"Gonzales Will Follow Non-Torture Policies."

[Gaard]

Don't Torture Yourself (That's His Job)

The Associated Press headline that came over the wire yesterday said it all: "Gonzales Will Follow Non-Torture Policies."

You know how bad the situation is when the president's choice for attorney general has to formally pledge not to support torture anymore.

Alberto Gonzales may have been willing to legally justify something that was abhorrent to everything America stands for, but it's all relative. Given that Mr. Gonzales is replacing the odious John Ashcroft, Democrats didn't seem inclined to try to derail the Hispanic nominee, even though his memo fostered the atmosphere that led to disgusting scandals in Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.

Just to get things started on the right foot, though, Mr. Gonzales planned to go the extra mile and offer the quaint, obsolete Senate Democrats a more nuanced explanation of why he called the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete."

Before he helped President Bush circumvent the accords and reserve the right to do so "in this or future conflicts," you had to tune in to an old movie with Nazi generals or Vietcong guards if you wanted to see someone sneeringly shrug off the international treaty protecting prisoners from abuse. ("You worthless running dog Chuck Norris! What do we care about your silly Geneva Conventions?")

How are you to believe Mr. Gonzales when he says he's through with torture? His mission is clearly to do whatever he thinks Mr. Bush wants.

All gall is divided into parts, so what's next?

The Commerce Department nominee promising that giveaways to big business will be done with subtlety?

The Environmental Protection Agency nominee promising that the toxin content in water will never rise to Yushchenko level?

It's comforting to start the new year in the hands of a party that cares so much about morals and values.

Tom DeLay and oily House Republicans inaugurated their new term by gutting ethics rules just in case any of them get caught in whatever misconduct they are plotting.

Rummy continued on his oblivious, dissembling path, refusing to admit that he's tapped out the Army and broken the Army Reserve with what Lt. Gen. James Helmly, the frustrated chief of the Army Reserve, calls "dysfunctional" policies. We've gotten so numb on Iraq that when eight American soldiers and over 80 Iraqi police officers get killed, when the governor of Baghdad gets assassinated, and when our puppets plead with Mr. Bush to delay the elections, it all seems like just another week of pre-election maneuvering.

In The Los Angeles Times, we learn that Bush fave Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas "has accepted tens of thousands of dollars worth of gifts since joining the high court, including $1,200 worth of tires, valuable historical items and a $5,000 personal check to help pay a relative's education expenses."

A guy we pay nearly $200,000 a year can't pop for his own tires? Whatever happened to the dignity of the robe? At least we know where our possible future chief justice stands: on the side of personal corruption.

"He also took a free trip aboard a private jet to the exclusive Bohemian Grove club in Northern California - arranged by a wealthy Texas real estate investor who helped run an advocacy group that filed briefs with the Supreme Court," the paper said.

The L.A. Times reviewed the disclosures of all nine justices for the years 1998 through 2003 and found that "Thomas accepted $42,200 in gifts, making him the top recipient. Next in that period was Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who accepted $5,825 in gifts, mostly small crystal figurines and other items."

Clarence Thomas follows Antonin Scalia's lead on the law. Why not also on ethics? Justice Scalia defended taking his relatives on a ride on Air Force Two to Louisiana with Dick Cheney to go duck hunting, even though the v.p. had an important case before the court, by saying that it would have been a "considerable inconvenience" to fly commercial.

Going through a blistering confirmation hearing where his inappropriate behavior was questioned didn't teach Clarence Thomas much. Can we hope for anything better from Mr. Gonzales after he's waved through to be the man in charge of enforcing our laws?

 

[Rainsford]

You know how bad the situation is when the president's choice for attorney general has to formally pledge not to support torture anymore.

When I read that, I though that maybe it should go without saying. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that it doesn't, that's why he had to say it. And that's kind of scary.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

You know how bad the situation is when the president's choice for attorney general has to formally pledge not to support torture anymore.

When I read that, I though that maybe it should go without saying. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that it doesn't, that's why he had to say it. And that's kind of scary.

Except the only reason it was stated was because some Democrats took the opportunity of his confirmation hearing to play mud-ball politics. This wasn't about him - it was about their hatred of Bush.

CsG

 

[BBond]

Mud-ball politics = Gonzales having to promise not to support torture because it was in fact he who worked with Bush to figure out a way to permit torture.

Gonzales had to disavow torture because he laid the legal groundwork for torture.

Did Gonzales authorize torture?

Bush's Counsel Sought Ruling About Torture

 

[BBond]

Gonzales Hearing `Contentious' Without Documents, Leahy Says

Jan. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Continued White House refusal to turn over memos by counsel Alberto Gonzales on treatment of suspected terrorists would create a ``contentious issue'' in Senate confirmation hearings on his nomination by President George W. Bush to be U.S. attorney general, a key Democratic lawmaker said.

In a letter to Gonzales, Senator Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, sought eight memos and documents before Gonzales appears in two days at a hearing on his nomination to succeed Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. Democrats previously asked for the material after the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison.

``I am disappointed that contrary to your promises to me to engage in an open exchange and to answer my questions in connection with your confirmation process, you have not answered my letters,'' Leahy wrote. He said the withheld material is ``relevant to your nomination.''

Among the documents are the final version of Gonzales's Jan. 25, 2002, draft memo that said Geneva Convention protections for war prisoners don't apply to Taliban fighters detained in Afghanistan or suspected al-Qaeda operatives seized worldwide. The White House, citing ``longstanding practice,'' refused last month to provide the memo, Leahy said.

Failure to produce the documents ``will be a contentious issue at the hearing,'' Leahy said in an interview. Gonzales's nomination requires confirmation by the Senate, which Republicans control by a 55-45 margin.

Old `Tactic'

Senator John Cornyn, a Republican from Gonzales's home state of Texas, said that Leahy is employing the same tactic Democrats used to stymie Bush's nomination of Miguel Estrada to a federal appeals court. Estrada, who refused to produce legal advice he gave while an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, withdrew his nomination in 2003 after Democrats blocked Senate action on it.

``This is not about providing information,'' said Cornyn, a Judiciary Committee member. ``This is about trying to keep the nominee on the defensive, suggesting, wrongly, that they are withholding critical information, then bloodying the nominee during the process for their unwillingness to do something which legally they cannot do.''

The information Leahy seeks includes the ``most sensitive'' communications between the president and his advisers that ``have to be given some protection,'' Cornyn said.

Military Challenge

Leahy's delivered his warning as 12 retired military officers, including retired Army General John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urged the Senate panel to demand answers from Gonzales about his role in making policies on suspected terrorists.

``Mr. Gonzales appears to have played a significant role in shaping U.S. detention and interrogation operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere,'' said the letter by five former military officers. ``These operations have fostered greater animosity toward the United States, undermined our intelligence gathering efforts and added to the risks facing our troops serving around the world.''

Cornyn said Gonzales's critics are politicizing the confirmation process in a ``permanent campaign'' against Bush.

``Some people are unaware that we had an election on Nov. 2 and are continuing the same kind of political attacks that were once lodged against the president against his nominee for attorney general,'' Cornyn told reporters.

Religious Leaders

A group of 225 religious leaders, led by George Hunsinger of Princeton Theological Seminary, called on the Senate to reject Gonzales's nomination.

``Alberto Gonzales was at the heart of deliberations in high places about skirting the Geneva Conventions and international law,'' Hunsinger told reporters on a conference call. ``The question was not how to prevent abuse but how far interrogations could go in getting away with it. It was but a short step from there to Abu Ghraib.''

Cornyn said it's ``ridiculous'' to suggest that Gonzales's advice to Bush is ``somehow creating an atmosphere in which criminal activity has occurred.''

In the Jan. 25, 2002, draft memo, Gonzales warned that members of the U.S. military could be prosecuted for violating the Geneva Convention under the War Crimes Act.

`New Paradigm'

The memo said the ``new paradigm'' of the war on terror ``renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners.''

Former military officers said Gonzales should also be questioned about whether he agreed with an Aug. 1, 2000, Justice Department memo that some mental and physical pain inflicted during interrogation might not ``rise to the level of torture.''

Last week, the Justice Department retracted the memo, which defined torture as inflicting pain ``equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.'' The earlier memo was written by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee.

People for the American Way, an advocacy group that opposes most of Bush's judicial nominees, also urged the Senate to reject Gonzales. He ``was a central architect of policies that have undermined America's moral authority and have been rebuked by the Supreme Court,'' Ralph Neas, the group's president, said in a statement.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BBond
Mud-ball politics = Gonzales having to promise not to support torture because it was in fact he who worked with Bush to figure out a way to permit torture.

Gonzales had to disavow torture because he laid the legal groundwork for torture.

Did Gonzales authorize torture?

Bush's Counsel Sought Ruling About Torture

Again, this is nothing but an attempt to smear Bush. If you had half a clue about his involvement in this you'd understand that his opinion was sought and given. His opinions did not authorize torture or anything of the sort. His comments are being used to smear Bush in the political arena - nothing more - nothing less. Keep it up though, I'm quite sure it'll backfire on you leftists.

Oh, and just a note of sick humor - did anyone read or hear what 'Ol Swimmer(teddy kennedy) had to say today at the hearings? What a hoot - the man who let a woman drown because he was driving drunk has the balls to talk about water-boarding! I thought that was pretty interesting.

CsG

 

[dahunan]

Jesus approves of torture too and Jesus approves of dittohead intellectualism

Why did the US Torture So Many people at Gitmo and abu ghraib and probably in Afg

Why Gonzo have to say he won't support it anymore? Did he support it before

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

You know how bad the situation is when the president's choice for attorney general has to formally pledge not to support torture anymore.

When I read that, I though that maybe it should go without saying. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that it doesn't, that's why he had to say it. And that's kind of scary.

Except the only reason it was stated was because some Democrats took the opportunity of his confirmation hearing to play mud-ball politics. This wasn't about him - it was about their hatred of Bush.

CsG

I'm curious. Is there anything the Bush administration could do that is so repugnant, so clearly over the line, that you would NOT dismiss it as "mud-ball politics"? Anything at all?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
Mud-ball politics = Gonzales having to promise not to support torture because it was in fact he who worked with Bush to figure out a way to permit torture.

Gonzales had to disavow torture because he laid the legal groundwork for torture.

Did Gonzales authorize torture?

Bush's Counsel Sought Ruling About Torture

Again, this is nothing but an attempt to smear Bush. If you had half a clue about his involvement in this you'd understand that his opinion was sought and given. His opinions did not authorize torture or anything of the sort. His comments are being used to smear Bush in the political arena - nothing more - nothing less. Keep it up though, I'm quite sure it'll backfire on you leftists.

Oh, and just a note of sick humor - did anyone read or hear what 'Ol Swimmer(teddy kennedy) had to say today at the hearings? What a hoot - the man who let a woman drown because he was driving drunk has the balls to talk about water-boarding! I thought that was pretty interesting.

CsG

So Kennedy sucks. Gonzales does, even more. His opinions count because he will be deciding what and how to prosecute. His decisions will determine what is permitted. The AG has a lot of power, and I for one do not want to see someone who can justify torture and imprisonment without charge or trial.

So it comes to this, that so called conservatives must endorse such acts?

Shameful. Bush deserves scorn for appointing such a person.

 

[BBond]

Bush's nominee for Attorney General has to publicly disavow torture because of the actions he and the Bush administration took during the past four years to ignore those quaint Geneva Conventions and allow torture and it's all just another attempt to smear Bush?

We Are All Torturers Now

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
Mud-ball politics = Gonzales having to promise not to support torture because it was in fact he who worked with Bush to figure out a way to permit torture.

Gonzales had to disavow torture because he laid the legal groundwork for torture.

Did Gonzales authorize torture?

Bush's Counsel Sought Ruling About Torture

Again, this is nothing but an attempt to smear Bush. If you had half a clue about his involvement in this you'd understand that his opinion was sought and given. His opinions did not authorize torture or anything of the sort. His comments are being used to smear Bush in the political arena - nothing more - nothing less. Keep it up though, I'm quite sure it'll backfire on you leftists.

Oh, and just a note of sick humor - did anyone read or hear what 'Ol Swimmer(teddy kennedy) had to say today at the hearings? What a hoot - the man who let a woman drown because he was driving drunk has the balls to talk about water-boarding! I thought that was pretty interesting.

CsG

So Kennedy sucks. Gonzales does, even more. His opinions count because he will be deciding what and how to prosecute. His decisions will determine what is permitted. The AG has a lot of power, and I for one do not want to see someone who can justify torture and imprisonment without charge or trial.

So it comes to this, that so called conservatives must endorse such acts?

Shameful. Bush deserves scorn for appointing such a person.

You act as though he authorized torture. He did nothing of the sort. You on the left have worked yourself into a tizzy and have talked yourself into believing he is your meal-ticket to smearing Bush. However you forgot one little thing - the facts.
He did not authorize torture. Our intelligence gathering techniques have been used for years and are not new because of Bush, this war, or Gonzales.

But hey, like I said - keep it up. I'll be sitting here laughing when it blows up in your face.

CsG

 

[BBond]

Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings

Could Bush administration officials be prosecuted for 'war crimes' as a result of new measures used in the war on terror? The White House's top lawyer thought so

By Michael Isikoff
Investigative Correspondent
Newsweek
Updated: 9:14 a.m. ET May 19, 2004

May 17 - The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue.

The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes?and that it might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves? is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes?defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions?such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners?was "undefined."

advertisement
One key advantage of declaring that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters did not have Geneva Convention protections is that it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," Gonzales wrote.

"It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441 [the War Crimes Act]," Gonzales wrote.

The best way to guard against such "unwarranted charges," the White House lawyer concluded, would be for President Bush to stick to his decision?then being strongly challenged by Secretary of State Powell? to exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from Geneva convention provisions.

"Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that (the War Crimes Act) does not apply which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution," Gonzales wrote.

The memo?and strong dissents by Secretary of State Colin Powell and his chief legal advisor, William Howard Taft IV?are among hundreds of pages of internal administration documents on the Geneva Convention and related issues that have been obtained by NEWSWEEK and are reported for the first time in this week's magazine. Newsweek made some of them available online today.

The memos provide fresh insights into a fierce internal administration debate over whether the United States should conform to international treaty obligations in pursuing the war on terror. Administration critics have charged that key legal decisions made in the months after September 11, 2001 including the White House's February 2002 declaration not to grant any Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters prisoners of war status under the Geneva Convention, laid the groundwork for the interrogation abuses that have recently been revealed in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

As reported in this week's magazine edition, the Gonzales memo urged Bush to declare all aspects of the war in Afghanistan?including the detention of both Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters?exempt from the strictures of the Geneva Convention. In the memo, Gonzales described the war against terorrism as a "new kind of war" and then added: "The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians, and the need to try terrorists for war crimes such as wantonly killing civilians."

But while top White House officials publicly talked about trying Al Qaeda leaders for war crimes, the internal memos show that administration lawyers were privately concerned that they could tried for war crimes themselves based on actions the administration were taking, and might have to take in the future, to combat the terrorist threat.

The issue first arises in a January 9, 2002, draft memorandum written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concluding that "neither the War Crimes Act nor the Geneva Conventions" would apply to the detention conditions of Al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. The memo includes a lengthy discussion of the War Crimes Act, which it concludes has no binding effect on the president because it would interfere with his Commander in Chief powers to determine "how best to deploy troops in the field." (The memo, by Justice lawyers John Yoo and Robert Delahunty, also concludes?in response to a question by the Pentagon?that U.S. soldiers could not be tried for violations of the laws of war in Afghanistan because such international laws have "no binding legal effect on either the President or the military.")

But while the discussion in the Justice memo revolves around the possible application of the War Crimes Act to members of the U.S. military, there is some reason to believe that administration lawyers were worried that the law could even be used in the future against senior administration officials.

One lawyer involved in the interagency debates over the Geneva Conventions issue recalled a meeting in early 2002 in which participants challenged Yoo, a primary architect of the administration's legal strategy, when he raised the possibility of Justice Department war crimes prosecutions unless there was a clear presidential direction proclaiming the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the war in Afghanistan. The concern seemed misplaced, Yoo was told, given that loyal Bush appointees were in charge of the Justice Department.

"Well, the political climate could change," Yoo replied, according to the lawyer who attended the meeting. "The implication was that a new president would come into office and start potential prosecutions of a bunch of ex-Bush officials," the lawyer said. (Yoo declined comment.)

This appears to be precisely the concern in Gonzales's memo dated January 25, 2002, in which he strongly urges Bush to stick to his decision to exempt the treatment of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters from the provisons of the Geneva Conventions. (Powell and the State Department had wanted the U.S. to at least have individual reviews of Taliban fighters before concluding that they did not qualify for Geneva Convention provisions.)

One reason to do so, Gonzales wrote, is that it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act." He added that "it is difficult to predict with confidence what actions might be deemed to constitute violations" of the War Crimes Act just as it was "difficult to predict the needs and circumstances that could arise in the course of the war on terrorism." Such uncertainties, Gonzales wrote, argued for the President to uphold his exclusion of Geneva Convention provisions to the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees who, he concluded, would still be treated "humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessarity, in a manner consistst with the principles" of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war.

In the end, after strong protests from Powell, the White House retreated slightly. In February 2002, it proclaimed that, while the United States would adhere to the Geneva Conventions in the conduct of the war in Afghanistan, captured Taliban and Qaeda fighters would not be given prisoner of war status under the conventions. It is a rendering that Administration lawyers believed would protect U.S. interrogators or their superiors in Washington from being subjected to prosecutions under the War Crimes Act based on their treatment of the prisoners.

 

[dahunan]

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/daniels.html
Watch the video and see Ashcroft squirm

Read the memo
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/

More about this story
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/geneva.html

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
Mud-ball politics = Gonzales having to promise not to support torture because it was in fact he who worked with Bush to figure out a way to permit torture.

Gonzales had to disavow torture because he laid the legal groundwork for torture.

Did Gonzales authorize torture?

Bush's Counsel Sought Ruling About Torture

Again, this is nothing but an attempt to smear Bush. If you had half a clue about his involvement in this you'd understand that his opinion was sought and given. His opinions did not authorize torture or anything of the sort. His comments are being used to smear Bush in the political arena - nothing more - nothing less. Keep it up though, I'm quite sure it'll backfire on you leftists.

Oh, and just a note of sick humor - did anyone read or hear what 'Ol Swimmer(teddy kennedy) had to say today at the hearings? What a hoot - the man who let a woman drown because he was driving drunk has the balls to talk about water-boarding! I thought that was pretty interesting.

CsG

So Kennedy sucks. Gonzales does, even more. His opinions count because he will be deciding what and how to prosecute. His decisions will determine what is permitted. The AG has a lot of power, and I for one do not want to see someone who can justify torture and imprisonment without charge or trial.

So it comes to this, that so called conservatives must endorse such acts?

Shameful. Bush deserves scorn for appointing such a person.

You act as though he authorized torture. He did nothing of the sort. You on the left have worked yourself into a tizzy and have talked yourself into believing he is your meal-ticket to smearing Bush. However you forgot one little thing - the facts.
He did not authorize torture. Our intelligence gathering techniques have been used for years and are not new because of Bush, this war, or Gonzales.

But hey, like I said - keep it up. I'll be sitting here laughing when it blows up in your face.

CsG

I am acting as if he could justify torture. I am acting as if he could justify holding people without trial or charge. Bush doesnt need my help, he is trying to get this POS into the AG spot.
Did he AUTHORIZE torture? No, he merely justified it.

Jesus, and they flipped when Clinton lied over a BJ, and endorse this ass.

 

[BBond]

Veterans' groups speak out against Gonzales' nomination

By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Thursday, January 6, 2005

WASHINGTON ? Several veterans groups on Wednesday joined the chorus of opposition to President Bush?s nomination of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, calling his legal opinions on torture a threat to U.S. forces worldwide.

On Tuesday, 12 retired admirals and generals ? including former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili ? sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee urging them to closely examine Gonzales? position on torture before they approve him.

Veterans for Common Sense, which represents about 12,000 former military personnel, and other related groups took their criticism of Gonzales even further by asking senators to oppose his nomination.

?Not only does his position (on torture) violate the laws of the United States, but it has also endangered our U.S. servicemen,? said retired Air Force Col. Richard Klass, president of the Veterans Institute for Security and Democracy.

?Judge Gonzales has opened the way for any tin-horned dictator or corrupt head of state to do the same to our troops.?

Critics attacked the White House counsel not only for his January 2002 memo calling the Geneva Convention ?obsolete? and ?quaint? but also for what they call failings in his judicial review of death penalty cases while an adviser to Bush while the president was governor of Texas.

?We are not just opposed to torture because it is counterproductive; it is just plain wrong,? said Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst. ?It is the rule of law that distinguishes us from the animals, who can?t tell right from wrong. This is not just an academic exercise.?

The groups submitted their own letter to the Senate, signed by nearly 3,600 veterans, asking that the controversies surrounding the torture memos be the focus of their confirmation hearings.

Those hearings for Gonzales are scheduled to begin Thursday.

 

[dahunan]

Who the hell are those Veterans.. come on.. you know they wished they were in abu ghraib porn movies too.. geesh ..they are just jealous

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
Mud-ball politics = Gonzales having to promise not to support torture because it was in fact he who worked with Bush to figure out a way to permit torture.

Gonzales had to disavow torture because he laid the legal groundwork for torture.

Did Gonzales authorize torture?

Bush's Counsel Sought Ruling About Torture

Again, this is nothing but an attempt to smear Bush. If you had half a clue about his involvement in this you'd understand that his opinion was sought and given. His opinions did not authorize torture or anything of the sort. His comments are being used to smear Bush in the political arena - nothing more - nothing less. Keep it up though, I'm quite sure it'll backfire on you leftists.

Oh, and just a note of sick humor - did anyone read or hear what 'Ol Swimmer(teddy kennedy) had to say today at the hearings? What a hoot - the man who let a woman drown because he was driving drunk has the balls to talk about water-boarding! I thought that was pretty interesting.

CsG

So Kennedy sucks. Gonzales does, even more. His opinions count because he will be deciding what and how to prosecute. His decisions will determine what is permitted. The AG has a lot of power, and I for one do not want to see someone who can justify torture and imprisonment without charge or trial.

So it comes to this, that so called conservatives must endorse such acts?

Shameful. Bush deserves scorn for appointing such a person.

You act as though he authorized torture. He did nothing of the sort. You on the left have worked yourself into a tizzy and have talked yourself into believing he is your meal-ticket to smearing Bush. However you forgot one little thing - the facts.
He did not authorize torture. Our intelligence gathering techniques have been used for years and are not new because of Bush, this war, or Gonzales.

But hey, like I said - keep it up. I'll be sitting here laughing when it blows up in your face.

CsG

I am acting as if he could justify torture. I am acting as if he could justify holding people without trial or charge. Bush doesnt need my help, he is trying to get this POS into the AG spot.
Did he AUTHORIZE torture? No, he merely justified it.

Jesus, and they flipped when Clinton lied over a BJ, and endorse this ass.

Justified it? Well if you call giving his opinion on how to stay within the law or opining how Judges might act is justifying it - then you'd be correct. However this again depends on your objective and slant. You on the left are out for blood. Your boy lost and now you guys are trying to play hardball against Bush by using his AG appointment. But you forgot something - the ball. The ball in this case is the facts. You can toss around your opinions and hate all day but that doesn't replace the ball.

CsG

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
Mud-ball politics = Gonzales having to promise not to support torture because it was in fact he who worked with Bush to figure out a way to permit torture.

Gonzales had to disavow torture because he laid the legal groundwork for torture.

Did Gonzales authorize torture?

Bush's Counsel Sought Ruling About Torture

Again, this is nothing but an attempt to smear Bush. If you had half a clue about his involvement in this you'd understand that his opinion was sought and given. His opinions did not authorize torture or anything of the sort. His comments are being used to smear Bush in the political arena - nothing more - nothing less. Keep it up though, I'm quite sure it'll backfire on you leftists.

Oh, and just a note of sick humor - did anyone read or hear what 'Ol Swimmer(teddy kennedy) had to say today at the hearings? What a hoot - the man who let a woman drown because he was driving drunk has the balls to talk about water-boarding! I thought that was pretty interesting.

CsG

So Kennedy sucks. Gonzales does, even more. His opinions count because he will be deciding what and how to prosecute. His decisions will determine what is permitted. The AG has a lot of power, and I for one do not want to see someone who can justify torture and imprisonment without charge or trial.

So it comes to this, that so called conservatives must endorse such acts?

Shameful. Bush deserves scorn for appointing such a person.

You act as though he authorized torture. He did nothing of the sort. You on the left have worked yourself into a tizzy and have talked yourself into believing he is your meal-ticket to smearing Bush. However you forgot one little thing - the facts.
He did not authorize torture. Our intelligence gathering techniques have been used for years and are not new because of Bush, this war, or Gonzales.

But hey, like I said - keep it up. I'll be sitting here laughing when it blows up in your face.

CsG

I don't see how its so hard to understand that he is to be put into a postion where he CAN authorize torture, and since he was so eager to find a way to legitimize it in the first place.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
Mud-ball politics = Gonzales having to promise not to support torture because it was in fact he who worked with Bush to figure out a way to permit torture.

Gonzales had to disavow torture because he laid the legal groundwork for torture.

Did Gonzales authorize torture?

Bush's Counsel Sought Ruling About Torture

Again, this is nothing but an attempt to smear Bush. If you had half a clue about his involvement in this you'd understand that his opinion was sought and given. His opinions did not authorize torture or anything of the sort. His comments are being used to smear Bush in the political arena - nothing more - nothing less. Keep it up though, I'm quite sure it'll backfire on you leftists.

Oh, and just a note of sick humor - did anyone read or hear what 'Ol Swimmer(teddy kennedy) had to say today at the hearings? What a hoot - the man who let a woman drown because he was driving drunk has the balls to talk about water-boarding! I thought that was pretty interesting.

CsG

So Kennedy sucks. Gonzales does, even more. His opinions count because he will be deciding what and how to prosecute. His decisions will determine what is permitted. The AG has a lot of power, and I for one do not want to see someone who can justify torture and imprisonment without charge or trial.

So it comes to this, that so called conservatives must endorse such acts?

Shameful. Bush deserves scorn for appointing such a person.

You act as though he authorized torture. He did nothing of the sort. You on the left have worked yourself into a tizzy and have talked yourself into believing he is your meal-ticket to smearing Bush. However you forgot one little thing - the facts.
He did not authorize torture. Our intelligence gathering techniques have been used for years and are not new because of Bush, this war, or Gonzales.

But hey, like I said - keep it up. I'll be sitting here laughing when it blows up in your face.

CsG

I am acting as if he could justify torture. I am acting as if he could justify holding people without trial or charge. Bush doesnt need my help, he is trying to get this POS into the AG spot.
Did he AUTHORIZE torture? No, he merely justified it.

Jesus, and they flipped when Clinton lied over a BJ, and endorse this ass.

Justified it? Well if you call giving his opinion on how to stay within the law or opining how Judges might act is justifying it - then you'd be correct. However this again depends on your objective and slant. You on the left are out for blood. Your boy lost and now you guys are trying to play hardball against Bush by using his AG appointment. But you forgot something - the ball. The ball in this case is the facts. You can toss around your opinions and hate all day but that doesn't replace the ball.

CsG

Everyone who is against this appointment is the "left"?

I now believe there is nothing, nothing at all that this administration could do you would find objectionable.

The facts are staring you in the face. This is a BAD person. One who could easily bring about the arrests of US citizens AKA Padilla without trial or charge.

I thought Conservatives were for freedom, and cried about government running lives. Here we have someone who threatens liberty as we understand it. He has an inordinate amount of power, and I see no sign he respects traditional legal protections.

Well, I am not one of the "Left", but I am no false conservative closet fascist.

There is no need or justification for this kind of person.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
Mud-ball politics = Gonzales having to promise not to support torture because it was in fact he who worked with Bush to figure out a way to permit torture.

Gonzales had to disavow torture because he laid the legal groundwork for torture.

Did Gonzales authorize torture?

Bush's Counsel Sought Ruling About Torture

Again, this is nothing but an attempt to smear Bush. If you had half a clue about his involvement in this you'd understand that his opinion was sought and given. His opinions did not authorize torture or anything of the sort. His comments are being used to smear Bush in the political arena - nothing more - nothing less. Keep it up though, I'm quite sure it'll backfire on you leftists.

Oh, and just a note of sick humor - did anyone read or hear what 'Ol Swimmer(teddy kennedy) had to say today at the hearings? What a hoot - the man who let a woman drown because he was driving drunk has the balls to talk about water-boarding! I thought that was pretty interesting.

CsG

So Kennedy sucks. Gonzales does, even more. His opinions count because he will be deciding what and how to prosecute. His decisions will determine what is permitted. The AG has a lot of power, and I for one do not want to see someone who can justify torture and imprisonment without charge or trial.

So it comes to this, that so called conservatives must endorse such acts?

Shameful. Bush deserves scorn for appointing such a person.

You act as though he authorized torture. He did nothing of the sort. You on the left have worked yourself into a tizzy and have talked yourself into believing he is your meal-ticket to smearing Bush. However you forgot one little thing - the facts.
He did not authorize torture. Our intelligence gathering techniques have been used for years and are not new because of Bush, this war, or Gonzales.

But hey, like I said - keep it up. I'll be sitting here laughing when it blows up in your face.

CsG

I am acting as if he could justify torture. I am acting as if he could justify holding people without trial or charge. Bush doesnt need my help, he is trying to get this POS into the AG spot.
Did he AUTHORIZE torture? No, he merely justified it.

Jesus, and they flipped when Clinton lied over a BJ, and endorse this ass.

Justified it? Well if you call giving his opinion on how to stay within the law or opining how Judges might act is justifying it - then you'd be correct. However this again depends on your objective and slant. You on the left are out for blood. Your boy lost and now you guys are trying to play hardball against Bush by using his AG appointment. But you forgot something - the ball. The ball in this case is the facts. You can toss around your opinions and hate all day but that doesn't replace the ball.

CsG

This has nothing to do with Bush.

If someone can justify torture and advice people on how to do it "legally", whats to say they won't do it when given the power to?

 

[Pliablemoose]

You know what makes me crazy?

Gonzales is a cabinet level appointee, unless he had illegals working for him or tortured detainees himself on vidoetape, he'll be confirmed.

The president gets to select who works for him...

I listened to the hearings, the dems kept hammering him with the same rephrased question over & over, as if the answer would change. Isn't that the definition of insanity?

And then crap like:

Q: "Do you think the Senate has the right to change the filibuster rules?"
A: "Sir, they are seperate branches of government, the executive branch does not control the Senate."
Q: "I know that, but what do you think?"
A: "I don't mean to seem argumentative but the Senate has it's own rules."
Q: "I submit that if you're a constructionist, that the Senate cannot change the rules."
A: "Sir, I wouldn't be involved in the Senate changing it's rules."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
Mud-ball politics = Gonzales having to promise not to support torture because it was in fact he who worked with Bush to figure out a way to permit torture.

Gonzales had to disavow torture because he laid the legal groundwork for torture.

Did Gonzales authorize torture?

Bush's Counsel Sought Ruling About Torture

Again, this is nothing but an attempt to smear Bush. If you had half a clue about his involvement in this you'd understand that his opinion was sought and given. His opinions did not authorize torture or anything of the sort. His comments are being used to smear Bush in the political arena - nothing more - nothing less. Keep it up though, I'm quite sure it'll backfire on you leftists.

Oh, and just a note of sick humor - did anyone read or hear what 'Ol Swimmer(teddy kennedy) had to say today at the hearings? What a hoot - the man who let a woman drown because he was driving drunk has the balls to talk about water-boarding! I thought that was pretty interesting.

CsG

So Kennedy sucks. Gonzales does, even more. His opinions count because he will be deciding what and how to prosecute. His decisions will determine what is permitted. The AG has a lot of power, and I for one do not want to see someone who can justify torture and imprisonment without charge or trial.

So it comes to this, that so called conservatives must endorse such acts?

Shameful. Bush deserves scorn for appointing such a person.

You act as though he authorized torture. He did nothing of the sort. You on the left have worked yourself into a tizzy and have talked yourself into believing he is your meal-ticket to smearing Bush. However you forgot one little thing - the facts.
He did not authorize torture. Our intelligence gathering techniques have been used for years and are not new because of Bush, this war, or Gonzales.

But hey, like I said - keep it up. I'll be sitting here laughing when it blows up in your face.

CsG

I am acting as if he could justify torture. I am acting as if he could justify holding people without trial or charge. Bush doesnt need my help, he is trying to get this POS into the AG spot.
Did he AUTHORIZE torture? No, he merely justified it.

Jesus, and they flipped when Clinton lied over a BJ, and endorse this ass.

Justified it? Well if you call giving his opinion on how to stay within the law or opining how Judges might act is justifying it - then you'd be correct. However this again depends on your objective and slant. You on the left are out for blood. Your boy lost and now you guys are trying to play hardball against Bush by using his AG appointment. But you forgot something - the ball. The ball in this case is the facts. You can toss around your opinions and hate all day but that doesn't replace the ball.

CsG

Everyone who is against this appointment is the "left"?

I didn't say that

I now believe there is nothing, nothing at all that this administration could do you would find objectionable.

The facts are staring you in the face. This is a BAD person. One who could easily bring about the arrests of US citizens AKA Padilla without trial or charge.

I thought Conservatives were for freedom, and cried about government running lives. Here we have someone who threatens liberty as we understand it. He has an inordinate amount of power, and I see no sign he respects traditional legal protections.

Huh? He was giving his opinion so we could stay within the bounds of the law. Sheesh -are you guys really that blood thristy that you don't understand that? There is no factual basis for you accusation that he doesn't respect traditional law

Well, I am not one of the "Left", but I am no false conservative closet fascist.

There is no need or justification for this kind of person.

Again, it's not just about this person. If you think it is then you are mistaken - this is about Bush. You on the left don't like the fact that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to terrorists. Heck some of you are all up in arms that we don't afford TERRORISTS constitutional protections. The day we afford Constitutional protections to terrorists is the day the terrorists win.

CsG

 

[BBond]

The person Bush has nominated to be Attorney General of the United States has worked to circumvent the Geneva Conventions to allow the use of torture in places like Abu Ghraib. The proof is in the links I posted above. Anyone who wants to can take the time to read them, or you can just ignore them and keep your illusions intact.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Again, it's not just about this person. If you think it is then you are mistaken - this is about Bush. You on the left don't like the fact that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to terrorists. Heck some of you are all up in arms that we don't afford TERRORISTS constitutional protections. The day we afford Constitutional protections to terrorists is the day the terrorists win.

CsG

Also of note, Gonzales & several congressmen discussed the possibility of renegotiating the GC today during the hearing, it was written up in 48'

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
Mud-ball politics = Gonzales having to promise not to support torture because it was in fact he who worked with Bush to figure out a way to permit torture.

Gonzales had to disavow torture because he laid the legal groundwork for torture.

Did Gonzales authorize torture?

Bush's Counsel Sought Ruling About Torture

Again, this is nothing but an attempt to smear Bush. If you had half a clue about his involvement in this you'd understand that his opinion was sought and given. His opinions did not authorize torture or anything of the sort. His comments are being used to smear Bush in the political arena - nothing more - nothing less. Keep it up though, I'm quite sure it'll backfire on you leftists.

Oh, and just a note of sick humor - did anyone read or hear what 'Ol Swimmer(teddy kennedy) had to say today at the hearings? What a hoot - the man who let a woman drown because he was driving drunk has the balls to talk about water-boarding! I thought that was pretty interesting.

CsG

So Kennedy sucks. Gonzales does, even more. His opinions count because he will be deciding what and how to prosecute. His decisions will determine what is permitted. The AG has a lot of power, and I for one do not want to see someone who can justify torture and imprisonment without charge or trial.

So it comes to this, that so called conservatives must endorse such acts?

Shameful. Bush deserves scorn for appointing such a person.

You act as though he authorized torture. He did nothing of the sort. You on the left have worked yourself into a tizzy and have talked yourself into believing he is your meal-ticket to smearing Bush. However you forgot one little thing - the facts.
He did not authorize torture. Our intelligence gathering techniques have been used for years and are not new because of Bush, this war, or Gonzales.

But hey, like I said - keep it up. I'll be sitting here laughing when it blows up in your face.

CsG

I am acting as if he could justify torture. I am acting as if he could justify holding people without trial or charge. Bush doesnt need my help, he is trying to get this POS into the AG spot.
Did he AUTHORIZE torture? No, he merely justified it.

Jesus, and they flipped when Clinton lied over a BJ, and endorse this ass.

Justified it? Well if you call giving his opinion on how to stay within the law or opining how Judges might act is justifying it - then you'd be correct. However this again depends on your objective and slant. You on the left are out for blood. Your boy lost and now you guys are trying to play hardball against Bush by using his AG appointment. But you forgot something - the ball. The ball in this case is the facts. You can toss around your opinions and hate all day but that doesn't replace the ball.

CsG

Everyone who is against this appointment is the "left"?

I didn't say that

I now believe there is nothing, nothing at all that this administration could do you would find objectionable.

The facts are staring you in the face. This is a BAD person. One who could easily bring about the arrests of US citizens AKA Padilla without trial or charge.

I thought Conservatives were for freedom, and cried about government running lives. Here we have someone who threatens liberty as we understand it. He has an inordinate amount of power, and I see no sign he respects traditional legal protections.

Huh? He was giving his opinion so we could stay within the bounds of the law. Sheesh -are you guys really that blood thristy that you don't understand that? There is no factual basis for you accusation that he doesn't respect traditional law

Well, I am not one of the "Left", but I am no false conservative closet fascist.

There is no need or justification for this kind of person.

Again, it's not just about this person. If you think it is then you are mistaken - this is about Bush. You on the left don't like the fact that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to terrorists. Heck some of you are all up in arms that we don't afford TERRORISTS constitutional protections. The day we afford Constitutional protections to terrorists is the day the terrorists win.

CsG

So, it's not what's right, but what can be legally gotten away with if couched properly.

Must be the same lawyers that gave the "is, is" advice to Clinton.

This isn't about some lawyer trick. It's about right and wrong. You on the "right" whatever the hell that is these days don't give a rats ass if we lock up US citizens without charge or trial.

These so called conservatives are against freedom and are as unpatriotic in the true sense, choosing to support a government bent on becoming more oppressive over the people of this country. It is the PEOPLE who are this country, and not the govt. officials.

READ the memo. It states that by classifying individuals in a certain way, war crime charges can be avoided. Bush can do the act, but avoid the penalty. What crap is that? Also note that he states that the AG is responsible for INTERPRETING. Well guess who the new AG is slated to be?

You could have advocated someone who would enforce existing laws. You could have supported someone who has the principles not to suggest ways to engage in criminal behavior without criminal consequences.

If I find a legal way to kill someone, does that really matter? If I take someones life, who gives two craps about the legality? THE ACT ITSELF IS WRONG! IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE!

Damn, the Repubs are so immoral, it's ridiculous.