Proud day to be Republican

There is much to be concerned about in that memo, but the argument put forth here by grgrwll is that it somehow condones and encourages the practice of torture.

If I remember correctly you are a lawyer (if I am wrong sorry ). If I am correct, can you comment on what is being said concerning torture (both directly and indirectly)

Thanks

 

So you believe this was some kind of book report or something?

No. He stated what Bush policy was and gave what he believed to be legal justification for these policies of torture. He played an active part.

Here's a quote:

"The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avod further atrocities against American civilians, and the need to try terrorists for war crimes such as wantonly killing civilians."

We tortured many men, including 13 year old kids, who the United States later admitted had NO information that could avoid further atrocities, and who had not participated in killing of civilians. We just let them go. Sent them back to Afghanistan. They were NO THREAT to us. But we sure had fun torturing them for a couple of years.

But I guess I'm an extremist. I think that torture goes against American values. I think our entire country should be a "Free Speech Zone."

And I'm sure that many of you would support my arrest and torture for expressing such views.

 

And once again you counter with the absurd.

Where does that "encourage" or "condone" the practice of torture. It simply states that the new war we are fighting places a premium on extracting information quickly -- you have jumped to the conclusion that he was encouraging torture

Please provide the source of your information (and Michael Moore books and movies do not count)

 

Are you really that simplistic?

Where in Plessy V Furgeson did it specifically "encourage" or "condone" segregation? It didn't. Yet this decision laid the groundwork for 70+ years of segregation.

Sometimes you have to "read between the lines." What Gonzales was saying was that the President did NOT have to abide by any of the treaties our country had signed regarding the torture of enemy prisoners. No, he did not explicity encourage torture. But his words meant the exact same thing.

Well, not surpsingly, the Fox news is not reporting on this, and I doubt that you would believe anything else.

Obviously, you don't give a damn about any of this, or else you would be familiar with it. So I'm not going to bother doing a lot of research on your behalf, since I'm sure you will just ignore it. Plus, I can't find any stories from any of the neo-con media. I do have a link from a group (who most torture advocates consider very evil) -- Human Rights Watch.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/04/us042403.htm

 

Thanks for the link.

Even you have to admit the HRW is not the most trustworthy source on this issue, but for the sake of argument we will use your source.

It said
1) 13-15 year olds (at least 3) were detained
2) Children were being questioned
3) HRW admists that the children may have participated in armed conflict as memebers of Al Qaeda or Taliban
4) Made several references to what they "encourage" the administration to do.

I simply fail to see how this makes your case.

And your argument that your are not going to do alot of research is just bogus. If the USA were torturing children you can bet the HRW, Move-on.org, George Soros, and Michael Moore would have more evidence posted than you could read in a week.

The reason you cannot find a reference is that is does not exist among reputable resources (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, FOX, LATimes, Washington post -- go check it out)

 

OK, you're right. Those kids were sent there on a holiday. Just a bit of a vacation. The fact that the adminstration told the people running the prison that it was perfectly fine for them to torture these kids doesn't prove that they were actually tortured.

Give me a break.

Yes, these kids probably did participate in armed conflict. WE might have considerd them "part of the Taliban." But why? Because the participated in armed conflict.

Do you have ANY evidence that these kids were terrorists? No. Did the U.S. government? NO!

The bottom line is that if these people were terrorist, they would not have been released.

But, hell, I can't PROVE that they weren't, so we might as well torture them!

And you wonder why so many people hate us.

 

Even if the administration approved torture openly and directly, it still wouldn't PROVE they tortured the kids.
Your logic just doesn't hold up.

To sum up your position.
US government says terrorists are not entitled to GPW protection - assumption: torture OK
US government detainees 13 year olds at terrorist camp
THEREFORE US government tortures 13 years old.

Can you not see the fallacy of your logic?

When and how did you come to be so filled with despise for your country and its leaders?

 

I understand that this is not a tautism.

But it makes a hell of a lot more sense than your assumption. Which, apparently is that even though the Bush administration said it was OK to torture prisoners at Guantanamo, and even though we held 13 year olds at Guantanamo:

Clearly, we did NOT torture 13 year olds.

Then I ask you: Why were they there for so long?

You could not be more wrong about my feelings for my country.

I love my country.

But my country is about the Constitution. The Bill of Rights. It's also about human rights. It's about being a shining example of morality. It's about leading by example.

What I despise is people like you who think that what the U.S. stands for is torturing anyone who stands in the way of whatever our leaders want to do.

Call me what you want. Insult me as you may. I don't care.

But when you say that I despise my country, as Merle Haggard said, "You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me."

As for despising our leaders, that is true. And I'm sure you spew equal venom at Russians who despised Stalin and his henchmen.

 

You are spinning again, I made no such claim.

You see YOU made the claim that the two assumtions PROVE they tortured children. I said it did NOT prove it.

Only in your mind (and your accompanied inane logic) does one equal the other. Here is how your logic works my friend.

I own a dog
My neighbor owns a rabbit
My neighbor's rabbit is missing
Therefore my dog ate the rabbit

I tell my neighbor you have no proof that my dog ate your rabbit.
My neighbor says just because I have no proof doesn't prove he didn't, after all dogs will eat rabbits, I read it in this book.
I say, OK, I agree it is possible, but I still need proof.
My neighbor says, NO, you go find the proof yourself.
I say, what?
He says, so what your saying is that because I can't provide evidence that your dog ate my rabbit that CLEARLY proves your dog did not eat my rabbit.

I scream, give up and buy him a new rabbit

Let's just agree to disagree and find another topic to debate.

 

Fine with me.

But first, I ask you to apologize for saying that I despise my country.

To me, that's about the most vile accusation anyone could ever make.

 

Please accept my apology for that unfounded accusation, it was out of line.

 

Every day is a proud day to be Republican!!!


Live with it.

 

Well, "live with it" at least until November 2006!

 

Thanks. That's about the only thing you could say that would seriously offend me, so that makes the apology very meaningful. I really appreciate it.

Along the same lines, I apologize to you if I have made any hurtful allegations/insinuations.

I need a break.

Have a great Thanksgiving.

 

You too have a great Thanksgiving.

Look forward to the next debate

 

Proud day to be a Republican? What?

Yes - proud to rake in profits while keeping those welfare moms working at dead-end "work to welfare" jobs, away from their kids; proud to spin continuous lies and group-think about how the "war" is being conducted so successfully in Iraq and Afghanistan; proud to ride down the streets of America in our Lexii with our noses in the air at the downtrodden all around us; proud to have inherited daddy's money so we can squander it on excess; proud to use privilege and influence to get out of trouble or set up an easy, cushy lifestyle for our dysfunctional families.

Uh huh. Those are the things that make us PROUD to be Republicans!

Ooops sorry... the "bad Carl" emerged again....

 

Hey, I thought the Kennedys were Democrats.

 

Yes, Carl. We DO suffer from an unequal distribution of wealth in this country and it's getting worse.

But I really don't think that the economic and political shortsightedness you describe belongs just to the Republicans.

Presidents from Harry Truman forward have favored "free trade", which fosters a "race to the bottom" as far as labor is concerned and subjects a people, formerly thought to govern itself, to the the secret, anti-democratic decisionmaking process of the WTO. This is the REAL reason for the Seattle riots.

Go see the film "The Corporation" to see what I mean. WARNING: Do NOT take this film's opinions as facts or even uncritically accept its "facts" as facts.

Enduring, overwhelming wealth inequality leads to equally enduring and overwhelming political inequality. But in the long run, both lead to social unrest and finally, revolution.

Loss of local control over economic activity leads, I believe, to the concentration of unimaginable power in the hands of unregulatable international organizations. Much of what passes for government is but the bidding of these organizations disguised as "national interest".

Ask yourself whether Senator Kerry ever said he would end the war in Iraq. He didn't. Both candidates supported the War for Oil because it is necessary to the national interest of the U.S. (read U.S. business concerns) that the war be fought.

Yet the individuals themselves are but servants of the organizations!

 

I completely agree.

When someone denounces one party, it doesn't automatically mean that they support "the other party."

I'm sure you understand this, but many people don't. They think that if you oppose G.W. Bush, you must be a Clinton supporter. This is particularly crazy considering that neither of these parties represent coherent political philosophies.

I'm a libertarian. Most conservatives think I'm a raving liberal. Most liberals think I'm an arch conservative. These views are based solely on their ignorance of other alternatives.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are many things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of your in your philosophy "

 

I mean this in the most respectful way possible.

Only a moron would mistake you for a "arch conservative"