"Gonzales Will Follow Non-Torture Policies."

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
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

That has always been the problem with Dubya and his apologists. They do not define right and wrong the way moral people do. It is right if it benefits them. It is wrong if it inconveniences them. The Geneva Conventions were inconvenient. Presumption of innocence is inconvenient. Thus they are wrong. Gonzales tells Dub what he wants to hear. Thus he is right. When normal people do this they are called scum. When Republicans do it they are called great Americans.


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Promoting Torture's Promoter

By BOB HERBERT

Published: January 7, 2005

If the United States were to look into a mirror right now, it wouldn't recognize itself.

The administration that thumbed its nose at the Geneva Conventions seems equally dismissive of such grand American values as honor, justice, integrity, due process and the truth. So there was Alberto Gonzales, counselor to the president and enabler in chief of the pro-torture lobby, interviewing on Capitol Hill yesterday for the post of attorney general, which just happens to be the highest law enforcement office in the land.

Mr. Gonzales shouldn't be allowed anywhere near that office. His judgments regarding the detention and treatment of prisoners rounded up in Iraq and the so-called war on terror have been both unsound and shameful. Some of the practices that evolved from his judgments were appalling, gruesome, medieval.

But this is the Bush administration, where incompetence and outright failure are rewarded with the nation's highest honors. (Remember the Presidential Medal of Freedom awarded last month to George Tenet et al.?) So not only is Mr. Gonzales's name being stenciled onto the attorney general's door, but a plush judicial seat is being readied for his anticipated elevation to the Supreme Court.

It's a measure of the irrelevance of the Democratic Party that a man who played such a significant role in the policies that led to the still-unfolding prisoner abuse and torture scandals is expected to win easy Senate confirmation and become attorney general. The Democrats have become the 98-pound weaklings of the 21st century.

The Bush administration and Mr. Gonzales are trying to sell the fiction that they've seen the light. In answer to a setup question at his Judiciary Committee hearing, Mr. Gonzales said he is against torture. And the Justice Department issued a legal opinion last week that said "torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and international norms."

What took so long? Why were we ever - under any circumstances - torturing, maiming, sexually abusing and even killing prisoners? And where is the evidence that we've stopped?

The Bush administration hasn't changed. This is an administration that believes it can do and say whatever it wants, and that attitude is changing the very nature of the United States. It is eroding the checks and balances so crucial to American-style democracy. It led the U.S., against the advice of most of the world, to launch the dreadful war in Iraq. It led Mr. Gonzales to ignore the expressed concerns of the State Department and top military brass as he blithely opened the gates for the prisoner abuse vehicles to roll through.

There are few things more dangerous than a mixture of power, arrogance and incompetence. In the Bush administration, that mixture has been explosive. Forget the meant-to-be-comforting rhetoric surrounding Mr. Gonzales's confirmation hearings. Nothing's changed. As detailed in The Washington Post earlier this month, the administration is making secret plans for the possible lifetime detention of suspected terrorists who will never even be charged.

Due process? That's a laugh. Included among the detainees, the paper noted, are hundreds of people in military or C.I.A. custody "whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts." And there will be plenty more detainees to come.

Who knows who these folks are or what they may be guilty of? We'll have to trust in the likes of Alberto Gonzales or Donald Rumsfeld or President Bush's new appointee to head the C.I.A., Porter Goss, to see that the right thing is done in each and every case.

Americans have tended to view the U.S. as the guardian of the highest ideals of justice and fairness. But that is a belief that's getting more and more difficult to sustain. If the Justice Department can be the fiefdom of John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales, those in search of the highest standards of justice have no choice but to look elsewhere.

It's more fruitful now to look overseas. Last month Britain's highest court ruled that the government could not continue to indefinitely detain foreigners suspected of terrorism without charging or trying them. One of the justices wrote that such detentions "call into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention."

That's a sentiment completely lost on an Alberto Gonzales or George W. Bush.

 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Stunning. First redefine the law, so that now you can stay within it, and your supporters can crow about the second part, while ignoring the first...

The OP also reveals just how dishonest the Admin can be wrt any subject-

"Gonzales will follow non-torture policies." Or at least that's what he says.

Sounds peachy. What if he's asked to implement policy that includes torture? Well, he didn't say he wouldn't do that, now did he? After all, he doesn't dictate policy, he merely follows it...

Following CsG's line of nonsensical reasoning, if the Bush Admin says they're terrarists, then they are, right? We don't need no stinking trial, no stinking evidence, no nothin'... If the Liberal legal system tells us that the whole dishonest gitmo scenario isn't legal, then we'll just send 'em elsewhere, pay for the privilege... that's "legal", right?

 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,342
47,576
136
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.



You nailed it. :beer: :thumbsup: That is easily one of the most articulate and thought-out posts I've seen in quite a while, good on ya.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
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.

How did your country fall so far in 4 years? I just don't understand how the American people have let this happen. America used to be the example that other countries looked to.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm
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.

How did your country fall so far in 4 years? I just don't understand how the American people have let this happen. America used to be the example that other countries looked to.
This is nothing compared to the Nixon Administration.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: aidanjm
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.

How did your country fall so far in 4 years? I just don't understand how the American people have let this happen. America used to be the example that other countries looked to.
This is nothing compared to the Nixon Administration.

But weren't their shennigans all under the covers, so to speak? With Bush the lies, immorality, are all there, out in the open.

 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
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.

:thumbsup:
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm
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.

How did your country fall so far in 40 years? I just don't understand how the American people have let this happen. America used to be the example that other countries looked to.

Fixed your error.


And you are incorrect, America is the example that other countries look to.


The sexual revolution, legalizing abortion, the acceptance of religious intolerance, the pursuit of pure secularism, and the biggie, Social Liberalism in its current form. This is what individuals in other countries want.
No accountability, and no personal responsibility.

It is the recipe for failure, as you have pointed out.

We do have problems in this country, But if You want to do something about it, you have to be bright enough to figure out what they are, and at that, you fail, miserably
....





 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Remember, Bush is all about "honor and integrity in the White House"



BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Until we follow your advice and become the terrorist.

My advice? You mean follow the law?

CsG
The law is the Geneva Conventions. Gonzalez worked to find ways around it and he failed. That's why many courts martial are underway and Gonzalez is being scrutinized.

Or, have you forgotten that 70-90% of the people who were in Abu Ghraib were completely innocent?
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Remember, Bush is all about "honor and integrity in the White House"



BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!


In so much as you hate Bush, and he still has your back, guess there is no honor and integrity in him.....
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: conjur
Remember, Bush is all about "honor and integrity in the White House"



BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!
In so much as you hate Bush, and he still has your back, guess there is no honor and integrity in him.....
Say what? Bush has my back? How so?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Until we follow your advice and become the terrorist.

My advice? You mean follow the law?

CsG
The law is the Geneva Conventions. Gonzalez worked to find ways around it and he failed. That's why many courts martial are underway and Gonzalez is being scrutinized.

Or, have you forgotten that 70-90% of the people who were in Abu Ghraib were completely innocent?

Yet again conjur tries to toss out the 70-90% figure without having a clue. Yes, the people that went through and released where innocent. Just because they were doesn't mean much. Many thousands of people were interrogated, that doesn't mean they were tortured or anything of the like. Oh, and don't forget that we are taking action against those who committed such acts.

Gonzales did not find ways around it.:p He opined that we should stay within the law and opined on how laws might be interpreted by Judges. Oh, and one more thing - exactly what does Abu have to do with Gonzales? That's right- nothing:p In Iraq, the prisoners were POWs and afforded the protection of the Geneva Conventions. Now if you were paying attention - the Gonzales memos weren't about those types of situations(nor Iraq) - they were about fighting unconventional armies - ones that aren't afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Atleast inform yourself just a tad bit before making yourself look the fool.

CsG
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Say what? Bush has my back? How so?

You are alive, aren't you? I mean if everything you and your little leftist peers said about Bush was true, wouldn't you, as the problem, simply have been eliminated?

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: conjur
Say what? Bush has my back? How so?

You are alive, aren't you? I mean if everything you and your little leftist peers said about Bush was true, wouldn't you, as the problem, simply have been eliminated?
Leftist peers? WTF are you talking about?

And, how is my personal safety afforded by the war in Iraq? Care to answer that?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Until we follow your advice and become the terrorist.

My advice? You mean follow the law?

CsG
The law is the Geneva Conventions. Gonzalez worked to find ways around it and he failed. That's why many courts martial are underway and Gonzalez is being scrutinized.

Or, have you forgotten that 70-90% of the people who were in Abu Ghraib were completely innocent?

Yet again conjur tries to toss out the 70-90% figure without having a clue. Yes, the people that went through and released where innocent. Just because they were doesn't mean much. Many thousands of people were interrogated, that doesn't mean they were tortured or anything of the like. Oh, and don't forget that we are taking action against those who committed such acts.

Gonzales did not find ways around it.:p He opined that we should stay within the law and opined on how laws might be interpreted by Judges. Oh, and one more thing - exactly what does Abu have to do with Gonzales? That's right- nothing:p In Iraq, the prisoners were POWs and afforded the protection of the Geneva Conventions. Now if you were paying attention - the Gonzales memos weren't about those types of situations(nor Iraq) - they were about fighting unconventional armies - ones that aren't afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Atleast inform yourself just a tad bit before making yourself look the fool.

CsG
Ah, CsG up to his old diversionary and ambiguous tricks. Doesn't fly anymore, CsG. We all know your tricks.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: conjur
Ah, CsG up to his old diversionary and ambiguous tricks. Doesn't fly anymore, CsG. We all know your tricks.

Or rather conjur and the bush-haters once again ignoring the facts of the situations. But hey, like I've said - keep it up. I'll be sitting her laughing when it blows up in your face. :)

CsG
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Ah, CsG up to his old diversionary and ambiguous tricks. Doesn't fly anymore, CsG. We all know your tricks.
Or rather conjur and the bush-haters once again ignoring the facts of the situations. But hey, like I've said - keep it up. I'll be sitting her laughing when it blows up in your face. :)

CsG
Nothing will blow up in my face. I'm not the one who tried to orchestrate a defense against violating the Geneva Conventions. That's where Gonzalez and the White House Counsel come into play.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: conjur
Say what? Bush has my back? How so?

You are alive, aren't you? I mean if everything you and your little leftist peers said about Bush was true, wouldn't you, as the problem, simply have been eliminated?
Leftist peers? WTF are you talking about?

And, how is my personal safety afforded by the war in Iraq? Care to answer that?

No, not really. It has been pounded into your head for what seems like an eternity and yet you still don't get it, so whats the point?

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Ah, CsG up to his old diversionary and ambiguous tricks. Doesn't fly anymore, CsG. We all know your tricks.
Or rather conjur and the bush-haters once again ignoring the facts of the situations. But hey, like I've said - keep it up. I'll be sitting her laughing when it blows up in your face. :)

CsG
Nothing will blow up in my face. I'm not the one who tried to orchestrate a defense against violating the Geneva Conventions. That's where Gonzalez and the White House Counsel come into play.

Wrong, you tried to claim Abu had to do with Gonales - it didn't. Those prisoners were POWs and afforded Geneva Conventions protections. We are dealing with those that broke the law and "tortured" prisoners.
Gonzales nor the WhiteHouse violated any Geneva Conventions. Gonzales opined as to how the law might be interpreted by Judges so we could be absolutely sure our policies followed the existing law -and they do. This whole stunt by the Democrats and the Bush-haters would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. You might try reading up on things(without your Bush-hate glasses on) before you continue to spout your ignorance.

CsG
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
No, those prisoners were NOT afforded the Geneva Conventions. And, how do you know everyone who was tortured or abused were actual POWs and not innocents?

If the Geneva Conventions were followed in Abu Ghraib, then why were there murders, beatings, rapes, molestations, sodomies, etc?
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
why were there murders, beatings, rapes, molestations, sodomies, etc?



That's simple.
The model society, the one that the people that committed these crimes grew up in, you know,

the Liberal social engineering that has taken place in the last 40 years.

Hate to break it to you.

As your post so eloquently demonstrates,,,


It is a failure....
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: conjur
why were there murders, beatings, rapes, molestations, sodomies, etc?



That's simple.
The model society, the one that the people that committed these crimes grew up in, you know,

the Liberal social engineering that has taken place in the last 40 years.

Hate to break it to you.

As your post so eloquently demonstrates,,,


It is a failure....
Ah, so, you're aware of the childhoods of every person involved in committing abuses and torture? Care to share your research with the rest of us?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: conjur
No, those prisoners were NOT afforded the Geneva Conventions. And, how do you know everyone who was tortured or abused were actual POWs and not innocents?

If the Geneva Conventions were followed in Abu Ghraib, then why were there murders, beatings, rapes, molestations, sodomies, etc?

Exactly, how do YOU know. You toss out that 70-90% figure alot but fail to mention that they were actually let go after interrogation. You act as if everyone is being tortured as some sort of policy.:p What a joke. You can't separate Abu from the other situations where a prisoner's status is defined as something other than POW.

:roll: They were followed - except for a few who broke the law and are now having their day in court. Sheesh - is it that hard for you to understand?

CsG