Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=firstdown;315676]None of the links you posted said that Rumpheld had personal involvement in the tortur of a prisoner. It said that he was presaent at an interagation but never said that any tortur took place while he was there. Your adding in the word tortur where the article said interigation.[/quote]

People can judge for themselves what is said being said in the links being discussed:

Rumfeld "personally" participated in the interogation of the prisoner. The interogation of the prisoner was assisted by torture. Rumfeld dictated how the prisoner was to be interrogated and what tortures would be used. When early methods pruduced too little, he personally upgraded the torture. The tortures he ordered violated the Geneva Conventions and were war crimes.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

Crazyhorse,

First, you are incorrect when you claim that the U.S. Supreme Court held that the U.S. cannot try unlawful enemy combatants in military tribunals. In fact, they said we could try such individuals in military tribunals, provided they are structured properly. Moreover, it’s not just “Bush’s Supreme Court” that thinks so. “FDR’s Supreme Court” thought as much in the 1940s with respect to Nazi terrorists.

Second, we are in the United States and the Supreme Court determines what U.S. law is and what our obligations under treaties are. Courts overseas can say what they want, but they do not have any binding effect here in the U.S. To cite a German court case for what is “legal” is as strange as citing a Sudanese court opinion for what is “legal.”

Third, to say that Rumsfeld personally participated in torturing prisoners at Gitmo is a big stretch if your basis for saying as much is that he authorized the use of ugly and unlawful interrogation techniques. That’s pretty misleading.

Fourth, the notion that terrorists wouldn’t use Iraq as a training ground if we left is perplexing. Why exactly wouldn’t they use Iraq as a base of operations? I disagree with 90% of Bush’s claims and arguments, but that doesn’t mean that everything he says is a lie or wrong.

Finally, I wouldn't cite Seymour Hersh in support of your arguments. He was the same guy who said he KNEW we would invade Iran in the Spring of 2006.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;315726]Crazyhorse,

First, you are incorrect when you claim that the U.S. Supreme Court held that the U.S. cannot try unlawful enemy combatants in military tribunals. In fact, they said we could try such individuals in military tribunals, provided they are structured properly. Moreover, it’s not just “Bush’s Supreme Court” that thinks so. “FDR’s Supreme Court” thought as much in the 1940s with respect to Nazi terrorists.

Second, we are in the United States and the Supreme Court determines what U.S. law is and what our obligations under treaties are. Courts overseas can say what they want, but they do not have any binding effect here in the U.S. To cite a German court case for what is “legal” is as strange as citing a Sudanese court opinion for what is “legal.”

Third, to say that Rumsfeld personally participated in torturing prisoners at Gitmo is a big stretch if your basis for saying as much is that he authorized the use of ugly and unlawful interrogation techniques. That’s pretty misleading.

Fourth, the notion that terrorists wouldn’t use Iraq as a training ground if we left is perplexing. Why exactly wouldn’t they use Iraq as a base of operations? I disagree with 90% of Bush’s claims and arguments, but that doesn’t mean that everything he says is a lie or wrong.

Finally, I wouldn't cite Seymour Hersh in support of your arguments. He was the same guy who said he KNEW we would invade Iran in the Spring of 2006.[/quote]

Seymore won the Pulitzer Prize and his reporting that Bush had plans to invade Iran in 2006 may have led to the plans' destruction. The jury is still out on that scandal. The smart money says that Bush had plans to invade Iraq in 06 and still has them.

The terrorists in Iraq have no interest in Iraq. They have an interest in driving us out of the middle east, but once we're gone they'll have no reason to worsen the situation in Iraq in hope of influencing the Iraqi's to turn on us. With no enemy in Iraq, they'll want to stick around a civil war no more than we do. They don't need new territory or to waste their resourses fighting Muslims. They'll live in Iraq by avoiding the civil war or deploying elsewhere until the war in over. Then, they'll try to unite the whole muslim world to achieve their objective, which is, by the way, not to take over the world.
People in the middle east are prone to be terrorists because they want non -Muslim's out of the middle east. They attacked us on 911 because American hegemony in the middle east is perceived by them as a threat to them.
No hegemony, no terrorists. One way to make America safe is for America to stop trying to take over land and resources in the middle east. In other words, the way to end this war is to lose it and develop more laudable national interests. This perspective I am setting forth is a "conservative" perspective. Unfortunately, conservatives today have no idea what conservatism is. Goldwater is probably turning over in his grave.

Forget the Supreme Court (Bush's court). International law doesn't give a darn about what is declared as legal by individual nations. War criminals are sentenced to prison or to death no matter what the laws are in their respective countries. Bush and Rummy are war criminals and will be tried and punished under the Geneva Conventions if they are caught and taken by any number of other countries. No one will care what the Supreme Court rules, not even Americans. It has almost zero credibility since handing over the presidency to Bush with transparent skulduggery

The only think it's done of any integrity lately is to refuse to go along with Bush's kangaroo court. By the way, their decision was narrower than you give it credit for. It gave no charter for military tribunals. Any program Bush comes up with will take him back before the court.

Finally, Rumsfeld. To say that Rumsfeld didn't "participate" in the prisoner's torture, is roughly akin to saying Eichmann didn't "participate" in the murder of Jews.
The particular prisoner was tortured by methods specifically perscribed for him in particular by Rumsfeld, who personally upgraded the torture when what he ordered didn't work at first. He didn't personally pull the prisoner's clothes off and pour the water, but he also wasn't off in an ivory tower conjuring up abstract concepts. He was on-site, participating, giving the orders to apply particular tortures to the prisoner. He watched and ordered. He was there. He was the torturer in chief and apparently fascinated by it.
Afterward, he wrote a note ordering the same tortures be inflicted on the prisoners at Abu Graib.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

Crazyhorse,

We are going to simply have to agree to disagree. You seem like a smart person. I also want to state that I detest many of Bush's policies. [I] However[/I], it appears that your hatred of Bush has colored your analysis and perception of historical events, trends, etc. In particular, I think your understanding of international law, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Geneva Conventions, etc. is very one-sided and not entirely accurate. I am no legal scholar, but when I went to law school I took a class from the former assistant general counsel for the State Department (i.e., the #2 lawyer for the State Department), a guy who helped draft the UN Charter and represented the U.S. government in negotiating many treaties. We discussed these issues (including Gitmo, trials of enemy combatants) at length. I sympathize with your ultimate positions, but I don't think your analysis is correct. Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a know-it-all jerk.

In any event, cheers.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;315812]Crazyhorse,

We are going to simply have to agree to disagree. You seem like a smart person. I also want to state that I detest many of Bush's policies. [I] However[/I], it appears that your hatred of Bush has colored your analysis and perception of historical events, trends, etc. In particular, I think your understanding of international law, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Geneva Conventions, etc. is very one-sided and not entirely accurate. I am no legal scholar, but when I went to law school I took a class from the former assistant general counsel for the State Department (i.e., the #2 lawyer for the State Department), a guy who helped draft the UN Charter and represented the U.S. government in negotiating many treaties. We discussed these issues (including Gitmo, trials of enemy combatants) at length. I sympathize with your ultimate positions, but I don't think your analysis is correct. Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a know-it-all jerk.

In any event, cheers.[/quote]

Ok. You seem like a smart person too and I have enjoyed debating with you. You have caused me to challenge my assumption and have, in fact, moved me toward your point of view. I am a professor of English Literature and Creative Writing, and by nature a generalist, as many writers of poetry and fiction are. We tend to know a little about a lot rather than the other way around. An in-depth understanding of the Geneva Conventions is more likely to be achieved by a person such as yourself who is trained in law than one who has just read the Conventions "generally."

So, answer this question for me, if you will: Is it not true that whereas the Geneva Conventions does in fact classify combatants that it nevertheless banns torture and murder of prisoners universality? It have read the provisions many times, and it seems to me they protect everyone: combatants, non-combatant, citizens of all countries (not just those from countries who have signed the agreement), suspected terrorists, spies, etc. Note that I am not speaking of executions or prison sentences after legal trials, but am speaking of torture (at any time) and other punishments (before trials).

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

Anyone for pie?

(Note: there will be an election soon. That is the way we generally change our governments in the USA. Also note: after Bush's impaechment by the House and conviction by the Senate, Dick Cheney would become president of the United States. Now, does ANYONE really want that?)

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

Crazyhorse,

I am, by no means, an expert in international law. I took one class in law school on the subject - so you are as competent to speak to these kinds of issues as I am.

As to your question about torture, it is undoubtedly barred under numerous treaties that the U.S. has ratified. I am personally disgusted by the torture that has taken place at Gitmo and elsewhere. I also think that Rumsfeld set us back a long, long way in the war on terrorism. Finally, I don't think the Gonzalez torture memo can be read with a straight face.

[I]But[/I], international law is a mess. The ICJ is almost completely ineffective and is a court of [I]very[/I] limited jurisdiction. Moreover, the international community rarely agrees to anything of substance because norms vary so much from one place to another (see Sudanese Court rulings condoning the stoning of women). Because it is often difficult to get 2 people from two different cultures to agree as to what treaty X should say, it is almost impossible to get the entire international community to draft a treaty that is specific and substantive. Consequently, treaties often amount to very generalized statements and platitudes and are extremely difficult to interpret. I'm optimistic about the future, but the state of the world today is such that international law almost amounts to an oxymoron.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=JWsleep;316129]Anyone for pie?

(Note: there will be an election soon. That is the way we generally change our governments in the USA. Also note: after Bush's impaechment by the House and conviction by the Senate, Dick Cheney would become president of the United States. Now, does ANYONE really want that?)[/quote]
Even worse impeach both Bush & Cheney and Nancy Pelosi becomes president.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=firstdown;316184]Even worse impeach both Bush & Cheney and Nancy Pelosi becomes president.[/quote]

She will bring kids to the White House to handle significant issues and to lick rails.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

hooskin
you have some good posts
but i still think you are going out of what the topic is about
even though this is the off topic section of the forums...



[SIZE="7"]bush SUCKS LIKE CRAZY[/SIZE]

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

I am not going to read this whole thread but I will say this: the notion that Seymour Hersch should not be cited as a source is patently absurd. Here's a guy whose contacts go deeper than anyone else's in Washington. The fact that we didn't attack Iran is something I think most people are happy with, however, does anyone really doubt that an at least rudimentary plan was being put in place? We know that hardline hawks like Cheney were pushing for it for years in various capacities.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=djnemo65;319768]I am not going to read this whole thread but I will say this: the notion that Seymour Hersch should not be cited as a source is patently absurd. Here's a guy whose contacts go deeper than anyone else's in Washington. The fact that we didn't attack Iran is something I think most people are happy with, however, does anyone really doubt that an at least rudimentary plan was being put in place? We know that hardline hawks like Cheney were pushing for it for years in various capacities.[/quote]
I hope that a goverment which has a threat like IRan would have a rudimentary plan in place so if anything ever happened we would be prepared. Its the goverment that just ignores countries like Iran which would scare me.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

Iran is an issue that should be addressed. but maybe this administration uses the same Bin Laden philosophy( forget about him and maybe he will go away) Iran will be whisked to the side. at least until they make us do something

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=dmek25;319857]Iran is an issue that should be addressed. but maybe this administration uses the same Bin Laden philosophy( forget about him and maybe he will go away) Iran will be whisked to the side. at least until they make us do something[/quote]
So in your opinion who ignored Bin Laden the most President Bush or Clinton?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

i don't think that ignore is the right term. more then once, Clinton could have had Bin Laden taken out, but at that time, no one knew( the public) of the threat he possessed. after 9-11, instead of focusing on Iraq, and Hussein, Bush could have made an historical imprint by taking him out, or by demanding Afghanistan hand him over. i don't think he ignored the threat. he just choose something, he thought, would be the easier of the 2. i guess he mis calculated