Proud day to be Republican

Oh yeah, so that puts the Bush Mandate at less than a quarter of the population plus a fraction of a percent.

If kids could vote, Bush would lose. My daughter's school held a mock vote before the election. It was something like 85% Kerry, 11% Bush, 4% other (maybe Nader). Of course, we live in a blue city, in a blue county, in a blue state, and in a blue coast.

Time to break this piece of rock off from the rest of the country!

 

Many, if not most, of the people at Guantanamo were not terrorists. If they were, why did we let them go, particularly when, thanks largely to Gonzales, they were not even given the presumption of innocence?

We let them go because they were not terrorists.

Sure, there are some terrorists there. But most of the prisoners were kids (some as young as 13) who were defending their village against what they perceived as invaders.

By the way, I did say 13. We are torturing children.

And these are the people that Gonzales advocated torturing.

Absolutely agreed.

Oh, just that we're murdering prisoners. No big deal, I guess. Most of them were not even accused of any type of terrorist activity, by the way.

Many of the tortured at Abu Ghraib were common criminals, not terrorists

Yes. And I suspect that four years ago, you would have said that I was paranoid to suggest that Americans would be arrested for peacefully holding an anti-Bush sign, simply because they were not in a designated "Free Speech Zone."

Yes, we can. The fact that war is ugly, dehumanzing and disgusting does not mean that anything goes. It does not mean that we should abandon our morality.

By the way, what do you believe that we are fighting for?

Not true. Even with all of the horrors committed by the Nazi's, America did not suddenly abandon our dedication to human rights. We did not have a government policy that said it was OK to torture Germans. We didn't say, "Oh the Germans don't fight fair, so we better stoop to their level and start setting up concentration camps."

For all the talk about morality in this election, it's shocking that it can be so absolutely situational.

 

AMEN!

 

Like the captured Iraqi soldiers who were executed? Do you honestly think that if these savages captured an American soldier they would even hesitate to decapitate him or her. If it was a "her" they would probably gang rape her before decapitating her. And it would have nothing to do with any actions by any of our troops.

This is so typical of the left to try to shift the blame for these deeds onto us.

Another leftist tactic, bring race into the equation.

We probably foiled another car bombing.

Show me one resonable person who disagrees with you here.

And your source for this information?

Wow, either you are very gullible, or like most leftists, are willing to say anything to advance your agenda.

 

<<Sure, there are some terrorists there. But most of the prisoners were kids (some as young as 13) who were defending their village against what they perceived as invaders.

By the way, I did say 13. We are torturing children.

And these are the people that Gonzales advocated torturing.>>

Let me remind you that 1) there are always mistakes and errors in war and 2)many Afghans and Iraqis joined Americans in the war. Is it as least possible that those people "defending their village" were Taliban or Saddam loyalists?



<<Oh, just that we're murdering prisoners. No big deal, I guess. Most of them were not even accused of any type of terrorist activity, by the way.>>

I'm not excusing the bahavior...I just think it's unrealistic to expect these things not to happen in war.



<<Yes. And I suspect that four years ago, you would have said that I was paranoid to suggest that Americans would be arrested for peacefully holding an anti-Bush sign, simply because they were not in a designated "Free Speech Zone." >>

No, I wouldn't have. There have always been limits on free speech.


<<By the way, what do you believe that we are fighting for? >>

1) Disrupt terrorist cells 2) Disrupt governments that support terrorism 3) Send a very clear message to other governments regarding their support of said terrorist cells 4) Promote democracy and free thought in a region that desperately needs it.


<<Not true. Even with all of the horrors committed by the Nazi's, America did not suddenly abandon our dedication to human rights. We did not have a government policy that said it was OK to torture Germans. We didn't say, "Oh the Germans don't fight fair, so we better stoop to their level and start setting up concentration camps.">>

Your perspective here is really warped. We used chemical weapons. We used nuclear weapons. We bombed the life out of two Japanese cities killing countless civilians. We rounded up asains and put them into prison camps. We tortured prisoners. Torture was taught to CIA operatives and Military Intelligence officials. As I said, war is ugly and dehumanizing. (This is not something exclusive to foreign wars either...we tortured and butchered fellow Americans, and killed countless civilians in our own Civil War.)

<<For all the talk about morality in this election, it's shocking that it can be so absolutely situational.>>

It's not situational at all. I wish it were possible to fight a moral war...it's just not realistic, especially when only one side abides by the rules. If we weren't at least trying to fight a moral war, the war would already be over. If we went in with a "kill'em all" attitude, there would be no Fallujah or Mosul...just dust. We certainly have the ability to do just that - men, women, children, everyone, dead. But we haven't done that because we are trying to retain a sense of morality in an immoral situation.


Pug

 

So, at exacty what percent of the population is a mandate achieved? Let's put a firm number on this so we can clear up all the confusion.

If's and but's....let's start a list. BTW, my daughters class was the exact opposite, and I too live in a blue state.

Hey you said that, not me.

 

Sure it's possible.

But I guess you've given up the pretense of torturing these people because they were terrrorists. Being a Saddam loyalist does not make you a terrorist. It makes you the enemy. And I guess that anyone who is the enemy is fair game for torture.

Yes. Obscenity. Shouting fire in a theater, etc. But we're talking about political speech. THAT is the very thing the First Amendment was designed to protect. And never in the history of this country have their been limits on political speech. Until now.

Wait. You say that you want to promote free thought, yet at the same time you support the arrest of Americans who peacefully voice dissent?

I guess everyone is welcome to "free thought" as long as they agree with you.

No, your perspective is warped if you don't understand that what the Germans did was FAR worse than anything we did.

Yes, we killed lots of civilians. But that was not our goal. Our goal was to win the war. Hitler's goal was to exterminate every living jew. There's a tremendous difference.

Yes, we incarcerated them. We didn't incinerate them.

I think there's a big difference, but I guess that's just because of my "warped perspective."

What? Isn't your whole point that this SITUATION justifies torture? Or is it that you think it's OK to use torture at any time, and the situation doesn't matter?

 

With all due respect, and I mean this in absolute sincerity, it is impossible to converse with you. You change points constantly and take on this hostile tone that is really offensive. I know I am not the only one to tell you this because I've seen it. I have had numerous discussions with other members on this forum, many of them quite passionate in nature, and many where our views were quite different. Never have I encountered someone as hostile and aggressive as you have been on this and other threads. We can disagree...I love it. But we have to stay on point and show mutual respect. This is where you fall short. So, if you want to tone it down a notch or two, converse with respect, and stay on topic....let me know. Until then, I'm done.

Pug

 

I would whole heartedly support this idea. Since our 12.3% of the population represents over 20% of the GNP, I think if that would occur, states like Texas, Florida, Nevada, etc would be up shit creek.

Come to think of it, I would love to cut the state in half along with the endless water supply we send to the south. Let them drink well and sea water. 90% of the tech industry is in the north anyway - so it wouldn't be that big of a deal for me.

 

<<I would whole heartedly support this idea. Since our 12.3% of the population represents over 20% of the GNP, I think if that would occur, states like Texas, Florida, Nevada, etc would be up shit creek.

Come to think of it, I would love to cut the state in half along with the endless water supply we send to the south. Let them drink well and sea water. 90% of the tech industry is in the north anyway - so it wouldn't be that big of a deal for me.>>

Very selfless.

 

No one in his or her right mind cavalierly supports or endorses torture.

But anyone who doesn't think every country that has ever been involved in any kind of war hasn't used torture is naive!

It would be nice to be able to deal with murdering, butchering terrorists via diplomacy and courtesy. Unfortunately, this is impossible.

Should terrorists be tortured to save lives of innocent people? I don't know. I would have a hard time condoning it. On the other hand, to save lives.........

I guess the best way to view this is to ask if one would torture a kidnapper to locate a buried spouse or child with only 48 hours to live.

Does situation ethics come into play here?

 

That's a good question, Jimmy.

Unfortunately, that's not what we are talking about here.

We're talking about torturing 13 year old kids who were defending their village, and who, the U.S. later admitted, had absolutely no information about any terrorist activities.

We're talking about torturing people for YEARS on end. Clearly, their is no time-sensitive imperative.

We're talking about torturing ordinary criminals -- car thiefs for example.

That's what Gonzales support. And that is what your hero President Bush supports.

And this is what YOU claimed is only opposed by the "extreme element" of the Democratic party.

Then call me an extremist.

 

I haven't read the White House memo, but didn't Mr. Gonzales refer to the Geneva Convention anti-torture agreements as "quaint" and "out moded"?

That sounds to ME anyway like someone who "cavalierly supports or endorses torture."

 

I have read it, and that is absolutely correct.

But it you don't shut up about it, you will be next.

 

Would you please post a link to it?

 

Here is a link to a pdf of the memo from Gonzalez to the President.

 

Here is a link to a pdf of the memo from Gonzalez to the President (I am fairly certain this is the one folks are referring to, but I could be wrong).MEMO

Gonzalez is offering a legal opinion on whether the GPW applies to the Taliban and al Qaeda. He offers opinion as to why he believes the President is correct in NOT appying it and its extension to war crimes.

What the dems/liberals fail to mention is that the same memo also offers opinion as to why the President should reverse his decision.

One of the most important lines (which is never quoted) states.... "it should be noted that your policy of providing humane treatment to enemy detainees gives us the credibility to insist on like treatment for our soldiers"

 

Perhaps it's because that line was completely ignored by the Bush admistration.

Bush focused on the parts of the memo that gave him free reign to torture. And given his close relationship with Gonzales, I think it's a reasonable guess that he did so because he believed that this is what Gonzales intended.

 

Your argument makes no sense. Gonzalez is stating what the current BUSH policy is, not what is should be!

Quote for me from that memo where torture is encouraged. I find references that the Bush policy was to "treat detainees humanely". I see a legal opinion on the application of the GPW extended to war crimes, but I fail to see where Gonzalez gave Bush the green light to torture people.

You are going to have to help me.

 

Interesting.

Mr. Gonzales seems to think that the Presidental determination that the Conventions don't apply will serve as a legal defense for those (including the President?) who might be charged with war crimes in the future.

Second point: The President appears to have arrived at his (correct, IMHO) determination relying on some other legal opinion than Mr. Gonzales. Who, I wonder. State Department, probably, but who in particular?

How did this memo get leaked, I wonder? It has attorney/client privilege "written all over it" as they say.