NationStates Jolt Archive

*clearly John Ashcroft should be charged with contempt of Congress for this behaviour--he swore before he was wrongly confirmed as AG that he wouldnt desecrate our Constitution but thats all he has done since he was sworn in

Attorney General John Ashcroft is refusing to release or discuss memos detailing U.S. torture policy as lawmakers accused him of trying to hide how the Bush administration has justified the abuse of prisoners.
The administration has come under fire from human rights groups and military lawyers in recent days for concluding two years ago that it could ignore international and domestic laws and allow US soldiers to torture detainees.

A series of leaked memos published in the press this week outline how lawyers for the administration determined U.S. soldiers could torture detainees during interrogations by claiming it was in the interest of national security. The memos indicate that lawyers from the Defense and Justice departments as well as the White House and Vice President's office backed the policy changes.

During three hours of testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to provide copies of the memos in a session marked by several sharp exchanges. During the hearing Ashcroft came under questioning from Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.


(Tape)
KENNEDY: In the front page of the Times, it has this quote, "A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2000 legal memorandum, President Bush was not bound either by international treaty prohibiting torture or by federal anti-torture law because he has the authority as commander in chief to approve any techniques needed to protect the nation's security." Do you agree with that conclusion?
ASHCROFT: Senator Kennedy, I'm not going to try and issue hypothetical...

KENNEDY: I'm not asking hypothetical. This is a memoranda that, again, was referred to today in the Post. "August 2002, Justice Department advised the White House that torturing Al Qaida terrorists in captivity abroad may be justified and that international laws against torture may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations." Do you agree with that?

ASHCROFT: I am not -- first of all, this administration rejects torture.

KENNEDY: I'm asking you whether this is -- these are -- there are three memoranda, January 9, 2002, signed by John Yo (ph), the August 2002 Justice Department, the (inaudible) amendment memo and the March 2000 -- the interagency working group. Those are three memoranda. Will you provide those to the committee?

ASHCROFT: No, I will not.


In July 2002, just one month before the August memo referred to by Kennedy, the U.S. had opposed a United Nations draft international treaty against torture that had taken a decade to negotiate and would have set up an international system of inspections for all sites where prisoners were held, to insure that torture was not taking place. Kennedy yesterday continued to press Ashcroft to release the memo when Delaware Senator yielded the floor to him:

(Tape)
KENNEDY: Just, General, has the president authorized you to invoke the executive privilege today on these documents?
ASHCROFT: I am not going to reveal discussions, whether I've had them or not had them, with the president. He asked me to deal with him as a matter of confidence. I have not invoked executive privilege today. I have explained to you why I'm not turning over the documents.

KENNEDY: Well, what are you invoking?

ASHCROFT: I have not invoked anything. I have just explained to you why I'm not turning over the documents.

BIDEN: Thank you very much. Well, General, that means you may be in contempt of Congress then. You got to have a reason not to answer our questions, as you know from you sitting up here. There may be a rationale for executive privilege that misses the point, but, you know, you have to have a reason. You are not allowed, under our Constitution, not to answer our questions, and that ain't constitutional.

www.democracynow.org

Someone seems to have forgotten 9-11....All you want to do is complain. All you care about is what you are told by the media. Could these things have happened? Yes. Do I think it is ok? No. But give the government room to breathe. Obviously someone does not know that the U.S. is not a rouge nation. While torturing is wrong, someone seems to have forgotten about the terrorists...Hear of our POW's? Probley Don't care. Nothing is noticed by the liberals, until it is a slip up in the Bush Admin. Apparently No1 cares what our POW's have gone through. It is all about the rights of the terrorists. I'm sure I will be ranted at but thats alright

Someone seems to have forgotten 9-11....All you want to do is complain. All you care about is what you are told by the media. Could these things have happened? Yes. Do I think it is ok? No. But give the government room to breathe. Obviously someone does not know that the U.S. is not a rouge nation. While torturing is wrong, someone seems to have forgotten about the terrorists...Hear of our POW's? Probley Don't care. Nothing is noticed by the liberals, until it is a slip up in the Bush Admin. Apparently No1 cares what our POW's have gone through. It is all about the rights of the terrorists. I'm sure I will be ranted at but thats alright

Where exactly are we supposed to get our information from if not from the media? As I lost friends in 9/11, I most certainly have not forgotten it, and I'm all for giving the government room to breathe. I am not willing to allow our President to single handedly decide it's "okay" to break Geneva Conventions or ignore Constitutional laws he doesn't like just because he's President.

No one has forgotten about the terrorists. The government won't LET us forget about the terrorists. Every other day there's some story or threat increase or some leaked newsbit about the terrorists. The point is, I don't want our government becoming terrorists by action like thugs and using the lives of 3,000 innocent civilians as justification.

I have not forgotten about the POWs, but this administration certainly has. In fact, it's forgotten about the vets and the armed forces entirely, except when it want's them to fly and die half-way around the world. They've put POWs in a much more dangerous position because now, if they are being held, they know that the US government doesn't respect basic human rights and POW status so why should they?

This liberal notices plenty. Apparently, though, the conservatives don't notice that Bush it attempting to make himself not only king of the US but king of the world as well.

thiers and old quote here

"do not become you enamys to beat them"

yes POW in other contries are sometimes under torture, indeed from a viewpoint of UK law the punishments some countries use would be considred illegall


but thats not the point, if you wish to beat your enamy in a war of prooganda with the 'war on terroriusm' largley is, then you must act as you want other to behave not as they do.

So wherter the US tortures people is deeply important, national security is not an exucees its barley a reason. If you want to presevre a nation where troture is not allowed (well i at least assume US law say that), then you must not use it even against those who would emplyoee it as a weapon against you.

If you consider this to be a war, then it is a long term one, and it most be won by deniying those who would carry it on support, not by adding it to them. Sadly several US (and allied) actions in recent decades and month have not helped. Look at isreal as long as this isralise keep killing palestianes then thier will be palastiniaes willing to act as suicide bombres, which in turn kill and enrages the isrealis and so on.

If i find out that torture has been carried out by UK troops and will lose all trust in our current goverment. I currenly mearly dislike some of thier polcies, but if it turns out some of them autheroised or where involved in this I will happly act and encorage others the throw them out on the ears. I imagine this applies to the US as well.












(and if anyone knows who i'm quoteing or what the real one is plase tell me!)

First of all the neither the president or of government has decieded it is OK it torture...These things have been carried out by a few idiot Military personnel. The government never condoned these actions. The president has not broken the Geneva Convention...maybe you have him confused with Saddam, or other dictators? Wait...nvm...they were good people right? I mean this war in Iraq was completley unnessecary wasnt it? Would would want a dictator gone that at one time had wmd, and committed genocide...hmm....not sure. Back to the torture...these were committed by single persons and never condoned by the government. You will see Court Marshals. Stop complaining. Where would we be after 9-11 with Gore or Clinton?

First of all the neither the president or of government has decieded it is OK it torture...These things have been carried out by a few idiot Military personnel. The government never condoned these actions. The president has not broken the Geneva Convention...maybe you have him confused with Saddam, or other dictators? Wait...nvm...they were good people right? I mean this war in Iraq was completley unnessecary wasnt it? Would would want a dictator gone that at one time had wmd, and committed genocide...hmm....not sure. Back to the torture...these were committed by single persons and never condoned by the government. You will see Court Marshals. Stop complaining. Where would we be after 9-11 with Gore or Clinton?

hum well if was only done by a few lower down people that could be good or bad

1) good, if its a few extremists no harm done

2) bad if it is people who behaved like that both beacuse they thought that was the correct argument, and possibly more worrignly that they felt that these actions would be apporved by their superiors

but on the point of the superiors not knowing, the ecidence the first poster suggested that at least some people in the goverment had been discussing it if they failed to act that too is a crime, that is the evidence you need to provide (or discredit). As for the court marshales remember the excuse i was obeying orders if probable is accepted.

As for your war on iraq reasons, i on the whole opposed the war as likley to lead to more people being killed, but the one reason i had consierable sypathy with was that reason, the sadam huasain was undoutedly a very unpleasent person and his country would be better off without him. My judgement at the time was the leaving him to fade from power naturally would probably be better. I hope that the situtation in iraq stabalises and i''m proved wrong but i wait and see.

As for the other presidents i don't realy know either well enough, but neither ever struck me as quite such black and white moral crusade types, this at the very least should have enabled them to work with the rest of the world better.

As to what would happen?, hum is suspect afganistan would still have been invaded, an action i tend to aprove of as its farily easy to aruge the country hasn't got any WORSE since (better is depatable, but probably).

As to iraq i'm not sure, maybe, but probably far more dipomatically, I often wonder if that was gorge bushes worse contribution. He manged to take the great international sympathy america rightly recived for 11/9 and failed to turn it into any benificall result and indeed irarratated many countries.

The president has not broken the Geneva Convention

Ahem, actually the US, under the President, has violated the Geneva Convention, multiple times. First, the Abu Ghraib prison, which is still very much up in the air on whether those soldiers were acting under orders or not. Secondly, the detainees in Guantemo Bay have suffered by Bush's failure to adhere to international treaties. The Internation Red Cross and Amnesty International have long been crying out about the various human rights violations occurring in said facility. So to say "The president has not broken the Geneva convention" is extremely questionable, at best.

The bigger threat though posed by this is the argument that the executive branch is trying to usurp rights given to other branches of government. If the executive can ignore the laws set forth by the legislature, then the executive is very much closer to becoming the dictator that the American people fear.

they were good people right?

Uh huh, the stance that conservatives are trying to eliminate "bad people" might fly a little better if they weren't in bed with other truly bad people, like the Saudi Royal House.

Where would we be after 9-11 with Gore or Clinton

Well, I could say that it's quite possible that Al Qaeda might be on the run, instead of building its numbers, or that the International Community still stood shoulder to shoulder with us. However, ultimately this is all hypothetical and irrelevant. What we do know is that this president has greatly squandered many opportunities to make America safer.

I think that we should let torture Rummy and Bush and rape heir wives by Iraqi victims and ask them afterworths: "How did it feel?" An eye for an eye say the jews...

Secondly, the detainees in Guantemo Bay have suffered by Bush's failure to adhere to international treaties.
Techically, due to the legal status of Guantanamo as well as the status of the combatants captured in Afghanistan, I don't think this actually breaks the treaties.

Where would we be after 9-11 with Gore or Clinton

Well, I could say that it's quite possible that Al Qaeda might be on the run, instead of building its numbers, or that the International Community still stood shoulder to shoulder with us. However, ultimately this is all hypothetical and irrelevant. What we do know is that this president has greatly squandered many opportunities to make America safer.[/quote]



I agree with this poster in the sense this is the world we now have to deal with. The 'war on terrorisum' despite wishfull thinking on some people part would never be a short act. Thier are hunderds of example to take one close to home look at ireland, and highly civlaised nation with good police and other forces cannot stop all the IRA and others attacks.

sadly here the issuse is not as much what the reasons behind the torture was (thier are cases where you could clam justifable need) but that the rest of the world opinion of what happend. As for gunatmano bay and others they are certainly in volation of the geneva convention if they where not aministiy internaltional would not be acting (think how much help to them could a freindly american goverment be?)

on international action hell the president even manages to iratate us the UK with his actions, thier even example concted with guantamamo.

Secondly, the detainees in Guantemo Bay have suffered by Bush's failure to adhere to international treaties.
Techically, due to the legal status of Guantanamo as well as the status of the combatants captured in Afghanistan, I don't think this actually breaks the treaties.

What YOU think is not important, the point is that again, the US republican government IS VIOLATING the Geneva convention, signed by the US gov.Just stay at the facts, no emotions or politics :!:

Secondly, the detainees in Guantemo Bay have suffered by Bush's failure to adhere to international treaties.
Techically, due to the legal status of Guantanamo as well as the status of the combatants captured in Afghanistan, I don't think this actually breaks the treaties.

What YOU think is not important, the point is that again, the US republican government IS VIOLATING the Geneva convention, signed by the US gov.Just stay at the facts, no emotions or politics :!:
Its not what I think, its what the text of the Geneva Convention states. Gitmo is in legal nowhere land.

Secondly, the detainees in Guantemo Bay have suffered by Bush's failure to adhere to international treaties.
Techically, due to the legal status of Guantanamo as well as the status of the combatants captured in Afghanistan, I don't think this actually breaks the treaties.

What YOU think is not important, the point is that again, the US republican government IS VIOLATING the Geneva convention, signed by the US gov.Just stay at the facts, no emotions or politics :!:
Its not what I think, its what the text of the Geneva Convention states. Gitmo is in legal nowhere land.

letters of the law regardless

what can be undouted is it breack the spirt of the treaty

Secondly, the detainees in Guantemo Bay have suffered by Bush's failure to adhere to international treaties.
Techically, due to the legal status of Guantanamo as well as the status of the combatants captured in Afghanistan, I don't think this actually breaks the treaties.

What YOU think is not important, the point is that again, the US republican government IS VIOLATING the Geneva convention, signed by the US gov.Just stay at the facts, no emotions or politics :!:
Its not what I think, its what the text of the Geneva Convention states. Gitmo is in legal nowhere land.

letters of the law regardless

what can be undouted is it breack the spirt of the treaty
I'm not so sure of that.

Secondly, the detainees in Guantemo Bay have suffered by Bush's failure to adhere to international treaties.
Techically, due to the legal status of Guantanamo as well as the status of the combatants captured in Afghanistan, I don't think this actually breaks the treaties.

What YOU think is not important, the point is that again, the US republican government IS VIOLATING the Geneva convention, signed by the US gov.Just stay at the facts, no emotions or politics :!:
Its not what I think, its what the text of the Geneva Convention states. Gitmo is in legal nowhere land.


No, no, no, way to easy, Geneva convention (again, signed by the US and hereby a threathy breaker) says that a government should take care "for all its prisonars taken by its millitary" and "that it shouild give those POW's all rights given by the convention" and "that no (il)legal nowhere land (like you call it) can be created", because it violates the convention :idea:

Secondly, the detainees in Guantemo Bay have suffered by Bush's failure to adhere to international treaties.
Techically, due to the legal status of Guantanamo as well as the status of the combatants captured in Afghanistan, I don't think this actually breaks the treaties.

The location of Gitmo is irrelevent, as the Geniva conventions apply to entire nations, not just the land. US law is not applicable there, but international treaties are.

Secondly, the detainees in Guantemo Bay have suffered by Bush's failure to adhere to international treaties.
Techically, due to the legal status of Guantanamo as well as the status of the combatants captured in Afghanistan, I don't think this actually breaks the treaties.

What YOU think is not important, the point is that again, the US republican government IS VIOLATING the Geneva convention, signed by the US gov.Just stay at the facts, no emotions or politics :!:
Its not what I think, its what the text of the Geneva Convention states. Gitmo is in legal nowhere land.the geneva convention applies to all land--theres no such thing as nowhere land

Someone seems to have forgotten 9-11....All you want to do is complain. All you care about is what you are told by the media. Could these things have happened? Yes. Do I think it is ok? No. But give the government room to breathe. Obviously someone does not know that the U.S. is not a rouge nation. While torturing is wrong, someone seems to have forgotten about the terrorists...Hear of our POW's? Probley Don't care. Nothing is noticed by the liberals, until it is a slip up in the Bush Admin. Apparently No1 cares what our POW's have gone through. It is all about the rights of the terrorists. I'm sure I will be ranted at but thats alright

WAAAAAAAAAAAY to take things out of context Joe.

I care for human life in general. It's horrible when anyone uses torture as a method...it's horrible in the first place. But: people look on it as worse when the Bush Admin. promotes and condones it because they claim to be the Overlords of Freedom; promoters of peace and liberty. When was the last time Al Qaida made any such claim?

I think thats a hilarious argument you have too.

"Well, the terrorist do it.....why dont you complain about them?!"

Because we know they're terrorists. They are evil people and that is what they tend to do to get their way. It's not shocking, its predictable, when they do it; though it is horrible. The Government however, is supposed to be just and good, which it NON-STOP trumpets itself as. That's why people complain.

Secondly, the detainees in Guantemo Bay have suffered by Bush's failure to adhere to international treaties.
Techically, due to the legal status of Guantanamo as well as the status of the combatants captured in Afghanistan, I don't think this actually breaks the treaties.

What YOU think is not important, the point is that again, the US republican government IS VIOLATING the Geneva convention, signed by the US gov.Just stay at the facts, no emotions or politics :!:
Its not what I think, its what the text of the Geneva Convention states. Gitmo is in legal nowhere land.
No, no, no, way to easy, Geneva convention (again, signed by the US and hereby a threathy breaker) says that a government should take care "for all its prisonars taken by its millitary" and "that it shouild give those POW's all rights given by the convention" and "that no (il)legal nowhere land (like you call it) can be created", because it violates the convention :idea:
Thats another thing, the Taliban terrorists dressed in civilan clothing aren't classfied as POWs.

I just want to say that, while we can argue all day about torture of those in US military jurisdiction, we cannot bring our troops into this. Even if we burn Gitmo, with the detainees in it, on live TV, it'll have no affect on the treatment of US POWs. Why? Because ever since the Korean War, no one has bothered to follow the Geneva Conventions when they capture US troops. Any POW from Vietnam will tell you about Vietnamese torture. The nine or ten POWs from Iraq will tell that, whether they were held by Hussein or insurgents, they, too, were tortured. It really is a moot point to bring US troops into this, as aparently, our enemies don't even seem to think that there was ever a treaty written in Geneva.

Where would we be after 9-11 with Gore or Clinton

Well, I could say that it's quite possible that Al Qaeda might be on the run, instead of building its numbers, or that the International Community still stood shoulder to shoulder with us. However, ultimately this is all hypothetical and irrelevant. What we do know is that this president has greatly squandered many opportunities to make America safer.

AH HA HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you seriously think Gore would have the guts to actually take action against the Al Qaeda? Last I heard he was cheating on his wife and lying about tax cuts and social security. I'm glad we didn't impeach him, since being an adulterer isn't a justifiable reason for such action, but I would have rather elected someone with more backbone and more morals, preferably some better understanding of politics and history also.

Personally, I prefer Bush's action to what I remember of Clinton's... which was, lots of talk and few bombs. Did he even hit anything important?

While keeping in mind that Bush isn't perfect either, (he's allowed the public education system and social welfare to survive,) I wouldn't elect Gore, or Kerry now, if I had a say in it. The only reason, I believe, that there hasn't been another major terrorist attack in America is because President Bush has the courage to fight back. Knowing full well that there would be whiny wimps out there that just love to find faults in every thing conservative.

Eh, maybe I'm wrong about why the terrorists haven't attacked us again. Maybe it's because they've seen how major news networks have responded to President Bush's action and feel they're no longer needed. Anybody else have valid ideas?

And if anyone cares why I think public education and welfare should be done away with... Telegram me, I guess.

The history of the term "detainee" is very unusual. I've seen reports that indicate that classification seems to have been created by the Bush administation without approval from congress or the Supreme courts. If that were the case the argument for the Geneva convention would be valid as the current classification of the "detainees" is actually a fabrication made by an overzealous administration.

This is to say that if what I've heard is right, the US is literally re-writing the rules as it goes along to suit its needs; since the Legislative and Judiciary branches have had no part in the creation of the "detainee" classification, the Bush administration would be responsible for overstepping the bounds of their authority.

Now the "there's a war on" argument is well known, I hasten to point out that there are still three branches of government in the US; the Executive branch last I checked does not have the right to side-step the Judiciary even in wartime.

Of course, all this is based on the assumption that what I've heard about the "detainee" classification status is true.

If you think that what we did to the POW's was torture, you're an idiot. We made them do lewd sexual acts. we didnt pull out their toe nails. we made them look like idiots, we didnt cut them.

Where would we be if we had gore or clinton after 9-11? Not in iraq, killing the terrorists, Not in afghanistan taking out most of al queda, Giving Aid in Billions of dollars to afghanistan and iraq because "Those pore tortured people need an education!" And as soon as they get that money, Al queda will take it and buy more ak-47's, more c-4, more trucks, etc.

And bush didnt tell anyone to torture people, retards.

If you think that what we did to the POW's was torture, you're an idiot. We made them do lewd sexual acts. we didnt pull out their toe nails. we made them look like idiots, we didnt cut them.

Where would we be if we had gore or clinton after 9-11? Not in iraq, killing the terrorists, Not in afghanistan taking out most of al queda, Giving Aid in Billions of dollars to afghanistan and iraq because "Those pore tortured people need an education!" And as soon as they get that money, Al queda will take it and buy more ak-47's, more c-4, more trucks, etc.

And bush didnt tell anyone to torture people, retards.if clinton or Gore was president 911 woulda most likely been PREVENTED and of course Bush didnt tell anyone to do anything--hes a fool--Rumsfeld issued the orders

If you think that what we did to the POW's was torture, you're an idiot. We made them do lewd sexual acts. we didnt pull out their toe nails. we made them look like idiots, we didnt cut them.

Where would we be if we had gore or clinton after 9-11? Not in iraq, killing the terrorists, Not in afghanistan taking out most of al queda, Giving Aid in Billions of dollars to afghanistan and iraq because "Those pore tortured people need an education!" And as soon as they get that money, Al queda will take it and buy more ak-47's, more c-4, more trucks, etc.

And bush didnt tell anyone to torture people, retards.

Killing the terrorists? So...10,000 Iraqi civilians and 3,000 Afghani civilians killed by sloppy and over-forceful bombing campaigns are all terrorists? This war has done more damage than it has helped. Tell me how either of these wars has made America safer. Please do.

You talk about fighting terrorism? The war in Iraq is detrimental to the "war on terrorism," because Saddam Hussein was a strong anti-islamist, secular ruler within an area surrounded by fundamentalism, who basically kept the Al-Qaeda style of terrorists out of his country in ways that America will not be able to do, and the American occupation of Iraq has actually brought more terrorists IN to the country than were there before. In addition, the huge world-wide anti-American reaction to the war would further encourage the formation of new terrorist cells and strengthen those already existing. Terrorism cant be fought with bombs and bullets, much like racism. It needs to be stopped with education and understanding, but that doesnt win votes does it?

What most people don't understand is that you cannot force democracy or revolution, which is why Iraq is so volatile. As painstaking as it is to see the nation suffer under a Dictator, the only way true freedom can be attained is through a citizens revolution. It is a sad truth that it would cost many lives, but many less than the repercussions of what the US is doing. And when you do try to force Democracy, results are catastrophic.

Look at Iraq. When...or if...the US leaves, the Sunni's and Shi'ite's will have no dictatorship in place to keep them tame, and no occupying force for them to unite against. That means the two groups are likely going to have a bloody street war with a good possibility of attempted or even fully accomplishable Genocide. Don't forget the Kurds in the north either. And what about Democracy? Have these people any idea how to do it? Remember, under Saddam they were sealed off from the world and injected with Soviet-era level propaganda. What they know is likely distorted. Also, pertaining to an election: Because many people are very religious, it is likely when an Iraqi election does happen, the candidate from the largest religious group will be elected, meaning more religious violence and hatred.

You see, the US intervention and forcing of Democracy on a people unprepared for it is only throwing things into chaos, and what we're seeing now isn't even the worst of what's to come. Not even close. Things would’ve still been bad under Saddam, but there would have been a people’s revolution which is the ONLY WAY democracy can come about properly. Now, Bush has pretty much guaranteed a constant state of chaos in Iraq for years.

So...uh...why did we go there again?
Your response 1 year ago: WMD's
Your response now: To stop the terrorists

What terrorism has it stopped? Hm. There were no major terrorist attacks on US soil between 1992 and 2000 were there? That means Clinton was better at fighting terrorism than Bush!

Which, in a way is actually true since what Bush is doing is only encouraging more hatred against America. And pertaining to your comments about the torture: To understand how it is torture you have to understand Islam and Muslim culture. The worst possible thing for strongly religious muslims is sexual humiliation of that kind. They forced men to see each other naked, be photographed naked, perform lewd sexual acts on each other and themselves and be sodomized. To highly religious people like that..thats the equivalent of you having to see your family slaughtered before your eyes. Or be raped..which..in a way is what it was.

I'm sure if someone stuck a broomstick up your ass and photographed it being done repeteadley and painfully...you wouldn't be saying "oh...its just abuse." You have to consider the emotional and religious consequences of such actions.

To everyone saying that the Bush administration didn't order anyone to be torture: the context of the original post was that there had been several memos, from the White House, leaked to the press about what the president could/couldn't do. One of these memos said something to the equivalent of "the President isn't subject to American law or international treaties because we are in a time of war. Therefore, the President and/or military are allowed to torture people." While I'm not sure I believe all of this, I was listening to "Democracy Now", which is were this post came from, today for some reason. It's not directly about Abu Ghraib prison. I just thought I would clarify.

Neil A. Lewis and Eric Schmitt of the New York Times had a story on this that came out in Tuesday's edition of lesser known journals and papers.
ADMINISTRATION LAWYERS concluded US not covered by ITS OWN OR INTERNATIONAL law.
For those of the readership here with a good plank of ignorance in your eye, consider using the technology at your fingertips to get past the farce that the US Administration isn't guilty of anything here. Fifty-six pages of legal definitions and memos to circumvent the very "democracy" that is screamed about on our insipid right-wing radio horseplop, about what everyone else needs and deserves. Nothing more than a little hazing or an initiation for some fraternity, no doubt.
Donald Rumsfeld is very clearly implicated in this, as are Joint Chiefs of Staff AND counsel to Dick Cheney, David Addington.
To be sure, the day this came out on the radio here in the US (ABC NEWS broadcasts) he stated he'd been sick for "about a week" over the situation.
This article gives some definition to times WAY farther back then about a week, so what did he feel up until then about "detainee" abuse and sodomy and smiles and wires?
He felt fine and the lawyers said it was A-OK! And no one seems to be able to touch the allmighty Bush on this one! Democracy (again) in one of its finest hours!

Someone seems to have forgotten 9-11....All you want to do is complain. All you care about is what you are told by the media. Could these things have happened? Yes. Do I think it is ok? No. But give the government room to breathe. Obviously someone does not know that the U.S. is not a rouge nation. While torturing is wrong, someone seems to have forgotten about the terrorists...Hear of our POW's? Probley Don't care. Nothing is noticed by the liberals, until it is a slip up in the Bush Admin. Apparently No1 cares what our POW's have gone through. It is all about the rights of the terrorists. I'm sure I will be ranted at but thats alright

I have not forgotten 9-11. I was a short walk away, in Chelsae, when the planes hit. And I remember thinking "man this would be a good opportunity for the coupe leader and his goons to shred the Constitution".

Isn't a Rogue Nation one that ignores international law? What is it that makes the U.S.A. exempt, the fact that you love it? I do too. And like any ADULT who sees a loved one going down the wrong path, I am very concerned.

WHich U.S. POWs do you mean? The ones that have been recovered? Obviously you have much better news sources than we do... so tell us, which Americans are still being held in the Iraqi theatre?



Why Waste Another Vote on the Old Coke-or-Pepsi Party?
Waste Your Vote On Me

- Rev. A.J. Harris

First of all the neither the president or of government has decieded it is OK it torture...These things have been carried out by a few idiot Military personnel. The government never condoned these actions. The president has not broken the Geneva Convention...maybe you have him confused with Saddam, or other dictators? Wait...nvm...they were good people right? I mean this war in Iraq was completley unnessecary wasnt it? Would would want a dictator gone that at one time had wmd, and committed genocide...hmm....not sure. Back to the torture...these were committed by single persons and never condoned by the government. You will see Court Marshals. Stop complaining. Where would we be after 9-11 with Gore or Clinton?

Don't be willfully stupid. Here are two links to two articles, read them and learn something:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26401-2004Jun8.html

These things have not been carried out by a few "idiot Military personnel", unless you are referring to Rumsfeld and Bush who established the policy. The people at the bottom will be taking the roll for it, but the chain of blame extends all the way up to Bush himself.

This "He didn't know so couldn't be complicit" argument is the same one they used for the Iran-Contra scandal and it stunk just as much then as it does now. Even assuming that it is possible to keep policy changes of this magnitude quiet and out of Bush's realm of knowledge, that in and of itself argues he's an unfit President because he is totally out of control of his administration. So he's damned either way. He knew about it and allowed it or he didn't know about it and he's out of control of his own people.

Don't try and obscure the issue about Saddam. No one ever liked him. But just because he was a bad leader doesn't make Bush a good one. Just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean everyone afterwards can break the law as well. Saddam committed crimes, but so has Bush, the biggest being his utter betrayal of the founding principles of the United States.

If we start holding America responsible for this travesty, where will it end? I mean, the government has better things to do than defend itself against the hundreds of thousands of despicable things it has done in the past.[/satire]

Saddam committed crimes, but so has Bush, the biggest being his utter betrayal of the founding principles of the United States.

But the way I see it, he's upholding those principles. The principles are stealing all the land of a people, then genocide against them on the land that once was theres, and then putting the survivors onto reservations, correct?

Wait, are those the principles, or are those the peripherals that occured when the principles were being written?

No, no, no, way to easy, Geneva convention (again, signed by the US and hereby a threathy breaker) says that a government should take care "for all its prisonars taken by its millitary" and "that it shouild give those POW's all rights given by the convention" and "that no (il)legal nowhere land (like you call it) can be created", because it violates the convention :idea:
Thats another thing, the Taliban terrorists dressed in civilan clothing aren't classfied as POWs.

did you not even read the post you replied to? The geneva convention talks about all prisoners taken by the military, i think the terrorists fall under that definition somehow.

Saddam committed crimes, but so has Bush, the biggest being his utter betrayal of the founding principles of the United States.

But the way I see it, he's upholding those principles. The principles are stealing all the land of a people, then genocide against them on the land that once was theres, and then putting the survivors onto reservations, correct?

Wait, are those the principles, or are those the peripherals that occured when the principles were being written?

I'm referring to the principles written in the Constitution of the United States and the rejection of monarchy. The ideals of freedom, equality and no man being above the law.

Horrible things have been done since, but it doesn't invalidate the initial goals or lessen them unless we allow the corruption to continue and don't fight against it.

Don't turn this issue into something it's not.

I'm referring to the principles written in the Constitution of the United States and the rejection of monarchy. The ideals of freedom, equality and no man being above the law.

Horrible things have been done since, but it doesn't invalidate the initial goals or lessen them unless we allow the corruption to continue and don't fight against it.

Don't turn this issue into something it's not.

I wasn't trying to. I just wanted to know if these principles were the ones that I aloways assumed they were (see previous post reffering to the Native Americans that never stopped getting anally plugged since people landed here) or if they were the principles that are written on that decrepit notebook we call a constitution.

I wasn't trying to. I just wanted to know if these principles were the ones that I aloways assumed they were (see previous post reffering to the Native Americans that never stopped getting anally plugged since people landed here) or if they were the principles that are written on that decrepit notebook we call a constitution.

God knows horrible things were done (and still are being done) to Native Americans. However, when you call the Constitution of the United States a "decrepit notebook" you show the exact kind of willful idiocy that allows those abuses to occur and allows George W. Bush to rewrite it as he pleases.

BIDEN: Thank you very much. Well, General, that means you may be in contempt of Congress then. You got to have a reason not to answer our questions, as you know from you sitting up here. There may be a rationale for executive privilege that misses the point, but, you know, you have to have a reason. You are not allowed, under our Constitution, not to answer our questions, and that ain't constitutional.

www.democracynow.orgAshcroft in contempt of congress... excellent. Of course, Congress' contempt can hardly equal the contempt that I already have for John Ashcroft, but then, it does carry the full weight of law.

I wasn't trying to. I just wanted to know if these principles were the ones that I aloways assumed they were (see previous post reffering to the Native Americans that never stopped getting anally plugged since people landed here) or if they were the principles that are written on that decrepit notebook we call a constitution.

God knows horrible things were done (and still are being done) to Native Americans. However, when you call the Constitution of the United States a "decrepit notebook" you show the exact kind of willful idiocy that allows those abuses to occur and allows George W. Bush to rewrite it as he pleases.

Lithuaninghanistania, you have a delightful turn of phrase :D. Decrepit notebook indeed! Sometimes I find a well placed depreciating comment about something held perhaps a little too dearly or cheaply helps us find a sense of place in this world.

Good job! ...but how on EARTH does one pronounce "Lithuaninghanistania"? I just say "Laughing-stania" in my head when I read it...

I just want to say that, while we can argue all day about torture of those in US military jurisdiction, we cannot bring our troops into this. Even if we burn Gitmo, with the detainees in it, on live TV, it'll have no affect on the treatment of US POWs. Why? Because ever since the Korean War, no one has bothered to follow the Geneva Conventions when they capture US troops. Any POW from Vietnam will tell you about Vietnamese torture. The nine or ten POWs from Iraq will tell that, whether they were held by Hussein or insurgents, they, too, were tortured. It really is a moot point to bring US troops into this, as aparently, our enemies don't even seem to think that there was ever a treaty written in Geneva.

Amen to that.

No, no, no, way to easy, Geneva convention (again, signed by the US and hereby a threathy breaker) says that a government should take care "for all its prisonars taken by its millitary" and "that it shouild give those POW's all rights given by the convention" and "that no (il)legal nowhere land (like you call it) can be created", because it violates the convention :idea:
Thats another thing, the Taliban terrorists dressed in civilan clothing aren't classfied as POWs.

did you not even read the post you replied to? The geneva convention talks about all prisoners taken by the military, i think the terrorists fall under that definition somehow.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They fufill C (sometimes) and maybe A.

Saddam committed crimes, but so has Bush, the biggest being his utter betrayal of the founding principles of the United States.

But the way I see it, he's upholding those principles. The principles are stealing all the land of a people, then genocide against them on the land that once was theres, and then putting the survivors onto reservations, correct?

Wait, are those the principles, or are those the peripherals that occured when the principles were being written?

Actually, you're right, that's pretty much what we do to nations who attack us. It's a principle called "right to life" and it's in the Declaration of Independence. In which history book do you read that the entire colonization of America was a scheme to invade the Native Americans' land and enslave them all? I've always heard that they were trying to obtain their freedom of religion, trying to escape a State-owned-Church Britain. The Founding Fathers recognized that Christian religion is always corrupted when incorporated in government. They established a preventative measure to combat this in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Brainwashed people think this means no Bible or prayer in schools. Interesting how it doesn't cover Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, etc. religions. Read a few books written by conservatives, they give the other side to your favorite Supreme Court stories. David Barton writes a lot of books about the Founding Fathers and popular religion-related Supreme Court arguments, if you're interested.

Last notes: Principles aren't written. They are attributes of the spirits of people. Yes, spirits, we didn't evolve. Prove me wrong.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They fufill C (sometimes) and maybe A.[/quote]

So, they fall under the definition because they sometimes fulfill some of the conditions?

Here's a parallel thought:

"In order to be considered a US Citizen, a person must fulfill the following requirements:

a) The person must currently reside within the borders of the US.

b) The person must have lived in the US for seven years."

By your definition, an actor from another country staying in a trailer in Hollywood during the filming time of part of a movie would be considered a US citizen because they sometimes represent part of the conditions.

Any flaws in my logic? Or my understanding?