Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=FRPLG;315427]And, might I add, it is this kind of attitude that creates an "us versus them" mentality that stiffles discussion and leads us no where.

At the end of the day people need to realize that, guess what, on some issues Dems are more right than Reps and vice versa. That is why compromise is so important. That is why discussion is so important. Without true debate and hasing out of issues all we get is one sided simple solutions to complex problems. Maybe if polticiams got back on the same page that would end. The same page is that of doing what is right for EVERYONE. Not just the poor people, and not just the rich.[/quote]
this is one of the best posts ever. we usually dont agree on politics, but you are dead on with this.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=firstdown;315444]So your saying the terrorist plotts that we have broken up over the past couple of years and just this past weekend have been reationary. I say everything that the president has tried to do to fight terrorism [B]the dems. have attacked him for one reason or another.[/B] Could you please give us a few of the dems. ideas to fight terrorism sense you say they have these ideas.[/quote]
this is normal politics. everyone gets in an uproar over this, but it happens with every administration. no one gets any free passes any more. remember the republicans questioning bill clinton on the amount he would spend on a haircut?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=12thMan;315434]I mean, who has solid ideas on terrorism? Certainly not the Republicans. Washington as a whole has been in a reactionary mode post 9/11; On both sides of the aisle, I might add.

This notion that the Dems don't have any solid ideas, in my opinion, just isn't true. Especially on terrorism. Yes, the Dems have had some issues, but I don't think they lack "ideas". I think they have, at least up until now, lacked solid leadership that can brand the party together and move them in one direction. This is why this election is so important. The nominee, and hopefully the new President, whether that be Hillary or Obama, has to be a visionary and set the course for the party for the next 8 years, if not more.[/QUOTE]

The Democratic party has been hijacked by the super left. Their party positions do not reflect the the general position of the everyday democratic folks. The same has really starting taking shape in the Republican party but it is not quite as pronounced. I am pretty dubious that any of the current candiates are prepared to take hold of the democratic party and instill some moderation. I have more hopes for the republicans because the debacle with Bush has potentially opened some eyes. We'll see. I still have not even remotely heard one idea from the democrats on what to do about terrorism.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=firstdown;315444]So your saying the terrorist plotts that we have broken up over the past couple of years and just this past weekend have been reationary. I say everything that the president has tried to do to fight terrorism the dems. have attacked him for one reason or another. Could you please give us a few of the dems. ideas to fight terrorism sense you say they have these ideas.[/quote]


For the record, we've done a great job at breaking up terrorist plots over the past few years. The JFK incident this weekend and the Fort Dix plot are two that immediately come to mind.

Secondly, I don't want to get into this my party vs. your party jousting. Debate is healthy, critism is not. But I won't stand around and let people take shots at the Dems as the party of 'no ideas' when this is by and large George Bush's war. That fact is we have to move forward and collectively figure out a way to make this work.

It's not that the Dems have attacked him so much on his war on terror, remember most of them voted in favor of invading Iraq. It's that they aren't satisfied with the current results and the President's reluctance to change course. Those are the two biggest issues Congress and the Senate have. This isn't a Democratic or Republican issue, this is the general mood in Washington right now.

As far as what the Dems 'ideas' are for getting out of Iraq? Well, I think that all depends on which candidate you actually talk to or listen to. Let's face it, there are no good options on the table right now. The options are bad and worse. But they do all, pretty much, unanimously agreee that it's time to withdraw troops in a timely fashion. I think there are some slight differences between the candidates on how to do this and under what timelines.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=12thMan;315471]For the record, we've done a great job at breaking up terrorist plots over the past few years. The JFK incident this weekend and the Fort Dix plot are two that immediately come to mind.

Secondly, I don't want to get into this my party vs. your party jousting. Debate is healthy, critism is not. But I won't stand around and let people take shots at the Dems as the party of 'no ideas' when this is by and large George Bush's war. That fact is we have to move forward and collectively figure out a way to make this work.

It's not that the Dems have attacked him so much on his war on terror, remember most of them voted in favor of invading Iraq. It's that they aren't satisfied with the current results and the President's reluctance to change course. Those are the two biggest issues Congress and the Senate have. This isn't a Democratic or Republican issue, this is the general mood in Washington right now.

As far as what the Dems 'ideas' are for getting out of Iraq? Well, I think that all depends on which candidate you actually talk to or listen to. Let's face it, there are no good options on the table right now. The options are bad and worse. But they do all, pretty much, unanimously agreee that it's time to withdraw troops in a timely fashion. I think there are some slight differences between the candidates on how to do this and under what timelines.[/quote]
You were talking about their idea on terrorism not the Iraq war so what is their ideas to fight terrorism?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

OK I'll help you some Hillary really had nothing on her site but Obama did address some issues on terrorism.
[url=http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/]Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: On The Issues[/url]
[url=http://www.barackobama.com/issues/homeland/]BarackObama.com | Protecting Our Homeland[/url]

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=dmek25;315465]this is normal politics. everyone gets in an uproar over this, but it happens with every administration. no one gets any free passes any more. remember the republicans questioning bill clinton on the amount he would spend on a haircut?[/quote]
I don't think that the Rep. party attacked him about his hair cuts it was more like the Rush Lim. and talk shows. They did not attack him getting the hair cut but attacked the fact that the airport had to stop for around 1 1/2 hours while he got the hair cut.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=firstdown;315480]OK I'll help you some Hillary really had nothing on her site but Obama did address some issues on terrorism.
[URL="http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/"]Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: On The Issues[/URL]
[URL="http://www.barackobama.com/issues/homeland/"]BarackObama.com | Protecting Our Homeland[/URL][/quote]


Thanks for the help, but I knew Obama's position:)

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Schneed10;315431]Agreed. The democratic strategy currently is to look at George Bush's poor approval rating and claim that the plan is to do the opposite of what he's doing.

There are no fresh ideas. NONE.

- How do you propose we get out of Iraq without seeing the Iraqi government, military, and police force fold to the well-funded (by Iran and Syria) insurgency?

- How do you propose we maintain the historically very low levels of unemployment and inflation AND balance the budget at the same time?

- How do you propose we free ourselves from the dependency on foreign oil? I hear you say "we have to reduce our dependency on foreign oil", but I don't hear any "HOW".

- How do you propose we stop the ascending costs of healthcare and college education?

If you're going to just crap on George Bush and expect to make it into office, well, it just might work because so few like George Bush. But you won't get my vote, because crapping on Bush doesn't make you a leader, it just makes you a critic.[/quote]

You bring some good points to bear Schneed. They would not get my vote either!
Caution: I may be taking parts of your post out of context.

However, that having been said, the fact that I (or anybody else) do not have solutions to the problems you list and the MANY more that concern me does not mean an acceptable, workable answer does not exist. In my opinion, there is no other recourse but to face the music, and..............start.
My problem is finding a candidate/Party that:
1) is serious about fixing this country
2) has the wherewithal to accomplish this
3) has sufficient party backing for same
4) Can rally other forces that will be against them

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=firstdown;315483]I don't think that the Rep. party attacked him about his hair cuts it was more like the Rush Lim. and talk shows. They did not attack him getting the hair cut but attacked the fact that the airport had to stop for around 1 1/2 hours while he got the hair cut.[/quote]
and congress doesn't have anything better to do? come on. if you are a Republican, its your duty to attack the Dem's on as many levels as you can. and the same goes for the Dem's. its not about beliefs anymore. its attacking each other. and this is what we have come to

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=dmek25;315512]and congress doesn't have anything better to do? come on. if you are a Republican, its your duty to attack the Dem's on as many levels as you can. and the same goes for the Dem's. its not about beliefs anymore. its attacking each other. and this is what we have come to[/quote]
I don't have a problem with them attacking (so to speak) each other on ideas its the personal attacks that is getting so old.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=firstdown;315516]I don't have a problem with them attacking (so to speak) each other on ideas its the personal attacks that is getting so old.[/quote]


But you see this is where everything becomes gray. Attacks beget more attacks, and at some point they do become personal.

Each side and each candidate is constantly trying to get the edge by boosting his/her poll numbers. Unfortunately, we're breeding a generation of politicians that are more programmed and concerned by they want the polls to read the next morning.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;315431]Agreed. The democratic strategy currently is to look at George Bush's poor approval rating and claim that the plan is to do the opposite of what he's doing.

There are no fresh ideas. NONE.

- How do you propose we get out of Iraq without seeing the Iraqi government, military, and police force fold to the well-funded (by Iran and Syria) insurgency?

- How do you propose we maintain the historically very low levels of unemployment and inflation AND balance the budget at the same time?

- How do you propose we free ourselves from the dependency on foreign oil? I hear you say "we have to reduce our dependency on foreign oil", but I don't hear any "HOW".

- How do you propose we stop the ascending costs of healthcare and college education?

If you're going to just crap on George Bush and expect to make it into office, well, it just might work because so few like George Bush. But you won't get my vote, because crapping on Bush doesn't make you a leader, it just makes you a critic.[/QUOTE]

Good post. It's very true. It didn't work as Kerry's campaign strategy and it won't work now either.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;314848]First, to say that the "torture" techniques employed at Gitmo are the "most vicious permanently impairing system ... in the world" is a major overstatement. Hyperbole works great with some people, but not with me.

Second, to say that Rumself personally participated in the torture on a prisoner is also a little strange. Please see my first point. Speaking the truth and making sound arguments goes a lot further than making things up or exaggerating.[/quote]

Neither statement is hyperbole. Do the research. Rumsfeild directly participated in the torture of a prisoner at Gitmo.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=FRPLG;315199]See that's what he is talking about. All these Dems basically jusy say that. They have no answers other than "not what we are currently doing." That is why so many people look at the Dems as the party of no ideas. Of course just as many people look at the Reps as the party of bad ideas. Which is worse? I don't know. But years of doing nothing about Muslim extremists didn't do the job. It is time the Dems started saying what we should be doing to combat terrorism in general.

When people like John Edwards deny that there is even a war against terrorism it just shows have naive they are.[/quote]

We should go to war against terrorism, which is a good reason for leaving Iraq, which is engaging in a civil war having zip to do with terrorism. The Iraqis are a decade or two away from getting it together well enough to terrorize anyone but each other. Osama's boys are slipping into Iraq for a little fun, which they wouldn't have the leisure to do if we attacked a country actually harboring terrorists and having an interest in terrorizing us.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;314933]Crazyhorse,
Acccording to the U.S. Supreme Court (which, by the way, consists of people a lot smarter than either of us and who just might know a lot about the law), military tribunals that try unlawful enemy combatants are perfectly legal and not barred by ANY treaty signed by the U.S. Those military tribunals, which you call kangaroo courts, are "competent tribunals" under the GCs who CAN legally determine whether someone is an enemy combatant and can be denied POW status. Moreover, FDR used such military tribunals to try and execute Nazis who ended up on our shores to conduct sabotage operations. So, the use of tribunals is nothing new. Finally, when researching this stuff, please refer to U.S. case-law (including that which interprets international law).

PS - I'm still wondering where you found out that Rumsfeld [I]personally [/I]tortured a detainee.[/quote]

I'll find a link for the Runsfeld party at Gitmo. By the way, the world court or courts of other countries care less about Supreme Court rulings. The SC is a Bush court anyway. Germany recently decided not to prosecute Bush for war crimes in relation to behaviour toward prisoners at Gitmo, among other things, not because of Supreme Court rulings, but because of difficulties presented by America's fire power.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Crazyhorse1;315638]Neither statement is hyperbole. Do the research. Rumsfeild directly participated in the torture of a prisoner at Gitmo.[/quote]

He was the guy in charge of the entire defense department. Whether he personally tortured a prisoner or not is inconsequential. The only thing that you and I should be concerned about is the fact that he approved of torture.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=Crazyhorse1;315641]I'll find a link for the Runsfeld party at Gitmo. By the way, the world court or courts of other countries care less about Supreme Court rulings. The SC is a Bush court anyway. Germany recently decided not to prosecute Bush for war crimes in relation to behaviour toward prisoners at Gitmo, among other things, not because of Supreme Court rulings, but because of difficulties presented by America's fire power.[/QUOTE]

I think you're confusing Bush with Rumsfeld (the court decided not to prosecute Rumsfeld).

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;314848]First, to say that the "torture" techniques employed at Gitmo are the "most vicious permanently impairing system ... in the world" is a major overstatement. Hyperbole works great with some people, but not with me.

Second, to say that Rumself personally participated in the torture on a prisoner is also a little strange. Please see my first point. Speaking the truth and making sound arguments goes a lot further than making things up or exaggerating.[/quote]

Here's a link giving a little history of the system of torture used at Gitmo and its severity. Compellng reading.

Here's a link on Rumsfeld's personal involvement in the torture of a prisoner.

Here's also an article on the Bush Administration's attitude and policy toward the Geneva Conventions.

Lastly, here's an article on even the Supreme Court rejecting Bush's claim the our Military commissions could try prisoners under the authority of the Geneva Conventions.

If the above seems not definitive to you, there are plenty of articles on the net dealing with the topics we've been discussing.

I recommend Seymore Hersh's book on Abu Graib for a much more detailed account of some of the above.

[URL="http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2479"]Torture American Style by James McWilliams - The Texas Observer[/URL]

[URL]http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/14/rummy/?source=whitelist[/URL]

[URL="http://hrw.org/english/docs/2002/02/07/usdom3729.htm"]U.S.: Bush Errs in Geneva Convention Rules (Human Rights Watch, 7-2-2002)[/URL]

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100094.html]U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions[/url]

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Crazyhorse1;315649]Here's a link giving a little history of the system of torture used at Gitmo and its severity. Compellng reading.

Here's a link on Rumsfeld's personal involvement in the torture of a prisoner.

Here's also an article on the Bush Administration's attitude and policy toward the Geneva Conventions.

Lastly, here's an article on even the Supreme Court rejecting Bush's claim the our Military commissions could try prisoners under the authority of the Geneva Conventions.

If the above seems not definitive to you, there are plenty of articles on the net dealing with the topics we've been discussing.

I recommend Seymore Hersh's book on Abu Graib for a much more detailed account of some of the above.

[URL="http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2479"]Torture American Style by James McWilliams - The Texas Observer[/URL]

[URL]http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/14/rummy/?source=whitelist[/URL]

[URL="http://hrw.org/english/docs/2002/02/07/usdom3729.htm"]U.S.: Bush Errs in Geneva Convention Rules (Human Rights Watch, 7-2-2002)[/URL]

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100094.html"]U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions[/URL][/quote]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

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Crazyhorse1;315649]Here's a link giving a little history of the system of torture used at Gitmo and its severity. Compellng reading.

Here's a link on Rumsfeld's personal involvement in the torture of a prisoner.

Here's also an article on the Bush Administration's attitude and policy toward the Geneva Conventions.

Lastly, here's an article on even the Supreme Court rejecting Bush's claim the our Military commissions could try prisoners under the authority of the Geneva Conventions.

If the above seems not definitive to you, there are plenty of articles on the net dealing with the topics we've been discussing.

I recommend Seymore Hersh's book on Abu Graib for a much more detailed account of some of the above.

[URL="http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2479"]Torture American Style by James McWilliams - The Texas Observer[/URL]

[URL]http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/14/rummy/?source=whitelist[/URL]

[URL="http://hrw.org/english/docs/2002/02/07/usdom3729.htm"]U.S.: Bush Errs in Geneva Convention Rules (Human Rights Watch, 7-2-2002)[/URL]

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100094.html"]U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions[/URL][/quote]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.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=Crazyhorse1;315640]We should go to war against terrorism, which is a good reason for leaving Iraq, which is engaging in a civil war having zip to do with terrorism. The Iraqis are a decade or two away from getting it together well enough to terrorize anyone but each other. Osama's boys are slipping into Iraq for a little fun, which they wouldn't have the leisure to do if we attacked a country actually harboring terrorists and having an interest in terrorizing us.[/QUOTE]

Huh?

You think if we leave Iraq that terrorists won't move and set up camp there? You are out of your mind. They're there with us going around shooting them uyp. Imagine what a haven it'll be when we leave. Your entire statement ignores the real situation and is terribly naive. I'll agree they are in a civil war and I couldn't care less. What I care about is the fact that a country like Iraq in a civil war is a breeding ground for terrorists and terrorist trainging camps. That is fact.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=FRPLG;315681]Huh?

You think if we leave Iraq that terrorists won't move and set up camp there? You are out of your mind. They're there with us going around shooting them uyp. Imagine what a haven it'll be when we leave. Your entire statement ignores the real situation and is terribly naive. I'll agree they are in a civil war and I couldn't care less. What I care about is the fact that a country like Iraq in a civil war is a breeding ground for terrorists and terrorist trainging camps. That is fact.[/quote]

You didn't understand my point. Why and who would they terrorize in Iraq if we left. Why would they use Iraq as a breeding ground if we carried the fight to their forces in Pakistan? The terrorists are after us, not Iraq, and the whole 'breeding ground" concept is nonsense; they have no ability to win power in Iraq, unless we win in Iraq and and hand over the government to our supposed puppet government, which strongly favors Iran and wants us gone. We are on the wrong side in Iraq. It's the group we support that is the greatest danger to us and will likely join fundamentalists in Iran. Our foreign policy, as forged by this president, is regarded as insane by the whole civilized world, including our own generals and the majority of the American people.l

The perception that Iraq would be a breeding ground for terrorists if we left is delusional PR from the White House. The actual breeding grounds are Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The White House has been presenting us with the wrong enemy for years now. For oil? Probably.
From stupidity? Yes. Because it's been useful for profits for a few and a power grab by Chaney and Bush. Absolutely.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=SmootSmack;315643]I think you're confusing Bush with Rumsfeld (the court decided not to prosecute Rumsfeld).[/quote]

You're correct. I tend to think of any action against the White House to be anti-Bush.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=FRPLG;315681]Huh?

You think if we leave Iraq that terrorists won't move and set up camp there?[/quote]

A determined man can not be stopped. Anyone determined enough can become a successful terrorist. Besides it doesn't take much to get into the US. I personally crossed the board with Canada with little effort when I went to the boarder to pick up a family member. I didn't show ID and no one talked to me as I walked through the custom area. It is impossible to secure the United States. I'm not saying we shouldn't try but what transpires outside the country is really irrelevant to securing this country. You're not safe today and you'll never be safe. It's an illusion.

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