NationStates Jolt Archive

I'll put it out here in the beginning, I'm no fan of John Ashcroft.

But at least he was a known quantity, no worse than any of a dozen other zealous republicans that could have been in his job. You could guess where he was going to stand on just about any issue. Right down to his idiotic covering of the statue of The Spirit-of-Justice because her breast was showing (and had been since 1936).

Alberto Gonzales scares the crap out of me.

This is the guy who wrote the brief for the white house that says basically that torture is OK, as long as the president orders it.

What unknown part of the constitution did that come from?

He threw out the Geneva Convention and substituted his own definition of torture, so now. according to him, "pain induced by chemicals or bondage, forcing an individual to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time, food deprivation, mock executions, sleep deprivation and chemically induced psychosis," is all OK. And worse is justified if the president deems it so.

And he's likely to get approved because if the Dems object, the Bushiban will trump them with the race card. Like the fact that he's a Hispanic somehow overshadows the fact he's also a delusional psychopath.

Anybody else have any thoughts?

i didn't know Ashy was on the way out. Guess that's what I can expect for not getting cable TV here at university.

i didn't know Ashy was on the way out. Guess that's what I can expect for not getting cable TV here at university. :headbang: Why do I bother? I've been on this forum long enough to know the futility of serious discussion threads. One reply and it's just to tell me they are totally unaware of my topic. Oh well, thanks for the bump anyway.

Yeah, I was elated to hear Ashcroft resigned, and then Bush named Gonzalez. This president has been and continues to stack the government with the scariest people.
The two biggest problems with government are as follows:
1. A lot of the most important and influential policymakers aren't even elected officials.
2. Representational government does not work because most people are too stupid to realize how it actually works.
Here's my case: representatives are elected to REPRESENT the constituency. Representatives cannot represent people if the people don't make their opinions known. So most of you voted in this past election, that's great. I'm willing to bet that a majority of you will slink back into your electorate hole, not to be heard of again for 4 more years. Guess what? If you don't like something that is happening in Washington or your state capital or even City Hall, you need to make your voices known and heard. It's not enough to go to the polls every four years. This is why the corporations rule this country, because the American people are either ignorant or have given up trying to have a legitimate voice in government.
If you don't like this guy, make sure your reps in Washington know it. Be respectful, be specific and use valid, sourced reasons for your feelings.

I'll put it out here in the beginning, I'm no fan of John Ashcroft.

But at least he was a known quantity, no worse than any of a dozen other zealous republicans that could have been in his job. You could guess where he was going to stand on just about any issue. Right down to his idiotic covering of the statue of The Spirit-of-Justice because her breast was showing (and had been since 1936).

Alberto Gonzales scares the crap out of me.

This is the guy who wrote the brief for the white house that says basically that torture is OK, as long as the president orders it.

What unknown part of the constitution did that come from?

He threw out the Geneva Convention and substituted his own definition of torture, so now. according to him, "pain induced by chemicals or bondage, forcing an individual to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time, food deprivation, mock executions, sleep deprivation and chemically induced psychosis," is all OK. And worse is justified if the president deems it so.

And he's likely to get approved because if the Dems object, the Bushiban will trump them with the race card. Like the fact that he's a Hispanic somehow overshadows the fact he's also a delusional psychopath.

Anybody else have any thoughts?


I dont necesarily believe in rules during interogation, to potential war criminals.
Torture has been going on for centuries. It will never stop, and until the government can think of a more effective way to get information from people, then it will always be used.
The key is not to torture your citizens, or consider police interogation one in the same as war interogation.
But the truth is this, Mr gonzalez has a political future to pursue. He may be nominated later to go into the supreme court, but he will never get that nomination if he is constantly right wing, because the democrats probably would be able to prevent it ( can we say filibuster )
So Im not afraid of him as i was of ashcroft, that loony religious f***

Yeah, I was elated to hear Ashcroft resigned, and then Bush named Gonzalez. This president has been and continues to stack the government with the scariest people.
The two biggest problems with government are as follows:
1. A lot of the most important and influential policymakers aren't even elected officials.
2. Representational government does not work because most people are too stupid to realize how it actually works.
Here's my case: representatives are elected to REPRESENT the constituency. Representatives cannot represent people if the people don't make their opinions known. So most of you voted in this past election, that's great. I'm willing to bet that a majority of you will slink back into your electorate hole, not to be heard of again for 4 more years. Guess what? If you don't like something that is happening in Washington or your state capital or even City Hall, you need to make your voices known and heard. It's not enough to go to the polls every four years. This is why the corporations rule this country, because the American people are either ignorant or have given up trying to have a legitimate voice in government.
If you don't like this guy, make sure your reps in Washington know it. Be respectful, be specific and use valid, sourced reasons for your feelings.

Amen!

I'll put it out here in the beginning, I'm no fan of John Ashcroft.

But at least he was a known quantity, no worse than any of a dozen other zealous republicans that could have been in his job. You could guess where he was going to stand on just about any issue. Right down to his idiotic covering of the statue of The Spirit-of-Justice because her breast was showing (and had been since 1936).

Alberto Gonzales scares the crap out of me.

This is the guy who wrote the brief for the white house that says basically that torture is OK, as long as the president orders it.

What unknown part of the constitution did that come from?

He threw out the Geneva Convention and substituted his own definition of torture, so now. according to him, "pain induced by chemicals or bondage, forcing an individual to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time, food deprivation, mock executions, sleep deprivation and chemically induced psychosis," is all OK. And worse is justified if the president deems it so.

And he's likely to get approved because if the Dems object, the Bushiban will trump them with the race card. Like the fact that he's a Hispanic somehow overshadows the fact he's also a delusional psychopath.

Anybody else have any thoughts?
Go back farther and look at his relationship with Bush when he was governor of Texas--Gonzales was the guy responsible for putting together the clemency cases for Bush to review prior to signing off on executions. Let's just say that Gonzales didn't think it was important to mention anything that might have been in the slightest bit favorable to the person asking for clemency. If there were any people wrongly executed during Bush's term as governor--and there's reason to think there were--Gonzales carries at least part of the blame.

Politically, I think that the Democrats in the Senate would be foolish to filibuster the nomination, but they need to get all of this stuff on the record in the questioning, and they need to make his confirmation a strictly party line vote--vote against him and express their official disapproval.

"Perhaps even more controversial was the February 2002 memo he wrote in which the Bush administration claimed that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to certain prisoners taken in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The memo claimed that the importance of gaining information about possible future terror attacks from people suspected of links to terrorist groups "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners.""
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=241596&page=2

What's that mean for our own soldiers now that we have violated the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties?
So he's fought to redefine torture (which by the way is proven as NOT an effective means to extract information, if you torture any person long enough they will admit to whatever you want them to, that's the fact about torture.)
And it's also one of the big complaints being tosses around about Saddam. Just don't give me that crap that it's ok in these instances.
Another part of that is his move for unconstitutional imprisonment-Gitmo.
These are not the values we live by, not until the Bush administration.
He worked in Texas to throw out information that might have proven innocent prisoners who were given the death penalty. It's more important to guys like this to "take a strong stance on crime" rather than worry about wrongful convictions.
He was part of a team that represented Enron, which was found guilty of robbing California 9 Billion and creating the energy crisis, which was blamed on liberals and Grey Davis.
He accepted campaign contributions from litigants while serving as their judge.
Nice bunch of moral values. God Bless.

Yeah, I was elated to hear Ashcroft resigned, and then Bush named Gonzalez. This president has been and continues to stack the government with the scariest people.
The two biggest problems with government are as follows:
1. A lot of the most important and influential policymakers aren't even elected officials.
2. Representational government does not work because most people are too stupid to realize how it actually works.
Here's my case: representatives are elected to REPRESENT the constituency. Representatives cannot represent people if the people don't make their opinions known. So most of you voted in this past election, that's great. I'm willing to bet that a majority of you will slink back into your electorate hole, not to be heard of again for 4 more years. Guess what? If you don't like something that is happening in Washington or your state capital or even City Hall, you need to make your voices known and heard. It's not enough to go to the polls every four years. This is why the corporations rule this country, because the American people are either ignorant or have given up trying to have a legitimate voice in government.
If you don't like this guy, make sure your reps in Washington know it. Be respectful, be specific and use valid, sourced reasons for your feelings.

What makes you think they will listen? Representing party lines is much more beneficial than representing the public.

The fact is that a politician cannot take a stand on any issue without major risk of political opponents twisting it around in talking points. And once those talking points come out the media latches on to them and it completely dominates the election.

Examples:
1) Max Cleeland actively opposed the Iraqi war (a justifiable stance in hindsight, no matter what side you take), but was slaughtered by Chambliss and Bush who pretty much ran on one talking point: that the disabled veteran was unpatriotic.
2) John Kerry was labeled a flip-flopper based on the "I voted for it, and then I voted against it" comment concerning the 87 billion dollar allotment. Not one major news station bothered to inform the public that he supported the allotment all along but didn't want the money to come from loans.

Cleeland took a stand for military responsibility and got labeled unpatriotic. Kerry took a stand for fiscal responsibility and got labeled a flip-flopper. So don't expect to much from your representative.

I think one of Gonzaleze's major points was that if individuals captured in Iraq and Afghanistan broke the Geneva convention, then the protections afforded them by the document are made null-and-void.

For example, fighting for a militia or state while being out of military uniform.

It's just a possible viewpoint.

I'm not saying we should torture, I'm just saying that there is a legal context.

I think one of Gonzaleze's major points was that if individuals captured in Iraq and Afghanistan broke the Geneva convention, then the protections afforded them by the document are made null-and-void.

For example, fighting for a militia or state while being out of military uniform.

It's just a possible viewpoint.

I'm not saying we should torture, I'm just saying that there is a legal context.

That is the exact problem here...by calling THAT a legal context, it is basically saying that you should fight terrorism WITH TERRORISM. I cannot support such an opinion in any way. The simple version of why is that terrorism helps to breed more terrorism...it is a self-propelling issue. I think we should either treat them as POWs will all the rights the Geneva conventions allow or treat them as criminals and try them accordingly.

Personally, I see the insurgents in Iraq right now as military combantants, not terrorists, so they should be treated as POWs.

Back on topic of the thread...I find this new Attorney General to be a horrifically bad choice...but I would expect nothing else from the man-chimp that is in office. On a similar note, Condaleeza(spelling?) Rice is being bumped up to Powell's old position...because she was SO GOOD as a Nat'l Security Advisor we need her in a more delicate position :headbang:

While we are on the subject of state supported terrorism....
School of the Americas
"10,000 To Protest School of The Americas
And more than 10,000 demonstrators are expected to protest this weekend outside the US Army's School of the Americas at Fort Benning Georgia. The protests commemorate the anniversary of the 1989 assassinations of 14-year-old Celina Ramos, her mother Elba and six Jesuit priests in El Salvador. 19 of the 26 officers found responsible for the murders by the United Nations were trained at the School of the Americas. The US military has trained over 60,000 Latin Americans at the school over the past 50 years."

When do we go in and liberate the people from a regime that condones torture and murder in the US?Check it out (http://www.ciponline.org/facts/soa.htm)

Man, Ashcroft scared the crap out of me, but this?! I'm sooo glad I live north of the border.

What makes you think they will listen? Representing party lines is much more beneficial than representing the public.

The fact is that a politician cannot take a stand on any issue without major risk of political opponents twisting it around in talking points. And once those talking points come out the media latches on to them and it completely dominates the election.

Examples:
1) Max Cleeland actively opposed the Iraqi war (a justifiable stance in hindsight, no matter what side you take), but was slaughtered by Chambliss and Bush who pretty much ran on one talking point: that the disabled veteran was unpatriotic.
2) John Kerry was labeled a flip-flopper based on the "I voted for it, and then I voted against it" comment concerning the 87 billion dollar allotment. Not one major news station bothered to inform the public that he supported the allotment all along but didn't want the money to come from loans.

Cleeland took a stand for military responsibility and got labeled unpatriotic. Kerry took a stand for fiscal responsibility and got labeled a flip-flopper. So don't expect to much from your representative.It's not the elected who are failing. They're not the ones who are succumbing to the sound bite messages that all the money poured into elections send out. They will respond to intelligent dialogue, it's the American voter we can't expect much from. They are to easily swayed by misleading slick ads and those talking points you refer to. If your elected representative won't respond it's likely because either a) it's against the interests of those who financed their campaign or b) it's against their own interests, mainly re-election or election to higher office, because their constituancy has been convinced (rightly or wrongly) it is bad.

Your job is to make them see otherwise. Stop making excuses and call your senator. It's relatively painless.

What makes you think they will listen?
Well, in reality it happens to be their job. That's why they got elected. The sad fact is that in most cases, a lone letter from one constituent will hardly make a rep bat an eyelash. But thousands of letters from contituents on a regualr basis SHOULD make them take notice.
It's not the elected who are failing. They're not the ones who are succumbing to the sound bite messages that all the money poured into elections send out. They will respond to intelligent dialogue, it's the American voter we can't expect much from. They are to easily swayed by misleading slick ads and those talking points you refer to.
Amen. That's getting to the heart of the matter. Most people just aren't that bright.

He get's fairly high marks from the ABA. (As I have posted before).

He get's fairly high marks from the ABA. (As I have posted before).Great.

I'm sure that the fact a bunch of lawyers slap him on the back and tell him he's a good lawyer means we have nothing to worry about.

Any other pointless information you'd like to share Dave?