Let's impeach the president.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

he lied when he said there was a tie to Al Quada(sp?) and Saddam Hussein

DMEK24, I gave you alink in another thread several months back to the 9/11 report and it stated that there was a link between the two. The unknown is how much of a tie did they have with each other.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by firstdown

No, Sudan had Bin Laden and wanted to know if we wanted him but Clinton passed on the deal and the rest is history.

True, but I think he had said there was a connection regardless. And he bombed that ibuprofen factory as 70chip pointed out. And Saden made some good point as well. (too lazy to scroll to find it)

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Daseal

JoeRedskin, don't you find it relatively sad that it takes the media breaking a story about Americans torturing people for the armed forces to clean up their act. There shouldn't have been any torture for a story to break about, in my opinion.

Don't you think the word tortur is being thrown around pretty loosly. Talk to some of our men that have been tortured and they will tell you what real torture is. What was done was wrong but I'm not sure torture is the correct term to be used.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

This hardly amounts to an eye-popping distinction. It's okay to fire all of them right away but you can't fire a few after 2 or 5 years? This is pure politics. The Democrats think that if they hold enough hearings someone will slip up. I'm amazed that they haven't found a crime to prosecute yet. I'm not sure if the obdurate simpleton, Janet Reno, could have withstood such scrutiny.

The Democrats seem to be operating under the misapprehension that somehow their 2006 election victory nullified the 2004 presidential election. Wishful thinking. The President can do what the hell he wants with hiring and firing.

This is not pure politics. This is a blatant disregard for an institution that should be treated with the highest honor and respect. These people are the curators of law in the nation, they are not to be toyed with and labeled incompetent, fired, and replaced with unqualified individuals. Lets not make this to us vs. them. This is is a serious matter that should concern us all. Believe me, if this was Clinton administration doing the firing I would be saying the same thing.

I mean really, do you want the president firing a whole bunch of AGs every 3 months, 6 months, year, etc? Yes, he has the power to do so but there are reasons why one shouldn't do that and certainly one shouldn't fire AGs because they don't meet Monica Goodling's litmus test or a certain Senator doesn't like how they are handling a case.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

No, Sudan had Bin Laden and wanted to know if we wanted him but Clinton passed on the deal and the rest is history.

That doesn't sound right, can you provide a link to support your statement.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Don't you think the word tortur is being thrown around pretty loosly. Talk to some of our men that have been tortured and they will tell you what real torture is. What was done was wrong but I'm not sure torture is the correct term to be used.

You want to re-classify torture? How about we call it "Humane Torture" or better yet "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques?"

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

...UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

...Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

That doesn't sound right, can you provide a link to support your statement.

Bill Clinton ignoring Bin Laden
This seemed to give a little of both sides. Its hard to find something without a slant either right or left.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Bill Clinton ignoring Bin Laden
This seemed to give a little of both sides. Its hard to find something without a slant either right or left.

Looking back, what was the expectations? That Bin Laden should have been arrested or killed even though he didn't commit any crimes against the US? There are a lot of characters in history like Bin Laden. If only we knew what they were going to become or do. After Bin Laden issued his decree of killing Americans he immediately became a target and the hunt began. That's how the world works, at least that's how it should work. You don't preemptively kill and imprison people because you think they might do something in the future.

If you have credible and substantiated evidence of the intent of an individual then by all means, issue arrest warrants and let the law, our law as well as international law, take its course. No indefinite detention. No secrete court rooms and back door trials. No tossing aside the constitution. Do it right, do it well, do it morally.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by saden1

Looking back, what was the expectations? That Bin Laden should have been arrested or killed even though he didn't commit any crimes against the US? There are a lot of characters in history like Bin Laden. If only we knew what they were going to become or do. After Bin Laden issued his decree of killing Americans he immediately became a target and the hunt began. That's how the world works, at least that's how it should work. You don't preemptively kill and imprison people because you think they might do something in the future.

If you have credible and substantiated evidence of the intent of an individual then by all means, issue arrest warrants and let the law, our law as well as international law, take its course. No indefinite detention. No secrete court rooms and back door trials. No tossing aside the constitution. Do it right, do it well, do it morally.

You should run for office.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I'm a fan of Clinton's domestic politics, but he did have the opportunity to kill OBL in Afghanistan (after OBL declared war against the U.S.) via a missile strike or special ops ambush, but he chose not to for fear that innocents would be killed. But, then again, hindsight is 20/20.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by saden1

If you have credible and substantiated evidence of the intent of an individual then by all means, issue arrest warrants and let the law, our law as well as international law, take its course. No indefinite detention. No secrete court rooms and back door trials. No tossing aside the constitution. Do it right, do it well, do it morally.

You definately make some interesting points. I definately agree that law enforcement actions against individuals caught in the U.S. should be conducted in the same manner as other criminal trials. I don't know, however, whether the war on terrorism against individuals overseas is a law enforcement action. The "war on terrorism" is both a law enforcement action and a war.

Also, the military tribunals are nothing new as FDR did them back in WWII - a much more conventional war. Moreover, they are okay with the Supreme Court (the details may need to be worked out in a new case, but they're generally okay with the High Court).

[MTK]

I've always been annoyed with the hardcore right wingers who try to deflect everything back on Clinton. Let's deal with the current mess at hand, at least we can do something about that.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I've always been annoyed with the hardcore right wingers who try to deflect everything back on Clinton. Let's deal with the current mess at hand, at least we can do something about that.

Speaking for myself, I certainly didn't mean to state that Clinton was to blame for 9/11, not catching OBL, etc. I just chimed in on the discussion about Clinton, Bush, and catching OBL.

I personally don't care for saying Clinton should have done this or Bush should have done this pre-9/11. As you hinted, it gets us nowhere and hindsight is 20/20.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Speaking for myself, I certainly didn't mean to state that Clinton was to blame for 9/11, not catching OBL, etc. I just chimed in on the discussion about Clinton, Bush, and catching OBL.

I personally don't care for saying Clinton should have done this or Bush should have done this pre-9/11. As you hinted, it gets us nowhere and hindsight is 20/20.

Oh I know, I wasn't responding to you specifically, I was just making a general statement.

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Since this thread has gone off on so many tangents, is likely to get shut down soon, and will ultimately be sent to thread hell, let me respond with a few thoughts on many of the issues that have been raised.

(1) The firing of the assistant US Attorneys (AUSAs) was, IMHO, bad. No one in the administration is seriously defending the move and for good reason. Whomever is behind the matter deserves a serious public flogging. The firings were politically motivated and were an attempt to manipulate the justice system to serve very unsavory political ends.

(2) Everyone, including the French, thought Saddam had WMDs. Saddam tried to make everyone, allies and enemies alike, think he had WMDs. Guess what? It worked. Bush "beefed up" the intel, but he didn't lie when he said he was convinced Saddam had WMDs. We (including those like myself who were against going to war in the first instance) were simply wrong.

(3) I cannot figure out why anyone disagrees with "calling out" Iran. I do not want to go to war with them, but they're already at war with us. Iran has been training and equipping people in Iraq for years so they could kill Americans. Iran has a horrible human rights record. Iran is dominated by little Pat Robertsons. Like Hugo Chavez, Iran suppresses dissent by making midnight arrests and controlling the press. I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone on either side of the political spectrum would disagree with condemning Iran's government, particularly those who have opposed US policy of supporting brutal and oppressive dictatorships.

(4) Finally, avoid engaging in personal attacks or risk losing posting privileges or access to political forums. No one cares to read posts that amount to a pissing contest between two or more posters that are simply annoying and which detract from the thread. Honest and civil debate is encouraged, but personal attacks are not tolerated.

End rant.

Actually, Bush said he had evidence that Saddam had WMD's. That, if I'm not mistaken, was a LIE. Spin it any way you want.