Can you also see the boot that I am putting on my right foot right now. Guess what I am going to use it for?
[quote]
Everyone together now… awwwwww! [/quote]
Awwwwww is right. Actually, no offense, but do you have any inkling about what this debate is about? Do you know what is involved in coming to a determination about the illegality or legality of certain actions as being determined by these courts? Just curious if you had any opinion (deliberate) about that. I’ll give you a hint. An opinion is sorta like kinda what Elequa has when he sorta kinda thinks that Bush’s policies are “stupid.” Now, you give it a try.
Apologies but photos to prove my point are not really my forte. Perhaps you can engage in a clever exchange of wits in that regard with MFGR? I for one would find that most amusing.[/quote]
It’s not sorta, kinda Fred. You like to present your opinion as fact. Also, as you are a critical thinker and reader (again your opinion), you will find no place have I claimed in absolute that these opinions have been played out in the court of law.
However, the fact remains that certain people, who are better qualified than you or I, believe that,
“some of this strikes us as illegal, much of it strikes us as unwise, and all of it, I believe, strikes us as contrary to the interests of U.S. servicemen.”
I don’t ascribe to the opinion, as you do, that I should, “to assume that the Bush administration and its supporters may have very good reasons for supporting the policies that they do”.
[quote]It’s not sorta, kinda Fred. You like to present your opinion as fact. Also, as you are a critical thinker and reader (again your opinion), you will find no place have I claimed in absolute that these opinions have been played out in the court of law.
However, the fact remains that certain people, who are better qualified than you or I, believe that,
“some of this strikes us as illegal, much of it strikes us as unwise, and all of it, I believe, strikes us as contrary to the interests of U.S. servicemen.”
I don’t ascribe to the opinion, as you do, that I should, “to assume that the Bush administration and its supporters may have very good reasons for supporting the policies that they do”.[/quote]
You are becoming almost as tiresomely tediously boring as Jaboney. Let’s cut to the chase.
One simple question:
Has the court in question ruled that Bush’s actions are “illegal?” That is simple right? Yes or No.
[quote]Quote:
My…my…So questioning the wisdom this administrations interpretation of the definition of torture is “scurrilous” and a “wild accusation” even during a time of war when our truly scurrilous enemies are looking for any scrap of legitimacy?
Not at all. Jumping to the conclusion that such actions are “illegal” before the matter has even been settled by the courts is. [/quote]
Where did I say this? You like to dance around a point I never made. I didn’t say that specifically because, as you point out, it hasn’t been tested. Get that? But there is a question and it should be tested carefully to ensure that not only we get the balance right, but that we go forward with some legitimacy.
There is a need for balance. It is merely your opinion that they are getting the balance right.
[quote]Quote:
We’ll, we just handed it to them on a silver platter. I haven’t heard a convincing argument why this interpretation of those laws was needed. Legal or not, the decision was stupid. Hopefully the White House lawyers interpretation won’t be tested in a court by some unlucky soldier or operator.
Yes, to you, they are “stupid.” But apparently, your precious little understanding of the matter is all that is needed and so even discussing this in court is apparently equally “stupid” and the whole process of trying to achieve a legitimate balance is also “stupid” and given that all of this is so “stupid” much better to just jump to your conclusion which is that all of this is “illegal” despite the courts not having given a definitive and final ruling on the matter. I mean the whole constitutional process then would appear to be “stupid” in your view. Why not just wait it out and then see what those involved have to say?
[/quote]
Who is jumping to conclusions? Read the posts Fred. It is not the discussion that is stupid. It is the final decision. What I find stupid is the decision to override the lawyers and to try to push the boundaries on the definition of torture. Clearly you are of the opinion that the administration would know better than some resonably well informed lawyers. What I do know is that should they get it wong, it’s not likley going to be a White House lawyer that goes to jail.
[quote]Quote:
Fred. “scurrilous insults”. So beneath you. The points make more sense than your blind defence of them.
Were you not the one that first used “shit?” I am merely returning the favor and living in great hope that you actually understand now the difference between your opinions of the president’s policies and that such opinions do not serve as “proof” of “illegality.” I am so pleased that we all understand that now[/quote]
Who ever said it was? But you cannot deny that knowlegable people have enough concerns to be public about it.
Also, was “shit” used against you personally or your personal opinions - or is there no distinction in that?
[quote]Quote:
Well…we’re finally getting our unneeded troop increase aren’t we? A day late & a dollar short, but we’re getting it, (even if it is just a change in rotation dates).
So, you are FOR more troops? It is so hard to tell with you people. One day, not enough, the next day too many, the next day we should be committing all that we have and not doing things on the cheap and the next day we are not pulling out fast enough. Notice, however, that after the midterm election results were in, that I correctly pointed out that they would not have the slightest effect on Bush’s ability to manage our Iraq policy. In fact, I think a great many senators in particular are pleased that they can use the president as cover all while knowing that he will make the right decisions. [/quote]
“You people”…so you really can’t tell posters apart.
Since day one I’ve been for more troops. The war should not have been fought. But, once started sufficent forces needed to be egaged. Since when is being locked into a strategy a validation of it being correct? It only means you’ve run out of strategic options. But, if you also can’t see that the mid-term election results are not a ‘political win’ for the opposition and will increase the length and cost of this war, then you are truly blind in my opinion.
[quote]Quote:
Certainly the sea-change in ME politics that you spoke of in 2003 / 2004 has not yet arrived.
Hasn’t it?
[/quote]
I see - so you really wanted to see Iran unleashed? That was the plan all the time, eh? Certainly it is driving some political change. Though I’m not sure it was the one you were describing. Should we revisit those posts?
I’m not so sure you’ll be able to grind them into submission with your posting.
No, there was also the issue of cold cells, sleep deprivation, and isolation, forced standing, threats to family members, mock executions, etc. Al Qatani was subject to all of these for months. This didn’t happen by accident. And Padilla is nuts now because of the torture he underwent.
As for legitimate issues, there is also the one of how interrogation methods that were only supposed to be used on high profile cases migrated to Iraq. This didn’t happen by accident and Rumsfeld, and ultimately Bush are responsible for prisoners who DO have Geneva rights being denied those rights and subject to torture and humiliation.
[quote]
It fell through the cracks but when this was determined to be unacceptable, the US administration ceased using it and even banned it as an acceptable practice. I challenge anyone however to find where the US government had officially condoned the use of torture. [/quote]
Bush has repeatedly come out officially supporting the secret CIA interogation program. We know that this program entails methods that by definition are torture. This is not conjecture; we know what they did to certain prisoners. Records and all that. No reasonable adult would believe that such practises are not still on the table.
And waterboarding was not banned under the detainee act. In fact, one of the biggest criticisms was that in the list of unnacceptable practises waterboarding was not included. Have seen the interviews where Bush is asked directly if waterboarding is banned? He will not answer the question. He will not answer the question.
With evidence from your own government, the Red Cross, the ACLU, soldiers in the field, respected senior members of the JAGs, military doctors, not to mention documented case after case of torture, no thinking adult can fail to conclude that the your government has been engaged in torture.
I challenge you to provide a credible alternative narrative for what has happened over the past few years. Hmm, should be an interesting walk through the mind of uncritical partisanship.
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]It’s not sorta, kinda Fred. You like to present your opinion as fact. Also, as you are a critical thinker and reader (again your opinion), you will find no place have I claimed in absolute that these opinions have been played out in the court of law.
However, the fact remains that certain people, who are better qualified than you or I, believe that,
“some of this strikes us as illegal, much of it strikes us as unwise, and all of it, I believe, strikes us as contrary to the interests of U.S. servicemen.”
I don’t ascribe to the opinion, as you do, that I should, “to assume that the Bush administration and its supporters may have very good reasons for supporting the policies that they do”.[/quote]
You are becoming almost as tiresomely tediously boring as Jaboney. Let’s cut to the chase.
One simple question:
Has the court in question ruled that Bush’s actions are “illegal?” That is simple right? Yes or No. [/quote]
The wold is back & white? Axis of evil? For us or against us? Yes or No. Ah, if life were so simple. So nice that you can have bi-polar world.
Legality: Jury still out so to speak
Good or Poor decision: By many opinions, poor.
[quote]Secrecy Is at Issue in Suits Opposing Domestic Spying
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: January 26, 2007
"The Bush administration has employed extraordinary secrecy in defending the National Security Agency’s highly classified domestic surveillance program from civil lawsuits. Plaintiffs and judges’ clerks cannot see its secret filings. Judges have to make appointments to review them and are not allowed to keep copies. "
[/quote]
Those darned soft-headed leftists keep getting in the way of presecuting the war.
This is the problem with you people. You inject your feelings into everything. The law is clear. Either an action is legal or it is illegal. It cannot be a high-standard legal and a low-standard illegal. There are not variations of “legality” in the law, though there can be variations in punishment based on the crimes involved depending on their “seriousness.”
So come back and play when you have something. Otherwise, continue to “feel” that Bush and his policies are “stupid.” You have the right and doing so is not illegal.
This is the problem with you people. You inject your feelings into everything. The law is clear. Either an action is legal or it is illegal. It cannot be a high-standard legal and a low-standard illegal. There are not variations of “legality” in the law, though there can be variations in punishment based on the crimes involved depending on their “seriousness.”
So come back and play when you have something. Otherwise, continue to “feel” that Bush and his policies are “stupid.” You have the right and doing so is not illegal.[/quote]
I think what he meant is that the decision of the court -whatever it might be- is not necessarily the crux of the issue. That is, even if the court rules in favor of the White House, its actions are not necessarily on the side of moral justice. One does not have to delve far into American history to find courts championing the wicked. During the American Civil War, the Confederate government opposed lynch mobs hanging white members of the Underground Railroad. The reason? Because they wanted the world to see that there is justice in the Confederacy. Dozens of white people were sentenced to death or harsh prison terms involving hard labor for doing what can only be called an absolute good. And they were so sentenced by legitimate courts of law, upholding an unjust code of justice.
You repeatedly fail to turn your critical eye to the Bush Administration. Fortunately not all conservatives are so eager to give it a pass. I’m sure you’re familiar with the former Congressman Bob Barr, one of the country’s leading conservatives and a chief architect of Clinton’s impeachment. He started an organization called Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, dedicated to overturning the PATRIOT Act. Here’s what he has to say about the Adminstration’s domestic spying program:
[quote]From ignoring federal laws and circumventing judicial due process to secret programs spying on Americans’ private communications and personal records without warrants, the administration has repeatedly and severely abused its power. We have so far learned that the administration has been obtaining both telephone and financial records without court warrants, unabashedly dismissing both precedent and the laws governing this country. With the public and even Congress in the dark, these invasions of privacy represent a serious betrayal of the American people’s trust and a dangerous expansion of executive powers that could haunt our country for decades to come.
Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) will not stand idly by while the Constitution of the United States of America is compromised.
PRCB’s current mission is twofold: (1) to preserve America’s system of checks and balances and its separation of powers; and (2) to push Congress to undertake a thorough investigation into the Executive Branch’s practice of monitoring Americans without court warrants.
This coalition’s influence in the halls of Congress became evident during the recent Patriot Act reauthorization debate, when PRCB shaped the public dialogue on the subject and emerged as a leading voice for limited government and meaningful checks and balances. I am confident that with the help of concerned citizens such as yourself, we will successfully protect the Constitution and the rights of ordinary Americans no matter which party controls the White House or Congress. The Founding Fathers’ legacy of liberty, privacy, property rights and the rule of law should not be partisan issues. The need for checks and balances transcends temporary politics.
[/quote]
As he says, he is Chairman of a network of primarily conservative organizations such as the American Conservative Union, Gun Owners of America, Free Congress Foundation, etc. (with a couple of liberal groups joined as well), all of whom are strongly opposed to the more troubling provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
When I get more time I will post up some of the aspects of the PATRIOT Act I am opposed to. I recall something about the government having the option of entering your home if you are away, downloading all of the data from your computer, and leaving without saying a word. They only have to explain what they did if you come home while they are there. And I recall a court battle where a district court ruled a provision of the PATRIOT Act unconstitutional because it allowed the court to hold an American citizen “indefinitely” without trial or representation, as long as the government suspects he is a terrorist. A federal appeals court through out the ruling and that part of the PATRIOT Act is still in effect. Again when I get more time I will provide excerpts from the Act and links. In the meantime, mind explaining why NOTHING about the PATRIOT Act or the domestic spying program disturbs you?
[quote]SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) by inserting (a) IN GENERAL- ' before In addition’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if–
`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.’.[/quote]
This is the delayed notification provision, which is a major source of contention between the government and civil rights organizations. I will say right off that I agree with the logic of delayed notification. If the government thinks that Johnny Apple is a terrorist and may have important information on his computer about an upcoming attack, then obviously we do not want our government notifying Johnny Apple that it is going to seize his computer; if it did, he would of course destroy the information.
Here’s the problem. FISA courts already had to the power to authorize secret search and seizures regarding foreign intelligence and terrorism investigations. This was done routinely and no FISA court had ever turned down such a warrant request. What the PATRIOT Act has done is extend this privilege to investigations any ANY federal crime. My problem with this is that it essentially nullifies our right against illegal search and seizure; or rather, it makes virtually every search and seizure legal, thereby rending that cherished constitutional protection moot.
Think about it Fred. The US Code defines thousands of crimes, many of them misdemeanors. As long as law enforcement officials can convince a judge there is reasonable cause you may be committing just one of them, your Fourth Amendment rights go out the window. I think this presents a very grave potential for abuse.
There are several other provisions of the PATRIOT Act I do not think are necessary or good for our country. I will post more up later.
Okay, last post since this is getting tiresome and I’m not learning anything except that Fred Smith can obfuscate better than Kerry. Anyway. It’s closing and I’ve got some work to do.
[quote]Quote:
No. Where did I say we were not at war? You still can’t read. Only that the war should at minimum be prosecuted in a legal and sensible way. You seem to feel that legality is the sole criteria. “Case Close”.
I cannot make this kind of stuff up. YES, this is the point and you apparently cannot even read what you wrote much less write what you think that you read that you wrote that you wanted to say… er?
You think that this war should be prosecuted in a legal (get that?) legal way. But I am telling you as I have for the past several pages that nothing has been declared “illegal” yet at least not in the context of the matters that we were discussing earlier. How in the hell can you then talk about the “legality” of this matter as if something has been already decided? Then, YOU claim that I am the one that wants to frame this as a debate aboiut “legality” as the “sole criteria.” Do you get how confused your ramblings are above? This is precisely why I have been hammering away at you for using “legal” and “illegal.” These words have SPECIFIC meanings. Stick to moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, kind or really really mean if you want to but you cannot use “legal” and “illegal” as some sort of indictment when nothing has been ruled by the courts on these matters. Got it?[/quote]
Stop trying to prove a point I never made:
1)I never said it was illegal
2)I said there was a question about the legality where military lawyers had questioned both the legality & the sense of the administrations decision
Clearly you don’t understand the usage of ‘and”. Or, do you disagree that wars should be legal and fought intelligently? Or even that wars should be fought with the perception of legality?
[quote]Quote:
That’s nice Fred - you’ve been prancing around this board like a sophomoric schoolyard bully, yet for all of your supposed intelligence - I’ve yet to see you get a call right yet. Should we go revisit some of your circa 2003-2004 posting?
Sure. What do you want to look at? Let’s go revisit 2003-2004. I have no problem with that[/quote]
Well, you dodged the question – where is our transformed ME? Where is our transformed Syria, Jordan & Iran? Where is the pressure that a demoncratic Iraq is placing on the rest of the ME?
[quote]Fine. I am arrogant. You are stupid.[/quote] Or is it too arrogant to see your own shortcomings?
Heard it, but don’t buy it. But, as you say, these are opinions.
Yes. This is your belief which you’ve made abundantly clear.
[quote]Quote:
You’re entitled to your opinion, however incorrect. Unlike you. I have family who’ve served there.
And if intelligence is to a large extent genetic (80 percent), how would pointing to your other family members be of any use in convincing me that they unlike you are better able to put forth a credible argument?[/quote]
I guess that it supposed to be a clever remark. Possibly, but it also mean that I have some insight outside of the press as to what is going on
[quote]Quote:
Iraqification is not working, so why would pulling out work? Though, I wonder now that all of the moderates in Iraq are dead or in Jordan or Syria, I wonder how much there is left to save?
So you do not want to pull out then? Well, then we finally are in agreement. Was that what you meant to say? So hard to tell with you[/quote]
What’s so hard to understand about:
The war shouldn’t have been started
But, once started, it should be prosecuted to the fullest until a better alternative arrives
[quote]Quote:
We won the military battle in 2003.
Bingo.
[/quote]
Hasn’t won us the war yet. All it’s done is buy us the responsibility to put it back together again.
[quote]Quote:
we are currently stalemated (which is the same as losing, since the insurgents only have to survive us) in the occupation
To some extent, yes.
[/quote]
Understatement of the year.
Mere speedbumps. We are in Iraq so those UN votes only slowed down the invasion timetable. Which, looking back, was likely needed to get the necessary invasion forces in regardless. Syria & Iran were and are logistically and practically out of reach. (Do you really believe the 2 war capability?) Quietly the administration has been trying to teach them a lesson, but, in reality, we are the ones that is getting schooled in regional geopolitics. Iran gotten a lot of influence and room to maneuver for a very cheap price. Syria & Jordan much less so, but some.
[quote]Quote:
Since then, it has also proven that it has a tin-ear. Did it listen to the miliary when talking about what it would take to occupy the country?
Which military officials are you talking about? Some agreed. Others did not[/quote]
Does the Army Chief of Staff count?
[quote]Quote:
Did it listen to the military lawyers regarding torture? No.
Now, here you are back on weak ground again. What torture are you referring to?[/quote]
The fact that in some cases it could be illegal and in general not in the best interest of the US soldier and the US position to be perceived as aggressive interpreting the rules on torture. How hard can that be to understand (especially for someone so intelligent)?
[quote]Quote:
Did it listen to concerns in the intelligence community regarding Iran? No. (these issues were even discussed in semi-public forums before the invasion).
What “concerns” about Iran are you referring to? the nukes? the support of terrorism? the infiltration of Iraq? What exactly do you think that this administration does not “know?”[/quote]
That once committed to Iraq, through manipulating the Shia, the Iranians could make life difficult for us much more easily than we could for them
[quote]
Quote:
So why would we assume the administration will be correct this time?
You don’t have to assume anything. Vote your conscience but while Bush is president, he is going to be acting to the best of his ability based on his own conscience. If you want others to respect your beliefs (difficult), I see no reason why you should not be asked to respect those that others possess. Note: I am not making THIS argument, I am merely trying to interpret your verbiage. I have NO intention of asking that you respect my views because I certainly do not want to be tied into any sort of reciprocity if that means taking this drivel without overtly displaying the contempt it so richly deserves.[/quote]
Most interesting, I certainly look forward to seeing who the next president is going to be, as that person will have his or hopefully hers work cut out.
The environment. Not really on George W.'s radar screen.
“War on terror”. One foreign terror attack and the yanks go berserk. Come on, you have had tonnes of terror attacks before 9/11 in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, why use this one to stumble into a war?
Civil liberties. The backlash on this one is going to be immense. Do you remember the “unlawful combatants” combatants nonsense? Renditions? The erosion in civil liberties have hit people with a middle eastern background not residing in the US a bit harder.
Multilateralism. Bush Sr. and Clinton did a fair bit working with their allies, Bush Jr. has done what he could to ruffle the feathers of the only friends the US has. Guess that it will bite the next US president in the backside rather big time. The relationship to all arab leaders will most likely take a few decades to get back on track.
Yes, I think that the world would have been a vastly better place if Gore had won, and that Bush will be remembered as one who did what he could to much things up.
Debate my ass. He’s a fucking deluded, incompetent moron and he has screwed the world (not just the US) up royally. That’s not open to debate. It’s a fact. I’m just sorry, freddy, you’re not here with us to try, pathetically to defend him and dispute reality now. Aside from freddy, is there anyone else who still believes in the Shrub?
[quote]
Bush approval rating hits record low
The Dow isn’t the only thing that’s falling in the current economic crisis. Now President Bush’s approval rating has dropped to a record low.
A Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday finds only 25% of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling the job of president; 70% disapprove.
That’s the lowest approval and the highest disapproval of his eight years in office. His approval rating has dropped eight percentage points in a month. . .
Since 1938, when Gallup began measuring presidential job approval, only two presidents have scored lower ratings: Harry Truman, who sank to 22% in February 1952 amid opposition to the Korean War, and Richard Nixon, who dropped to 24% in the spring and summer of 1974. . .[/quote] usatoday.com/news/washington … oval_N.htm
