"Gonzales Will Follow Non-Torture Policies."

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose


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

Maybe they can "revisit" the Geneva Conventions the same way they revisited the U.S. Constitution with the Patriot Act.

Alberto Gonzales Condemns Torture Tactics

Gonzales said that as attorney general, he would abide by the 1949 Geneva treaty. But he also said the White House was looking at the possibility of seeking revisions to the conventions.

"Now I'm not suggesting that the principles, the basic treatment of human beings, should be revisited," Gonzales said. "But there has been some very preliminary discussion: Is this something that we ought to look at?"

He said the discussions have not gone far. "It's not been a systematic project or effort to look at this question," Gonzales said. "But some people I deal with, the lawyers, indicate maybe this is something we should look at."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said later that Gonzales was referring to "some preliminary, staff-level discussions about recommendations by the 9-11 commission and the Schlesinger Task Force" that investigated prisoner abuses. "They recommended that the government should consider developing a new legal standard or new rules for detainees in the war on terrorism," McClellan said.

Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) later urged on Bush to consult Congress and he requested a congressional hearing. "My concern is not that these discussions are taking place, but that they are taking place in secret, behind closed doors, with no outside involvement," Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote the president.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: BBond

Maybe they can "revisit" the Geneva Conventions the same way they revisited the U.S. Constitution with the Patriot Act.

You really get worked up over this stuff don't you?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 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."

The President gets to appoint who works for him. It is Congress who hires him.

I hope to god they do not.

Is the standard now it's fine to advocate evil as long as someone else is hired to do the actual dirty work?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

PM, this person is completely immoral. We should be crying in outrage at his appointment, but if we wind up with him I will vote for Hillary before another Republican and I can't stand the woman.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: BBond

Maybe they can "revisit" the Geneva Conventions the same way they revisited the U.S. Constitution with the Patriot Act.

You really get worked up over this stuff don't you?

You call that getting really worked up?

 

[Jhhnn]

The giveaways in this whole thing was voiced rather loudly by CsG, even though he really hadn't intended to do so. First, he accuses others of not having any "facts" by merely voicing his opinion, ignoring links to factual information, even memos actually written by Gonzales. Then there's this, the crowning glory-

"The day we afford Constitutional protections to terrorists is the day the terrorists win. "

Quite to the contrary, CsG. The day that more people feel the same way you do about people merely accused of being terrorists is the day that the terrorists will have won, because that'll be the day we're no better than they are.

What you've just advocated is that we renounce our faith in democracy, freedom, and the strength of constitutional law, put our faith in using the tools of tyranny. And you have the nerve to represent yourself as some kind of patriot. Shameful.

 

[BBond]

An American gulag

Thursday, January 06, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.

Editorial

The U.S. plan to lock up suspected terrorists for life in secret locations without evidence is a horrifying development.

Torturing prisoners, denying them legal safeguards and essentially refuting their existence is what rogue regimes and lawless nations do. Reading about it in China's Xinhua News Agency is especially disconcerting. The Bush administration is not only doing all this now, but making systematic plans to create an American gulag of prisons and prisoners without names and cells without numbers. From the old Soviet Union to Communist China to the banana republics of Latin America and Castro's Cuba, that's what others do.

According to reports in The Washington Post, the military and CIA have hundreds of detainees for whom they have no evidence to hold longer or who have exhausted their usefulness as intelligence sources, or never provided any information.

U.S. authorities refuse to let them go or put them in proximity to U.S. civilian or military judicial systems.

The options under study include construction of a special prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Another proposal would transfer Afghan, Saudi and Yemeni detainees from Cuba back to their home countries, where they'd reside in U.S.-built prisons.

Another option is sending detainees to U.S.-friendly third countries where they can be held indefinitely, and tortured if need be, completely out of sight and mind of U.S. laws and nosy human-rights organizations.

Detainees have been held at secret locations ranging from Afghanistan to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and on ships at sea.

Americans were shocked to learn of the torture and abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, and subsequent revelations of other, earlier abuses. These new proposals are another departure from the values most Americans believe symbolize their nation at home and abroad.

So what might be the next step: the holding of political prisoners whose views are considered an unspecified and unproven threat to the commonweal? Certainly, that is preposterous. Except that extreme policies predictably debase other standards.

The Post's Dana Priest reported that moving captives to friendly third countries which hold them without question was a technique used in the drug wars. Kingpins would be stashed away for later delivery to U.S. courts. Since 2001, the practice has been used to make sure detainees do not go to court or back to the streets, Priest reported.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress must challenge the administration and hold the Pentagon and CIA responsible for behavior that undermines the values and liberties they profess to protect.

These agencies do not have to operate in the public glare, but they have to be accountable to civilian law and authority. It's an abomination to take prisoners, hold them, and indefinitely deny them access to civilian and military proceedings.

That is not what America stands for, and not what it does.

 

[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: 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.

When asked a legal opinion - personal "feelings" aren't law. You can rail against our gov'ts laws if you wish but they were in place before Bush took office and Gonzales gave his opinion. Waterboarding has been used for many many years by our gov't. Is it torture? To some I suppose it is, however according to the law it is not. If it were against the law - do you think we'd do it to our own soldiers during their training?

Wrong, I do care if we lock people up without trial - if they are a citizen and have not taken fought against us as a terrorist combatant in non-Geneva protected warfare.(does that cover the padilla case? ) With him you *might* have a case for Constitutional protections but the others you don't come close. Even with him, there is a grey area concerning whether or not he gave up his protected rights. But he is not at issue here anyway.

Again, he was asked to opine on how things might be interpreted by judges. Also in the case of non-standard warfare the Conventions are not extended to those combatants - it's how the law is. You can whine that the law was used -but it wasn't some new thing.

I'm sure there are many qualified people Bush could appoint to the AG spot - just like there were many more qualified than burn em up Reno.

That may be so. However the difference is that laws are to bring civility and order to the world. Murder is an unacceptable killing, but killing in war is acceptable. Does it matter to those who are killed? nope - they are dead. Where it matters is to those that did the killing.
Would you favor the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered your wife - Mr.Dukakis? What if you saw it in progress Mr.Dukakis? Would you not kill the person committing those acts?

Yeah, damn Republicans - they followed the law and all we can do is bitch and moan about it.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: BBond

Maybe they can "revisit" the Geneva Conventions the same way they revisited the U.S. Constitution with the Patriot Act.

You really get worked up over this stuff don't you?

He gets so worked up he cuts and pastes articles

I wonder if he has any more nj.com for us?

CsG

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Yeah, damn Republicans - they followed the law and all we can do is bitch and moan about it.

CsG

And the grip on reality lessens day by day..........

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: BBond

Maybe they can "revisit" the Geneva Conventions the same way they revisited the U.S. Constitution with the Patriot Act.

You really get worked up over this stuff don't you?

He gets so worked up he cuts and pastes articles

I wonder if he has any more nj.com for us?

CsG

I wonder if you'll ever read and understand one of them.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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."

Yeah, I thought that part was pretty entertaining too. As if it had anything to do with him. Anyway - anyone still think today's stunt by the Democrats wasn't about Bush?

CsG

 

[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: 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.

When asked a legal opinion - personal "feelings" aren't law. You can rail against our gov'ts laws if you wish but they were in place before Bush took office and Gonzales gave his opinion. Waterboarding has been used for many many years by our gov't. Is it torture? To some I suppose it is, however according to the law it is not. If it were against the law - do you think we'd do it to our own soldiers during their training?

Wrong, I do care if we lock people up without trial - if they are a citizen and have not taken fought against us as a terrorist combatant in non-Geneva protected warfare.(does that cover the padilla case? ) With him you *might* have a case for Constitutional protections but the others you don't come close. Even with him, there is a grey area concerning whether or not he gave up his protected rights. But he is not at issue here anyway.

Again, he was asked to opine on how things might be interpreted by judges. Also in the case of non-standard warfare the Conventions are not extended to those combatants - it's how the law is. You can whine that the law was used -but it wasn't some new thing.

I'm sure there are many qualified people Bush could appoint to the AG spot - just like there were many more qualified than burn em up Reno.

That may be so. However the difference is that laws are to bring civility and order to the world. Murder is an unacceptable killing, but killing in war is acceptable. Does it matter to those who are killed? nope - they are dead. Where it matters is to those that did the killing.
Would you favor the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered your wife - Mr.Dukakis? What if you saw it in progress Mr.Dukakis? Would you not kill the person committing those acts?

Yeah, damn Republicans - they followed the law and all we can do is bitch and moan about it.

CsG

Right and wrong no longer matter to you. What can be justified is fine.

So be it. I am done here.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Right and wrong no longer matter to you. What can be justified is fine.

So be it. I am done here.

On the contrary - right and wrong do matter to me. They always have. In this case the right thing to do was for Gonzales to opine that we stay within the law. He did just that.

CsG

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Yeah, damn Republicans - they followed the law and all we can do is bitch and moan about it.

CsG

And the grip on reality lessens day by day..........

The grip on reality was lost long ago. The grip on fantasy is endangered now.

 

[Ozoned]

At the end of the day the immoral"Rebubs" and Gonzales will have my back and the Dems won't.



I can live with that. Literally....

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The giveaways in this whole thing was voiced rather loudly by CsG, even though he really hadn't intended to do so. First, he accuses others of not having any "facts" by merely voicing his opinion, ignoring links to factual information, even memos actually written by Gonzales. Then there's this, the crowning glory-

"The day we afford Constitutional protections to terrorists is the day the terrorists win. "

Quite to the contrary, CsG. The day that more people feel the same way you do about people merely accused of being terrorists is the day that the terrorists will have won, because that'll be the day we're no better than they are.

What you've just advocated is that we renounce our faith in democracy, freedom, and the strength of constitutional law, put our faith in using the tools of tyranny. And you have the nerve to represent yourself as some kind of patriot. Shameful.

Shameful indeed. Very well said.

We are abandoning the very principles that made America such a great country.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The giveaways in this whole thing was voiced rather loudly by CsG, even though he really hadn't intended to do so. First, he accuses others of not having any "facts" by merely voicing his opinion, ignoring links to factual information, even memos actually written by Gonzales. Then there's this, the crowning glory-

"The day we afford Constitutional protections to terrorists is the day the terrorists win. "

Quite to the contrary, CsG. The day that more people feel the same way you do about people merely accused of being terrorists is the day that the terrorists will have won, because that'll be the day we're no better than they are.

What you've just advocated is that we renounce our faith in democracy, freedom, and the strength of constitutional law, put our faith in using the tools of tyranny. And you have the nerve to represent yourself as some kind of patriot. Shameful.

Shameful indeed. Very well said.

We are abandoning the very principles that made America such a great country.

No, actually it was just the usual bluster and obfuscation by our Friend Jhhnn. We aren't abandoning the principles that made us great. Our Constitutional protections are for us. This doesn't mean we don't afford any "protections" to enemy combatants or POWs however. You people seem to think that not giving them our citizen's protections means we have free reign - and that just isn't the case.
I've read the articles posted and I've read the memos and opinions by Gonzales - maybe you guys should do the same and then take your Bush-hating glasses off for a moment and actually think. But alas, I am too optimistic. I know better than to think you'd actually side with America(and the law) vs the terrorists and those wishing to kill us and our way of life... Sadly I'll continue to be optimistic inspite of the history shown by some because I believe at some point people will chose us over the terrorists.

CsG

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The giveaways in this whole thing was voiced rather loudly by CsG, even though he really hadn't intended to do so. First, he accuses others of not having any "facts" by merely voicing his opinion, ignoring links to factual information, even memos actually written by Gonzales. Then there's this, the crowning glory-

"The day we afford Constitutional protections to terrorists is the day the terrorists win. "

Quite to the contrary, CsG. The day that more people feel the same way you do about people merely accused of being terrorists is the day that the terrorists will have won, because that'll be the day we're no better than they are.

What you've just advocated is that we renounce our faith in democracy, freedom, and the strength of constitutional law, put our faith in using the tools of tyranny. And you have the nerve to represent yourself as some kind of patriot. Shameful.

Shameful indeed. Very well said.

We are abandoning the very principles that made America such a great country.

No, actually it was just the usual bluster and obfuscation by our Friend Jhhnn. We aren't abandoning the principles that made us great. Our Constitutional protections are for us. This doesn't mean we don't afford any "protections" to enemy combatants or POWs however. You people seem to think that not giving them our citizen's protections means we have free reign - and that just isn't the case.
I've read the articles posted and I've read the memos and opinions by Gonzales - maybe you guys should do the same and then take your Bush-hating glasses off for a moment and actually think. But alas, I am too optimistic. I know better than to think you'd actually side with America(and the law) vs the terrorists and those wishing to kill us and our way of life... Sadly I'll continue to be optimistic inspite of the history shown by some because I believe at some point people will chose us over the terrorists.

CsG

Until we follow your advice and become the terrorist.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Until we follow your advice and become the terrorist.

My advice? You mean follow the law?

CsG

 

[BBond]

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Worse Than Fiction

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: January 7, 2005

I've been thinking of writing a political novel. It will be a bad novel because there won't be any nuance: the villains won't just espouse an ideology I disagree with - they'll be hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels.

In my bad novel, a famous moralist who demanded national outrage over an affair and writes best-selling books about virtue will turn out to be hiding an expensive gambling habit. A talk radio host who advocates harsh penalties for drug violators will turn out to be hiding his own drug addiction.

In my bad novel, crusaders for moral values will be driven by strange obsessions. One senator's diatribe against gay marriage will link it to "man on dog" sex. Another will rant about the dangers of lesbians in high school bathrooms.

In my bad novel, the president will choose as head of homeland security a "good man" who turns out to have been the subject of an arrest warrant, who turned an apartment set aside for rescue workers into his personal love nest and who stalked at least one of his ex-lovers.

In my bad novel, a TV personality who claims to stand up for regular Americans against the elite will pay a large settlement in a sexual harassment case, in which he used his position of power to - on second thought, that story is too embarrassing even for a bad novel.

In my bad novel, apologists for the administration will charge foreign policy critics with anti-Semitism. But they will be silent when a prominent conservative declares that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."

In my bad novel the administration will use the slogan "support the troops" to suppress criticism of its war policy. But it will ignore repeated complaints that the troops lack armor.

The secretary of defense - another "good man," according to the president - won't even bother signing letters to the families of soldiers killed in action.

Last but not least, in my bad novel the president, who portrays himself as the defender of good against evil, will preside over the widespread use of torture.

How did we find ourselves living in a bad novel? It was not ever thus. Hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels have always been with us, on both sides of the aisle. But 9/11 created an environment some liberals summarize with the acronym Iokiyar: it's O.K. if you're a Republican.

The public became unwilling to believe bad things about those who claim to be defending the nation against terrorism. And the hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels of the right, empowered by the public's credulity, have come out in unprecedented force.

Apologists for the administration would like us to forget all about the Kerik affair, but Bernard Kerik perfectly symbolizes the times we live in. Like Rudolph Giuliani and, yes, President Bush, he wasn't a hero of 9/11, but he played one on TV. And like Mr. Giuliani, he was quick to cash in, literally, on his undeserved reputation.

Once the New York newspapers began digging, it became clear that Mr. Kerik is, professionally and personally, a real piece of work. But that's not unusual these days among people who successfully pass themselves off as patriots and defenders of moral values. Mr. Kerik must still be wondering why he, unlike so many others, didn't get away with it.

And Alberto Gonzales must be hoping that senators don't bring up the subject.

The principal objection to making Mr. Gonzales attorney general is that doing so will tell the world that America thinks it's acceptable to torture people. But his confirmation will also be a statement about ethics.

As White House counsel, Mr. Gonzales was charged with vetting Mr. Kerik. He must have realized what kind of man he was dealing with - yet he declared Mr. Kerik fit to oversee homeland security.

Did Mr. Gonzales defer to the wishes of a president who wanted Mr. Kerik anyway, or did he decide that his boss wouldn't want to know? (The Nelson Report, a respected newsletter, reports that Mr. Bush has made it clear to his subordinates that he doesn't want to hear bad news about Iraq.)

Either way, when the Senate confirms Mr. Gonzales, it will mean that Iokiyar remains in effect, that the basic rules of ethics don't apply to people aligned with the ruling party. And reality will continue to be worse than any fiction I could write.

 

[sandorski]

Birds of a feather...

 

[imported_Aelius]

This the same sort of pledge that the current director of the CIA made. His version of the pledge was about being completely unpartisan and that he would never bring the Administration's policies into the agency.

It worked. He got confirmed for the job.

What does he do within a week or two? Reshuffles the CIA to get rid of people whom voiced opinions that did not coincide with the current administration. It was so blatant since it happend directly after a memo was sent around from the Whitehouse asking this to be done to various agencies.

Biggest freaking bunch of hypocrites.

What can I say? Congrats?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Right and wrong no longer matter to you. What can be justified is fine.

So be it. I am done here.

On the contrary - right and wrong do matter to me. They always have. In this case the right thing to do was for Gonzales to opine that we stay within the law. He did just that.

CsG

Of course he would. In your view of the world the right thing for him to do is say yes, he is just another one of Bush's yes men.

 

[PatboyX]

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

yeah...mud-ball politics is asking legitimate questions about this mans recent and controversial torture-imbued past.
they could have gone into his time working for bush and refusing to fully write reports for men condemned to death but that would have just been down-right low!
when attempting to approve people of high office in the united states government, its best to lob slow-pitched nerf balls at them rather than attempt to actually, you know, probe.