they did not.
Sarge i find your theory a little a extreme and as we can all see it does not appear that there plan is working to good inless you can tell me how W can become any less popular.
|
|
| | | 49 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 13:45
|
Today's NY Times: ************* September 28, 2006 Editorial Rushing Off a Cliff Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.
Republicans say Congress must act right now to create procedures for charging and trying terrorists — because the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks are available for trial. That’s pure propaganda. Those men could have been tried and convicted long ago, but President Bush chose not to. He held them in illegal detention, had them questioned in ways that will make real trials very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts to convict them.
It was only after the Supreme Court issued the inevitable ruling striking down Mr. Bush’s shadow penal system that he adopted his tone of urgency. It serves a cynical goal: Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism.
Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.
These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.
The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.
Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.
Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.
Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.
Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.
Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.
•There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.
We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.
They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
|
|
| | | 50 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 13:52
|
I think the policies being written now are almost a backwards justification for the things the administration has already done. So, if the law supports the coerced interrorgations they did 3 years ago for example, then it's okay. It's a lot of substantiating past behavior and then having the legal justification to continue it. All in the name of patriotism and freedom and security. All very misguided. I agree with PD that the intent is good ("for the love of our country"), but just plain warped. I wish they would emphasize facets about the bill of rights, civil liberties, etc as being most indicative of a love of our country.
However, the strategy is not completely void of power for power's sake: the mid-term elections are near, and the more the Republicans can instill fear and security as key issues, and create decisions like this anti-terror bill that position their party ("pro-security") favorably against the other party ("soft on security" cos they voted against it), the more they think they can win. The Republicans think this anti-terror bill for example is "strong" and that the majority of the American public will view pol's in favor of it as "strong on security" and pol's who vote against it as "weak." It's a shame.
- walk
|
|
| | | 51 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 13:52
|
irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election:
I love this line, though i would say this is part of our democracy, for better or worse, not the downfall of it.
|
|
| | | 52 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 15:15
|
Sarge i find your theory a little a extreme and as we can all see it does not appear that there plan is working to good inless you can tell me how W can become any less popular.
Thought the same just before the 2002 election in Nov too. Until post mid-term election, we cant see diddly.
|
|
| | | 53 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 16:12
|
Let us all mourn, the passing of the Bill of Rights:
Senate rejects terror suspect challenges
Story Highlights• NEW: Measure to give terror suspects habeas corpus rights rejected • Senate expected to pass bill authorizes terror suspects interrogations, tribunals • House approved bill along mostly party-line vote Wednesday.
|
|
| | |
| | | 55 | Perm Dude
ID: 45822289 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 16:48
|
The Legislative Branch of the Federal Government might as well now be called the "Department of the Congress."
|
|
| | | 56 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 16:53
|
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...it's pretty much in lock step, with the Open Letter I wrote/posted, the day ofter shrubs re-election.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution, have been used as this administrations doormat, and this wonderful Congress of ours, has allowed it to happen.
|
|
| | | 57 | Tree
ID: 548102815 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 17:12
|
so, at what point does Bush announce that he's running for a third term?
|
|
| | | 58 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 17:14
|
he wont. He'll simply announce himself, "Supreme Dictator for Life".
|
|
| | | 59 | Tree
ID: 548102815 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 17:19
|
i love these parts from the cnn article.
Notes the president has the authority to interpret "the meaning and application" of the Geneva Conventions.
Allows hearsay evidence.
Bars individuals from protesting violations of Geneva Conventions standards in court.
i mean, what on earth does the third one mean???? that if evidence is coerced through a violation of the Geneva Conventions, the individual can't say that!?!?
what have we become in this country? seriously.
i'll tell you what. we have become the enemy. we have become everything i have seen us fight against my whole life - we accept torture, we accept violations of the geneva convention, and we allow imprisonment without actually be charged with a crime.
everything i read in a variety of books as a kid that "the bad guys" did, we now do.
i am embarrassed to be an american and i am disgusted with our government.
|
|
| | | 60 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 17:26
|
<-----dont blame me, I didnt vote for the bstrd.
|
|
| | | 61 | Perm Dude
ID: 45822289 Thu, Sep 28, 2006, 17:28
|
#58: Bush isn't "power hungry" in that way. He's not interested in staying in office. But he is interested in seeing that his "vision" is continued, and so will work toward a successor who shares his vision.
Santorum (win or lose) will probably test the waters. And others.
But the saddest part is that the Democrats were mostly silent--making this an intramural dispute. And when the Three Senators caved, there went the chance to do the right thing.
Colbert clip
I'm pleased at least one of my senators (Spector) spoke and voted against it. And I just sent my Representative (Kanjorski) a note thanking him for voting against HR 6166 yesterday. I encourage everyone here to do the same--a note to your representatives saying "thanks" or "what the hell were you thinking."
|
|
| | | 62 | Matt S
ID: 45621302 Fri, Sep 29, 2006, 00:42
|
So where are the marches on the white house? Where are the street protests? Where are the riots? Where are the celebrities and musicians that are so prominent in American culture speaking out against this stuff? Student rallies?
Or is everyone once again asleep at the wheel? Are people too worried about missing the next "reality" series to bother making their displeasure become known? Have the US politicians succeeded in making the population believe that they are in such immediate danger? Enough so that they can undermine their own constitution AND an international human rights treaty?
Or is the media controlled enough to not let this kind of opposition become known? How can this go through without such noise being made by your ONLY "opposition" party?
Is there an opposition party in the US? Is democracy alive in the US? If so, what gives?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. In order for America to become what it once was, you're going to need a second revolution. And before that happens things are going to have to get quite a bit worse for the average person.
|
|
| | | 63 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Fri, Sep 29, 2006, 04:30
|
Most unfortunately Matt, I'm in 100% agreement with you there.
Some 200 years ago, this nation fought for freedom from the tyranny of King George. With yesterdays legislative action, it may well become necessary to do so again. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, were at least in part penned to ensure that no one man would hold the "power of the crown" in this country. Yesterday, our Congress, gave shrub that very power. The authority to without judicial review, detain indefintiely. The power to deem one an "enemy of the state", now resides with just one man. Such a declaration, precludes the defendants right to even see or hear the evidance used to convict, and thats assuming that after ebing detained, one is ever tried in order to be convicted.
Every soldier, every sailor, every airmen and marine, every law enforcement officer within this country has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I would put forth that the greatest assault our Constitution has ever faced, is coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.
The day after he was reelected, I posted here an open letter which I had written and sent to numerous newspapers across the country. Toward the end of that letter, I stated that it wouldnt be long before one who would write such a letter would be:
Won’t be too much longer that as the author of a Letter to the Editor like this, I’ll be subject to a Federal inquiry under the guise that I’m a subversive. What I am however, is an 18 year US Army veteran with former friends who died to defend the principles of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I am right now, as I told katie last night, so ashamed of what our nation has become, that if I had the means, we'd move out of country.
|
|
| | |
| | | 65 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Fri, Sep 29, 2006, 11:16
|
to facilitate the hoped for deluge of emails/snailmails expressing our collective disgust:
senate roll call vote
How these people can call themselves leaders is beyond me, when 48-51, they vote down an amendment to provide habeous corpus rights.
and from the house:
house roll call vote
|
|
| | | 66 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Fri, Sep 29, 2006, 11:36
|
walk - they where talking about the report on pbs the other day i am glad to see that you found an article on the report. i do not know if they mentioned it in the article but in the story i saw it also mention that Iraq has let to self fullfilling profecy in the sense that war has become about us versus the terrorist there now.
|
|
| | | 67 | Perm Dude
ID: 33840299 Fri, Sep 29, 2006, 11:40
|
At this point I think it is pretty clear that Iraq is in a sectarian civil war. Perhaps, like Yugoslavia, the loss of the draconian leader at the top has caused a civil war after he no longer held power (not a surprise: when the dictator kills off any competent opposition leaders you are left with all sorts of incompetent ones in the end).
|
|
| | | 68 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Fri, Sep 29, 2006, 11:42
|
sarge Some 200 years ago, this nation fought for freedom from the tyranny of King George. if this what you think the revolution was about then you might want to go reread some history.
nice post matt. where have all the protesters gone?
do you guys think bush is america's ceasar?
|
|
| | | 69 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Fri, Sep 29, 2006, 12:12
|
its a "play on words" boikin. King George of Britain in the late 18th Century, King George of TX in the early 21st century. (see my "letter to the editor, dtd Nov 2002.)
|
|
| | | 70 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Fri, Sep 29, 2006, 12:40
|
sarge, sorry.
|
|
| | | 71 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Fri, Sep 29, 2006, 15:32
|
In Iraq, a journalist in limbo
This is now a legal method of treating even US citizens: (or will be once signed by King George)
NEW YORK -- Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi photographer who helped the Associated Press win a Pulitzer Prize last year, is now in his sixth month in a U.S. Army prison in Iraq. He doesn't understand why he's there, and neither do his AP colleagues.
The Army says it thinks Bilal has too many contacts among insurgents. He has taken pictures the Army thinks could have been made only with the connivance of insurgents. So Bilal himself must be one, too, or at least a sympathizer.
It is a measure of just how dangerous and disorienting Iraq has become that suspicions such as these are considered adequate grounds for locking up a man and throwing away the key.
After more than five months of trying to bring Bilal's case into the daylight, AP is now convinced the Army doesn't care whether Bilal is or isn't an insurgent. The Army doesn't have to care. Bilal is off the street, and the military says it doesn't consider itself accountable to any judicial authority that could question his guilt.
But Bilal's incarceration delivers a further bonus. He is no longer free to circulate in his native Falluja or in Ramadi, taking photographs that coalition commanders would prefer not to see published.
Anbar province is a hot zone in a hot country. Violence and lawlessness there have been a special problem for U.S. forces nearly since they arrived in Iraq, which means the flow of breaking news has been continuous, much of it bad.
U.S. journalists are severely limited in their ability to move safely, make themselves understood and develop sources in such areas. AP has learned to overcome those limitations, using techniques honed over decades of covering sectarian confrontation and bloodshed in the Middle East....
|
|
| | | 72 | Matt S
ID: 33644316 Fri, Sep 29, 2006, 17:14
|
So being a "sympathizer" to an "insurgent" is enough to get one thrown into prison without charges and held indefinately.
How can any self respecting American stand for this?
|
|
| | |
| | | 74 | Matt S
ID: 33644316 Fri, Sep 29, 2006, 17:44
|
I was at the S-21 prison last November, walk. I had some of the torture methods lightly demonstrated to me and it nearly made me sick. For me that's saying something. There was literally still blood on the floors and on the devices. I've got some pictures on my laptop if anyone's interested.
Torture is barbaric and history will credit those participating as such.
|
|
| | | 75 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Fri, Sep 29, 2006, 18:02
|
How can any self respecting American stand for this?
I cant Matt. It disgusts me. It sickens me. It is what was on my mind when I awoke at 2am this morning and couldnt get back to sleep. I dont know what I am going to do to combat this turn of events, but combat it I will. More "Letters to the Editor" will be composed and sent this weekend. An effort to organize some vocal opposition, is underway. Will it lead anywhere? I dont know. But I cannot sit back and not try.
|
|
| | | 76 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Sat, Sep 30, 2006, 10:37
|
Many U.S. legal rights absent in detainee bill
University of Texas constitutional law professor Sanford V. Levinson described the bill in an Internet posting as the mark of a "banana republic." Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh said that "the image of Congress rushing to strip jurisdiction from the courts in response to a politically created emergency is really quite shocking, and it's not clear that most of the members understand what they've done."
[emphasis added]
|
|
| | | 77 | Perm Dude
ID: 9854308 Sat, Sep 30, 2006, 10:54
|
I think the efforts of the Administration to cut out the Judiciary is what will get SCOTUS involved.
|
|
| | | 78 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Sat, Sep 30, 2006, 11:02
|
I'm anxiously awaiting Woodwards new book too.
Book says aide urged Bush to fire Rumsfeld
Former White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr. on two occasions tried and failed to persuade President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, according to a new book by Bob Woodward that depicts senior officials of the Bush administration as unable to face the consequences of their policy in Iraq.
Card made his first attempt after Bush was reelected in November 2004, arguing that the administration needed a fresh start and recommending that Bush replace Rumsfeld with former secretary of state James A. Baker III. Woodward writes that Bush considered the move but was persuaded by Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, that it would be seen as an expression of doubt about the course of the war and would expose Bush to criticism.
Card tried again around Thanksgiving 2005, this time with the support of first lady Laura Bush, who, according to Woodward, felt that Rumsfeld's overbearing manner was damaging to her husband. Bush refused for a second time, and Card left the administration in March, convinced that Iraq would be compared to Vietnam and that history would record that no senior administration officials had raised their voices in opposition to the conduct of the war.
|
|
| | | 79 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 158152715 Mon, Oct 02, 2006, 20:01
|
RE: 57
so, at what point does Chavez' Devil, Bush, announce that he's running for a third term?
Chavez
Chavez vowed to win the Dec. 3 vote and continue governing this South American nation until 2021. "Fourteen more years, that's what's coming," Chavez said.
Venezuela's Constitution allows a president to be re-elected only once in immediate succession. If Chavez wins a second six-year term in December, he wouldn't be able to run again in 2012 without a legal change.
Chavez has floated the possibility of changing Venezuela's constitution to allow indefinite re-election.
|
|
| | | 80 | ukula
ID: 387512222 Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 00:20
|
Wow. I'm speechless. In the same thread we have pd AND sarge both coming to the realization that the current administration has created a police state. All of a sudden the light went on? Was it the torture bill that did it?
My guess is Bush and company will "create" another "attack" before his 2nd term runs out and he'll declare martial law, cancel all elections, etc.... We'll have GW for a long time.
Did anyone else realize that tucked deep within the torture bill is something that makes Bush and company immune from war crimes dating back to 9/11.
Where is Congress in all this? Where is the media in all of this? What has this nation become? We now allow torture and the president can lock up anyone he pleases for no reason?
We're moving closer and closer to Nazi America.
infowars.net
|
|
| | | 81 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 08:17
|
Someone hasnt been paying much attention.
|
|
| | | 82 | Baldwin
ID: 4994538 Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 10:45
|
Let's just see if people really believe what they are posting here...
Not only do governments still adhere to nazi level evil practices, but they have developed them further and all pretense mankind has advanced beyond them into 'never again' needs to be dropped...
Nazi boxcars still roll to hell everyday
If you have any doubt whatsoever about the information in link read this and tell me it doesn't have the unmistakable undeniable ring of truth.
|
|
| | | 83 | Baldwin
ID: 139439 Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 11:04
|
Now lets see if people around here really believe their own rhetoric.
That level of evil couldn't happen here?
Link
Link
Still curious if the posters here still believe their own rhetoric or if they will revert to thumbsucking when it gets really scary.
|
|
| | | 84 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 11:08
|
In the same thread we have pd AND sarge both coming to the realization that the current administration has created a police state.
have you been paying ANY attention? i think it's old news - VERY OLD NEWS - that a number of posters here, PD and Sarge included, have been very critical of this administration and their very un-American ways.
|
|
| | | 85 | Matt S
ID: 45621302 Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 14:12
|
Baldwin - I'm confused. 'Evidence' of death camps and preparation for an American Holocaust are supposed to make us doubt that the current US administration is not on the way to becoming a military dictatorship how?
|
|
| | | 86 | Baldwin
ID: 18924314 Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 16:24
|
MattS
I am on record longstanding, holding that the NWO Bush's father promoted will be a human rights violating, religion persecuting monster in the style of China today. And the media will do even less to bring it to light or prevent it than they are today. In fact it will be illegal for them to portray things in anything but utopian light.
|
|
| | | 87 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 17:28
|
and even so, you blast all things Democrat. *shakes head*
|
|
| | | 88 | Matt S
ID: 45621302 Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 21:36
|
Ok, so assuming you view this as bad, what do you propose to be done about it?
|
|
| | | 89 | Boldwin
ID: 49958321 Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 23:58
|
Get ready.Do not fear those who kill the body and after this are not able to do anything more. 5 But I will indicate to YOU whom to fear: Fear him who after killing has authority to throw into Ge·hen´na. Yes, I tell YOU, fear this One. 6 Five sparrows sell for two coins of small value, do they not? Yet not one of them goes forgotten before God. 7 But even the hairs of YOUR heads are all numbered. Have no fear; YOU are worth more than many sparrows. - Jesus You only have two things they can't take from you without your permission and they are the two most valuable things you could own. Your integrity and your relationship with God.
As Orwell [who was a defecting insider] revealed, they will stop at nothing to 'steal your soul' as it were, reshape you into their mold.
Resisting their efforts will require an unshakable relationship with God. Anyone lacking that will probably cave and compromise and lose their very identity, integrity, what makes them who they are.
No other effective resistance is possible.
|
|
| | | 90 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 08:37
|
No other effective resistance is possible.
So, you're saying it was prayer which allowed the fledgling US to win the Rev War and not guns? And the War of 1812, and to put an end to the Civil War, WWI, WWII? Nope. You want effective resistance? Get yourself a 7mm, rifle, and lots and lots of bullets. Ofc ourse, there is another option.....vote.
|
|
| | | 91 | ukula
ID: 31939410 Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 12:42
|
You better vote now since this will be the last election before Bush declares martial law.
|
|
| | | 92 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 13:04
|
You want effective resistance? Get yourself a 7mm, rifle, and lots and lots of bullets.
I'm surprised other leftists haven't already corrected Sarge, but I don't remember reading about Gandhi using an AK-47 or MLK telling his followers to shoot Whitey on sight.
There are other ways of resistance.
|
|
| | | 93 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 13:18
|
Sarge i am glad you mentioned the civil war because it was not weapons that ended that war it was leadership, do you not wonder why the civil war did not break out into a gurellila war after the army of virginia was defeated. And i think some leadership is needed here again.
|
|
| | | 94 | Perm Dude
ID: 5694048 Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 13:22
|
As I have pointed out, Saddam killed off, over the course of decades, all competent opposition leadership.
If we aren't goint to put in the manpower needed to police a peace (because that is what is needed now), we need to get out of Iraq right away and let them sort it out. Our manpower is better spent on the War on Terror.
|
|
| | | 95 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 13:26
|
Sarge i am glad you mentioned the civil war because it was not weapons that ended that war it was leadership, do you not wonder why the civil war did not break out into a gurellila war after the army of virginia was defeated. And i think some leadership is needed here again.
|
|
| | | 96 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 13:27
|
I'm surprised other leftists haven't already corrected Sarge, but I don't remember reading about Gandhi using an AK-47 or MLK telling his followers to shoot Whitey on sight.
i'm pretty certain that Gandi never voted in a U.S. election, and i'm pretty sure that Sarge didn't say anything about shooting Whitey on sight.
You failed to notice that Sarge advocating Voting to make a change.
that being said, sometimes, armed resistance is the only way for a chance. personally, i prefer peaceful methods, but sometimes, you need to do what you need to do.
|
|
| | | 97 | The Treasonists Donor
ID: 171572711 Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 15:11
|
You better vote now since this will be the last election before Bush declares martial law.
If the polls are going bad, I'm not sure we'll even make it to this election.
|
|
| | | 98 | Perm Dude
ID: 5694048 Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 15:28
|
Good point!
Maybe we should all do our part, and send President Bush something shiny to hold his attention until then.
|
|
| | | 99 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 15:28
|
There are other ways of resistance.
As Tree pointed out, you failed to read (comprehend?), the entire post. So here, for your clarification, is the last line copy/pasted so as to be exact:
Ofc ourse, there is another option.....vote. (complete with typos and all)
re 93: Of course leadership played a role in ending the Civil War. So did the fact that the South, was running out of troops. (The guys with guns.) They were running out of food. (To feed the guys with the guns.) And they were running out of munitions. (To give the guys with the guns.)
|
|
| | | 100 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 16:19
|
sarge that totally ignores the point that it did not detoriate into a guirella warfare and the ending of the war left the country in some what of a state where it could be reunifed.
|
|
| | |
| | | 102 | Boldwin
ID: 45943416 Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 18:43
|
Get ready.Do not fear those who kill the body and after this are not able to do anything more. 5 But I will indicate to YOU whom to fear: Fear him who after killing has authority to throw into Ge·hen´na. Yes, I tell YOU, fear this One. 6 Five sparrows sell for two coins of small value, do they not? Yet not one of them goes forgotten before God. 7 But even the hairs of YOUR heads are all numbered. Have no fear; YOU are worth more than many sparrows. - Jesus You only have two things they can't take from you without your permission and they are the two most valuable things you could own. Your integrity and your relationship with God.
As Orwell [who was a defecting insider] revealed, they will stop at nothing to 'steal your soul' as it were, reshape you into their mold.
Resisting their efforts will require an unshakable relationship with God. Anyone lacking that will probably cave and compromise and lose their very identity, integrity, what makes them who they are.
No other effective resistance is possible.
|
|
| | | 103 | Boldwin
ID: 795417 Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 19:05
|
test
|
|
| | | 104 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 20:58
|
You only have two things they can't take from you without your permission and they are the two most valuable things you could own. Your integrity...
That much I agree with. The 2nd thing they cant take however, is your pride.
|
|
| | | 105 | Baldwin
ID: 36954422 Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 01:05
|
They will very definately try. As they take you out to execute you, China has guards hold your head bowed as if you were ashamed. The measures they will go to to pretend you agree with them is amazing. Totalitarians the world over like to charge your family for the bullets they killed you with. As if your family agreed with the sentence and were grateful. Very Orwellian. The man had it nailed.
I have come to the conclusion the evil ones believe that if they can just get every last person to agree with them, or seem to agree with them, they can literally turn evil into good. They think postmodernism is an actually physics.
|
|
| | | 106 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 11:30
|
They will very definately try.
and if you allow them to succeed, thats your problem.
|
|
| | | 107 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410 Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 11:34
|
how sad for me...
C Frye, a last minute pick as a backup QB, is tied with B Westbrook for top scorer on my squad with 46 pts YTD.
|
|
| | |
| | | 109 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 09:08
|
Bush to OK 700-mile U.S.-Mexico fence
The measure Bush is putting into law Thursday before heading for campaign stops in Iowa and Michigan offers no money for the fence project covering one-third of the 2,100-mile border.
Its cost is not known, although a homeland security spending measure the president signed earlier this month makes a $1.2 billion down payment on the project. The money also can be used for access roads, vehicle barriers, lighting, high-tech equipment and other tools to secure the border.
$1,200,000,000 as a downpayent????? That $1,714,XXX per mile. W?O counting the cost of roads, hi-tech equipment etc etc. Now, I want something done as much as anyone else. But to just do something which will not work and will cost hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars...is a waste of resources, time and a purely "for appearances" gesture.
|
|
| | | 110 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 09:28
|
Very disturbing article PD, 108, on several counts. What a fcuked up gov't we have now. "Stay the course. Uh-er, I mean, be flexible. Yeah, yeah, that sounds better." (Think Jon Stewart in his low-to-the-ground Bush crouch).
- walk
|
|
| | | 111 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 10:59
|
do you think at $1,714K per mile they could probably build the great wall of china and the pyramids allong the border and for some reason i think we will get a rusty chainlink fences with the occassional hole in it.
|
|
| | | 112 | bibA Sustainer
ID: 261028117 Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 11:07
|
Just to avoid any confusion re the numbers given in sarge's and boikin's posts, the correct figure calculates out to $1,714,285 per mile.
|
|
| | | 113 | The Treasonists Donor
ID: 171572711 Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 12:10
|
They should build the fence at the bottom of Mexico where the total border is really small.
Then they should annex, buy, invade, acquire, make a state or two, whatever you want to call it, with Mexico.
This would result in a huge savings on fencing costs.
|
|
| | | 114 | Perm Dude
ID: 37955267 Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 12:13
|
Heh. Just take over the whole country, make it the 51st state. Viola! No immigration problem.
|
|
| | | 115 | Boxman
ID: 47922511 Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 13:04
|
I know Treasonists and PD are being funny, but if we didn't have the massive amount of debt we have now, I think it would be pretty neat if we made a modern day Louisianna Purchase somewhere.
|
|
| | | 116 | Perm Dude
ID: 37955267 Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 13:20
|
I don't think that would be an altogether bad thing, myself.
They'd probably take a bunch of old Chevys for it...
Actually, given the corrupt Mexican government, the Mexican people would probably vote for it overwhelmingly in a free election.
|
|
| | | 118 | KM
ID: 319311512 Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 13:39
|
Nah, just pushes the problem South. I can see the headline now:
"Citizens of the State of Mexico demand better border control to halt job loss from Guatemalan and Belize immigrants"
|
|
| | | 119 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610 Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 13:42
|
They'd probably take a bunch of old Chevys for it...
Wow. Good thing you aren't a FoxSports baseball announcer.
Think we could get Ireland for a bag of potatoes and a keg of beer? Moscow for a case of Smirnoff? What could we buy with a truckload of watermelons do ya think?
|
|
| | | 120 | Perm Dude
ID: 37955267 Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 14:29
|
You'll note I left out any reference to Southern stereotypes, MBJ...
Just playing, along the lines of my earlier post.
|
|
| | | 121 | The Treasonists Donor
ID: 171572711 Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 14:45
|
I think we'll need the resources of Canada and Mexico and I would not be surprised to see it happen in the next 10-15 years.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 124 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Sat, Nov 04, 2006, 17:11
|
..."could reasonably be expected to cause extremely grave damage."
many, MANY of us felt that same way on Nov 1, 2004,...re GWB.
|
|
| | | 125 | Boxman
ID: 49101015 Sat, Nov 04, 2006, 19:06
|
Sarge: I started reading State Of Denial until Culture Warrior came out and from the first chunk that I've read Rumsfeld really wanted some reforms done in the Pentagon and the broader military machine. Do you think that has any bearing on the severity of the criticism levied his way?
|
|
| | | 126 | Perm Dude
ID: 12103148 Sat, Nov 04, 2006, 21:33
|
If this was merely backlash for a SecDef who was pushing around entrenched military types, they would have spoken up some time ago. The active military has kept their mouth shut a long, long time about this, and openly calling for the resignation of a SecDef is an unheard of move as far as I know.
It is a sign up incompetence on Rumsfeld's part. Not a sign of his shaking up the Pentagon.
|
|
| | | 127 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Sat, Nov 04, 2006, 22:00
|
re 125...Indeed he wanted "reforms". He envisioned a smaller, lighter, faster military. One which did NOT include for example, M-1 Abrahms Main Battle Tanks.
For all the BS noise conservatives raise over Dems wanting to gut the military, here we have the SecDef, wanting to gut our primary landbased combat vehicle from the inventory.
You REALLY need to finish reading State of Denial.
|
|
| | | 128 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Sat, Nov 04, 2006, 23:40
|
You have a brand new Sec. of Defense who wants to completely overhaul the military. He has an arrogance not seen since Middle Age monarchs and goes about implementing his overhaul by humiliating anyone who disagreed with his plans. Yes, the military establishment was not fond of Rumsfeld from the begining, but at the begining all that was at stake were military budgets and plans.
Lives are being lost and the arrogance has not abated. When numerous Republican candidates opening campaign about getting Rumsfeld to resign, we are talking about the least popular or effective cabinet member in generations.
|
|
| | | 129 | Boxman
ID: 49101015 Sun, Nov 05, 2006, 07:57
|
Yes, the military establishment was not fond of Rumsfeld from the begining,
My point exactly. While Rumsfeld has been a poor military operations leader as clearly evident by Iraq and I have supported his firing for years, I am still wondering how much of the angst directed his way is really root caused by his budget reallocations and reforms versus actual field performance.
Field performance alone, he should have been fired a long time ago, but when the guy is reforming the Pentagon the way he is reforming it I wonder about the genuineness of the criticisms. Meaning, how many would support him now if he had maintained the status quo?
Sarge: Indeed he wanted "reforms". He envisioned a smaller, lighter, faster military. One which did NOT include for example, M-1 Abrahms Main Battle Tanks.
For all the BS noise conservatives raise over Dems wanting to gut the military, here we have the SecDef, wanting to gut our primary landbased combat vehicle from the inventory.
Is it a gutting or a transformation? There is a difference.
On what strategic basis do you disagree with that strategy? I think it's safe to say that any war that involves a thousand tanks versus another countries thousands tanks anymore is far beyond imaginable. It would go nuclear before that. Further, I don't see winning the terror war with tanks. Intel and special ops are going to find OBL in his hut wherever he is, not an armored column.
I'm not defending Rumsfelds field record. I refuse to do that. But I do see his point in transforming the military and I believe that has caused the temperature level of his criticism to artificially rise.
|
|
| | | 130 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Sun, Nov 05, 2006, 09:32
|
What caused the disgust with Rumsfeld, is essentially a threefold list:
1) He essentially neutered the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2) He is a micromanager to the extreme. Has his fingers into EVERYTHING. 3) Abandoned the Powell Doctrine of using overwhelming force, and sent insufficient troop numbers into Iraq. This in turn, increased our casualty count.
|
|
| | |
| | | 132 | Perm Dude
ID: 38105759 Sun, Nov 05, 2006, 11:50
|
Overall money quote:
In the debate which has emerged over detainee abuse practices, the great focus has been on the detainees and the suffering they incurred. I don't question this approach. But religious scholars and ethicists are quick to point out that torture and mistreatment presents damage at many levels. Obviously the victim. But what about the dignity and integrity of the uniformed service personnel who are ordered to use these techniques? They are morally compromised by this act. Many sustain long-term mental health damage as a result. The literature also suggests that interrogators who use abusive techniques frequently become demoralized and unruly, precisely because they question the moral authority of a command structure which authorizes such obviously immoral conduct.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 135 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Sat, Jan 06, 2007, 10:12
|
* In March, the administration announced it would no longer produce the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation, which identifies which programs best assist low-income families, while also tracking health insurance coverage and child support. * In 2005, after a government report showed an increase in terrorism around the world, the administration announced it would stop publishing its annual report on international terrorism.
* After the Bureau of Labor Statistics uncovered discouraging data about factory closings in the U.S., the administration announced it would stop publishing information about factory closings.
* When an annual report called “Budget Information for States” showed the federal government shortchanging states in the midst of fiscal crises, Bush’s Office of Management and Budget announced it was discontinuing the report, which some said was the only source for comprehensive data on state funding from the federal government.
* When Bush’s Department of Education found that charter schools were underperforming, the administration said it would sharply cut back on the information it collects about charter schools.
If it were so damn dangerous, I'd be LMAO. Stereo-typical head-in-the-sand, "if we dont talk about it, maybe it'll go away" mentality.
|
|
| | | 136 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723 Sat, Jan 06, 2007, 10:22
|
I don't think they stop collecting and using the information. They just stop giving it to the people.
|
|
| | | 137 | Perm Dude
ID: 51043615 Sat, Jan 06, 2007, 16:43
|
I dunno. Seems a lot easier for the Administration to just not collect the information rather than collect and try to hide it.
|
|
| | | 138 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Sun, Jan 07, 2007, 08:04
|
* When Bush’s Department of Education found that charter schools were underperforming, the administration said it would sharply cut back on the information it collects about charter schools.
Sorta think the admin answered that theory itself.
|
|
| | | 139 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Sun, Jan 07, 2007, 08:04
|
Oh you're prolly right in this case PD. Still, 68/110 from "Expert" shooters, is an unacceptable tally.
|
|
| | | 140 | Perm Dude
ID: 25658198 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 20:31
|
Not confirmed by the Senate--no worries. Just do the job anyway
I don't want to sound like Chicken Little, but the President just signed an Executive Order to allow him to freeze the assets of not only people threatening violence against "peace efforts" in Iraq, but does so without notification.
The beginning of the EO seems fine (in fact, I don't think you even need it to freeze the assets of those committing or contemplating violence in Iraq). But then it does off the rails quickly.
My guess is that this is actually aimed at Iran (though, as we know, half of all foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudi. Fat chance W will freeze the assets of his friends the Saudi royal family).
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 143 | walk
ID: 75112114 Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 14:11
|
NYT: Inside View of Guantanamo Hearings
It was obvious, Colonel Abraham said, that officials were under intense pressure to show quick results. Quickly, he said, he grew concerned about the quality of the reports being used as evidence. The unclassified evidence, he said, lacked the kind of solid corroboration he had relied on throughout his intelligence career. “The classified information,” he added, “was stripped down, watered down, removed of context, incomplete and missing essential information.”
Many detainees implicated other detainees, he said, and there was often no way to test whether they had provided false information to win favor with interrogators.
He said he was prohibited from discussing the facts of cases. But public information, much of it obtained through lawsuits, includes examples of some of the points he made.
In a hearing on Oct. 26, 2004, a transcript shows, one detainee was told that another had identified him as having attended a terrorism training camp. The detainee asked that his accuser be brought to testify. “We don’t know his name,” the senior officer on the hearing panel said.
At another hearing, later reviewed by a federal judge, a Turkish detainee, Murat Kurnaz, was said to have been associated with an Islamic missionary group. He had also traveled with a man who had become a suicide bomber. “It would appear,” Judge Joyce Hens Green wrote in 2005, “that the government is indefinitely holding the detainee — possibly for life — solely because of his contacts with individuals or organizations tied to terrorism and not because of any terrorist activities that the detainee aided, abetted or undertook himself.”
In a third hearing, an Afghan detainee said he had indeed been a jihadist — during the 1980s war against the Soviet Union, when a lot of Afghans were jihadists. Was that what the accusation against him meant, he asked, or was it referring to later, during the American war? “We don’t know what that time frame was, either,” the tribunal’s lead officer replied. During one of the recent interviews, Colonel Abraham said that the general accusations that detainees were jihadists without much more alarmed him. “As an intelligence agent, I would have written ‘junk statement’ across that,” he said.
|
|
| | | 144 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 22:15
|
Long time listeners will remember my post 4 where I spoke of "He who shall not be named" Addington. The author of that New Yorker piece has written an entire book about him and this awful Administration.
Imagine a fanatic in the mold of Dick Cheney but without the vice president’s sense of humor.
In her important new book, “The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals,” Jane Mayer of The New Yorker devotes a great deal of space to David Addington, Dick Cheney’s main man and the lead architect of the Bush administration’s legal strategy for the so-called war on terror. She quotes a colleague as saying of Mr. Addington: “No one stood to his right.” Colin Powell, a veteran of many bruising battles with Mr. Cheney, was reported to have summed up Mr. Addington as follows: “He doesn’t believe in the Constitution.”
Very few voters are aware of Mr. Addington’s existence, much less what he stands for. But he was the legal linchpin of the administration’s Marquis de Sade approach to battling terrorism. In the view of Mr. Addington and his acolytes, anything and everything that the president authorized in the fight against terror — regardless of what the Constitution or Congress or the Geneva Conventions might say — was all right. That included torture, rendition, warrantless wiretapping, the suspension of habeas corpus, you name it.
This is the mind-set that gave us Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and the C.I.A.’s secret prisons, known as “black sites.” Ms. Mayer wrote: “The legal doctrine that Addington espoused — that the president, as commander in chief, had the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries if national security demanded it — rested on a reading of the Constitution that few legal scholars shared.” I want every Guantanamo supporter to read this next paragraph aloud and if you aren't disturbed by it, please seek medical help.
“After reviewing 517 of the Guantánamo detainees’ cases in depth,” she said, “they concluded that only 8 percent were alleged to have associated with Al Qaeda. Fifty-five percent were not alleged to have engaged in any hostile act against the United States at all, and the remainder were charged with dubious wrongdoing, including having tried to flee U.S. bombs. The overwhelming majority — all but 5 percent — had been captured by non-U.S. players, many of whom were bounty hunters.”
|
|
| | | 145 | Jag
ID: 28457122 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 00:31
|
I watch PD's video and my first thought was the poor and dishonest attempt to claim the Bush administatration tried to tie Saddam to 9-11. I have heard this reiterated 100s of times by the Left, but only remember a single statement by Cheney and that was a 9-11 terrorist met with the Iraq high council. This was editted on the video so not to disrupt the propaganda.
Anyone can make a video of this kind and make anyone, even Mother Teresa, appear to be a Nazi.
What stood out more than anything about the video is the hate. I use to make jokes about the Left, but I never harboured any malice. Other than Walk, I find the Liberals here consumed by hatred and unforunately this disease is not isolated to this forum.
No rational person could ever believe Zen's last paragraph and is a perfect example of how hatred can dull one's perception of reality.
|
|
| | | 146 | Perm Dude
ID: 146272320 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 01:05
|
I want every Guantanamo supporter to read this next paragraph aloud and if you aren't disturbed by it, please seek medical help.
This is an example of hatred?
|
|
| | | 147 | Boldwin
ID: 406201020 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 04:22
|
Jag
I am not so quick to dismiss SZ's find.
Without a doubt libs' rationality are clouded by partisan derangement syndrome but Bush is a globalist and truth be told does not believe in the constitution. In his heart he's moved on to the 'new world order' and the constitution can dry up and blow away as far as he is concerned. How this effected the decisions about detainees is a matter of legitimate concern.
Obviously we have not heard enuff about these 'bounty hunters'. Pleeenty of room for badness there.
|
|
| | | 148 | Jag
ID: 28457122 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 14:31
|
This is an example of hatred?
No, it is an example how hate can disrupt rational thinking.
Zen, no one is a fan of Guantanamo, except for maybe people like you, who use it to fuel their manic opposition toward President Bush. Most just don't want the bad guys killing more Americans.
|
|
| | | 149 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 15:10
|
No, it is an example how hate can disrupt rational thinking.
No it isnt. It IS an example of how love of our Constitution leads inevitably to a condemnation of this Administration.
|
|
| | | 150 | Jag
ID: 28457122 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 15:39
|
No it isnt. It IS an example of how love of our Constitution leads inevitably to a condemnation of this Administration
Funny how both the far Left and the far Right use the Constitution for their polar opposite ideologies.
|
|
| | | 151 | Perm Dude
ID: 2625247 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 15:49
|
You won't see much difference is the language or tactics of either fringe.
|
|
| | | 152 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 16:01
|
I don't think people care anymore about Guantanamo, War on terror anymore, that was so last year.
|
|
| | | 153 | Jag
ID: 28457122 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 16:33
|
If I believed, even for a second, that our government put innocent Iraqis in Guantanamo, I would be screaming more loudly than Zen. If there were a hint of truth to this story, I am sure Reid and Pelosi would be all over it.
|
|
| | | 154 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 16:36
|
and you'd simply ignore anything else they had to sya, as you have anything they've said thus far. Would you at LEAST quit lying to yourself about your 'open mindedness"...please.
|
|
| | | 155 | Jag
ID: 28457122 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 18:07
|
Does even the Left take what Pelosi or Reid say, seriously?
|
|
| | | 156 | Boldwin
ID: 406201020 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 19:00
|
Not the Dems who would love to switch sides on oil exploration and nuclear power right now.
|
|
| | | 157 | Boldwin
ID: 406201020 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 19:01
|
If only Pelosi would allow them to come to the floor.
|
|
| | | 158 | Perm Dude
ID: 266542419 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 20:56
|
Yes--Republicans were known for that themselves, weren't they? Had an open door policy with Democrats as well. Brought them scones to their offices and what not.
|
|
| | | 159 | Boldwin
ID: 406201020 Fri, Jul 25, 2008, 05:03
|
I'm talking about a Dem leadership pulling every trick in the book to keep from letting their own Democrat members vote the way they and their constituents want.
|
|
| | | 160 | Boldwin
ID: 406201020 Fri, Jul 25, 2008, 05:08
|
Also if Dems aren't allowed to vote their traditional 'drive energy costs higher and then tax the hell out of it'...because energy bills and amendments are kept from the floor...then Dems are less likely to be held accountable for the traditional Dem position.
|
|
| | | 161 | walk
ID: 181472714 Fri, Jul 25, 2008, 12:34
|
I read that Herbert op-ed when it came out and just did not have the time to post. Slower day today...
I dunno Jag, I do not have the data, but have read in numerous places that many of the detainees in Gitmo are dubious. I really do not have the implicit faith that all of these guys are actual terrorists, and believe that the only way to find out is through our judicial process. That they were not given a proper judicial process, to me, seems inconsistent with our American ideals and judicial system. We are a powerful and civilized country with a good judicial system. There has to be a way to expedite their trials without jeapardizing security. Many of these detainees have rotted in Gitmo for waaaaay too long, and allegedly, under brutal conditions. This does not seem "American."
|
|
| | | 162 | Boldwin
ID: 406201020 Fri, Jul 25, 2008, 14:08
|
I think the case of OBL's driver is quite interesting and I mean to dig into it. How is it possible to be OBL's driver and not be complicit and yet some are quite convinced the guy is an innocent taxi driver. Could you believe witnesses even if he could produce such character witnesses to vouch for him?
|
|
| | | 163 | Perm Dude
ID: 266542419 Fri, Jul 25, 2008, 15:30
|
Please post what you find.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 166 | Tree
ID: 13714198 Tue, Sep 16, 2008, 14:39
|
i don't expect it will stay up long, but one of the current headlines on the main page of CNN.com...
"Bush lands in Texas; Residents urged to leave"
OUTSTANDING.
|
|
| | | 167 | Perm Dude
ID: 3825168 Tue, Sep 16, 2008, 14:43
|
Damn. Can anyone do a screenshot save?
|
|
| | |
| | | 169 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 08:35
|
So you want Bush administration officials put to death?
|
|
| | | 170 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 12:40
|
Are you one of them?
Then yes!
|
|
| | | 171 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 14:49
|
You really want me dead? Over what? A message board post. I'm soooo scared.
|
|
|
|