Sesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet
SesliChat
sesli ve görüntülü chat
sesli ve görüntülü sohbet
Chat
sohbet MaviSakaL

…AND THE BLOG THEY RODE IN ON

Go away blogwhore

GONZALES: I think that’s its dangerous to say that the President would have that kind of authority.

*****************************************************

That’s rich, considering that both Ashcroft and Gonzales were probably two of the biggest bobbleheaded yes-men ever to hold the post of Attorney General — had this not been the case, it’s very unlikely that they would have been offered the post in the first place since Bush’s actions consistently made it clear throughout the eight years of his administration that he had absolutely no tolerance for people who questioned or thwarted him.

If I were Rice, I’d start watching my back — the fact that Ashcroft and Gonzales have apparently decided to turn their backs on her, despite each having essentially offered Bush carte blanche himself while serving as Attorney General, suggests to me that they won’t even think twice about hanging her out to dry if push comes to shove.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0904/S00266.htm

DA [Dan Abrams]: “Judge Gonzales, I’m going to ask you a very direct question. And it relates to something you just said. Do you believe water boarding is torture?”

AG: “Here’s what I’ll say. I think that the U.S. government provided advice to CIA interrogators based upon the best legal reasoning by the lawyers in the Department of Justice. Was it torture, when that advice was given? No. Were the interrogations harsh? Yes. Did they save lives? Absolutely.”

Aaarrgghhh! Lying weasel!

This is the heart of why I find you all ludicrous. You don’t know any more than I do what “any act” includes because who defines “severe”? You want to discount my opinion but don’t recognize yours for what it is. Don’t be so sure of yourselves.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

No you find us ludicrous because you are too stupid to understand simple FACTS. If WE considered it torture when we convicted the Japanese of it and called it a warcrime then WE defined it as torture ourselves. Try to keep up

The Geneva Conventions to which the US rightfully subscribe cover uniformed soldiers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Among OTHER protected classes. This rightwing canard is a zombie meme. You guys trot it out no matter HOW often we PROVE that is NOT the ONLY protected class nor that it SPECIFICALLY says that no person can be put beyond the law.

UCMJ covers US military.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes it covers what OUR military personal can DO and what it CANT do like TORTURE.

I know of no civilian laws specifying what is torture. Please enlighten me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Convention against torture statute which we are a signitory of. When a treaty is ratified it becomes the Supreme Law of the land equal to Federal LAW.

Your attitude is FASCIST. The President is not KING. He doesnt get to draw lines that make what is illegal legal. WE PROSECUTED Japanese officers for the exact same thing we are doing and called it a warcrime. The Bush administration DID torture period. Yes let it ALL come out. I suspect we will find we did more things than waterboarding. At Abu Ghraib it is KNOWN electric shock to genitals was used. Blunt force trauma KILLED detainees in more than a couple of instances. Bush SAID it was a few bad apples but then he said we didnt torture and waterboarding IS torture it was used during the Spanish inquisitions. I love the way you talk about us anti torture advocates. What kind of soulless husk of a human would be a torture advocate?

Take a whiff of that weasel. Basically, this language completely guts Geneva and places military necessity as the threshold filter. Burning a prisoner’s fingers off with a blowtorch is acceptable if deemed to be militarily necessary.

This is not reasoned opinion and wouldn’t hold up as a defense. But let’s see if it would.

I can see this flipped back at us in the next conflict. “I thought that the red haired boy from Nebraska knew of some plans to bomb our country, but he wouldn’t talk so we cut his eyes out with a dull pocket knife. It may sound harsh to you now, but we thought it was a military necessity at the time. Can I go home now?”

a. I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.
b. I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority
at this time. Accordingly, I determine that the provisions of
Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the Taliban. I reserve the right to exercise the authority in this or future conflicts.
c. I also accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either alQaeda or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant
conflicts are international in scope and common Article 3 applies only to
“armed conflict not of an international character.”
d. Based on the facts supplied by the Department of Defense and the recommendation of the Department of Justice, I determine that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva. I note that, because Geneva does not apply to our conflict with al Qaeda, al Qaeda detainees also do not qualify as prisoners of war.
3. Of course, our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally
entitled to such treatment. Our nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles. As a matter of policy, the United States
Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
4. The United States will hold states, organizations, and individuals who gain control of United States personnel responsible for treating such personnel humanely and consistent with applicable law.
5. I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the secretary of defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and,
to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
6. I hereby direct the secretary of state to communicate my determinations in an appropriate manner to our allies, and other countries and international organizations cooperating in the war against terrorism of global reach.

/s/ George W. Bush

But this is typical of the Infotainment channel , telling the whole truth about TORTURE is not important , having silly , meaningless ” discussions ” all day long about the problems w/ the republican party and what they should do to repair their image , oh that they have time for .

And this despicable and misleading framing of torture by apologists like CNN , who paint the opposition to torture, by some vague description ” Some people Say ” ….” Some People Say ” .
NO , it’s not some people say, G.D . It’s the damn International law , Geneva Accord ..tell the damn truth CNN & others , get a journalistic backbone and challenge Condesleeza Rice ludicrous comments , especially when you KNOW , you KNOW she is a damn LIAR !

I find your viewpoint extraordinary and want to fully understand how reach your conclusions.

Please provide a specific example.

Well?

Anyone with an IQ in the three-digit range could infer that he implied my arguments were without merit due to my sexual inclination.

I’m not sure why you would need to imply a lack of intelligence on my part. I didn’t see any specific condemnation of sodomy in his post.