Reaching Out to Dems - Bushit

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Dreadsox said:
So you would oppose affirmative action then?

Nope. If Bush wants to appoint a Hispanic that doesn't approve torture and takes the death penalty for the grave issue it is and nothing something to be proud of, I will be more than happy to support him. Same with the Enron deal. I don't like the caucasian Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling or the Hispanic, white, black or other lawyers that defend them.
 
So we're tossing out the whole "innocent until proven guilty" bit, then?
No, the individual is arrested on the basis of signals intelligence, maybe an e-mail. Then he is arrested and his computer seized, on the computer full technical specs for a nuclear weapon are found as well as evidence that the required components were procured. Through rigorous interrogation it is discovered that the bomb has been completed and will be placed in a major city but not where or when, this guy is defnitely knows more than he is letting on, thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives are at risk - would it not be allright to have a legal avenue to get approval for a very specific means to get them to talk, like having a tooth drilled without anaesthetic or a sterilised needle underneath a fingernail. This would be done with judicial oversight, the evidence for and against would be weighed up and the actions warranted, with full accountability.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I see nothing wrong with that - in very, very particular circumstances to cause brief and intense pain to a single guilty man that he may stop at any moment by releasing critical information is better than sitting back and waiting for thousands to be murdered.


I think you watch too many movies. In real life, it's extraordinarily unlikely that we'd have a situation like that. The whole "torture one guy to save thousands" thing just doesn't happen.

Think about it.
 
Ticking time bomb terrorist is a real scenario, the specific there is improbable but there are situations when hands are tied. I have thought about it, and even if the potential is one in one billion is it not better to have accountability for actions.
 
Try again. Here's a quote from para 1 of the article I linked to

"Today washingtonpost.com is posting a copy of the Aug. 1, 2002, memorandum (PDF) "Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A," from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to President Bush."

Here's a direct link to the memo itself, in addition, which was, as the article notes in para 1, FROM our new AG's office. :down:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf

SD
 
Last edited:
NBC, you're not getting it. It was FOR Gonzales BY someone in his office. You think anyone in his status writes his own memos? LOL. The Post article clearly states F R O M his office to the President, as I quoted.

It disturbes me too, Verte.

SD
 
Sherry Darling said:
NBC, you're not getting it. It was FOR Gonzales BY someone in his office. You think anyone in his status writes his own memos? LOL. The Post article clearly states F R O M his office to the President, as I quoted.

It disturbes me too, Verte.

SD

So, we can all breath easy now. Now we are all clear, someone else wrote the memo. So much for Sharky's statement.
 
I think I'm in OZ. Gonzales has been quoted with these views in many publications (see torture). I don't want to have to link the 5 discussions already held in FYM.

I must say I'm severely disapointeded in Dread and NBC for seeming to forget theese dicussions they were a part of (forgive if I'm incorrect in regards to one of you).

Why is it no Conservative can admit one of their own is off the wall. I'll truly admit some of my sphere are so.

Regardless Gonzales is as divisive an appoinmtment Bush could submit. As a mild liberal I can no longer take this radical extremeism by this admin. The war gauntlet is thrown down.

AAAYYYY! LOL. Long live our Republic.

PS FOAD Bush
 
I'm with you Scarletwine. It's *not* my style at all to say "this is war" but it seems like the Administration is really asking for confrontation. This makes me more sad than angry. I love my country and I'm afraid it's being hurt. This is what I do not want.
 
nbcrusader said:
So, we can all breath easy now. Now we are all clear, someone else wrote the memo. So much for Sharky's statement.

No I didn't. Here you go:

The attacks by Al Qaeda on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, these lawyers said, had plunged the country into a new kind of war. It was a conflict against a vast, outlaw, international enemy in which the rules of war, international treaties and even the Geneva Conventions did not apply. These positions were laid out in secret legal opinions drafted by lawyers from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, and then endorsed by the Department of Defense and ultimately by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, according to copies of the opinions and other internal legal memos obtained by NEWSWEEK.

link

WASHINGTON (Tues., May 18) – U. S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) continued to press for congressional oversight Tuesday on the treatment of U.S. prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. In a letter to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, Leahy sought a copy of a memorandum in which Gonzales discussed the applications of the Geneva Conventions in the war against terrorism. The content of the memo has been the subject of several media reports in recent days. Leahy, the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has pursued oversight inquiries to DOD, the White House, DOJ and the CIA since last year on prisoner abuse/torture policy issues, and he has pushed for greater oversight by Senate committees since the abuses of Iraqi prisoners emerged in recent weeks. In a letter sent to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the panel’s chairman, shortly after the abuses were reported, Leahy asked that the committee convene a hearing. The text of both letters follows.

link

In a January 25, 2002, memo, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales advised the President of "the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," a federal statute. He advised Bush to invent a legal technicality--declaring detainees in the "war on terror" to be outside the Geneva Conventions--which, he said, "substantially reduces" the chance of prosecution. Gonzales went further, telling the President that the war on terrorism "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners"; he pooh-poohed concerns that abandoning the Geneva standards might endanger US troops.
link

The Bush administration yesterday released a delayed report on U.S. efforts to promote human rights, one day after a memo by White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales emerged that had dismissed some of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions as "quaint."
link

Within months of the Sept. 11 attacks, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales reportedly wrote President Bush a memo about the terrorism fight and prisoners' rights under the Geneva Conventions.

"In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions," Gonzales wrote, according to the report in Newsweek magazine. Secretary of State Colin Powell "hit the roof" when he read the memo, according to the account.
link
 
Here is the whole quaint quote....

[Q]"As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war. 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 avoid further atrocities against American civilians. In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."[/Q]

And the quaint limitations specifically in the article that Sharkey linked too said this:

[Q]One Justice Department memo, written for the CIA late in the fall of 2001, put an extremely narrow interpretation on the international anti-torture convention, allowing the agency to use a whole range of techniques—including sleep deprivation, the use of phobias and the deployment of "stress factors"—in interrogating Qaeda suspects. The only clear prohibition was "causing severe physical or mental pain"—a subjective judgment that allowed for "a whole range of things in between," said one former administration official familiar with the opinion. [/Q]

And finally, Gonsalves according to Sharkey's Newsweek link ended his memo to Bush with this:

[Q]"your policy of providing humane treatment to enemy detainees gives us the credibility to insist on like treatment for our soldiers."[/Q]


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just out of curiosity, and it is a question in my mind......

Is it the job of the White House Council to present only one side to the President? Is it the job of the White House Council to advise the President?

I think the last line in the memo according to Newsweek is telling....that he did have concerns.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AS for those who are disappointedin me...sorry. I do not ever remember agreeing that GITMO was wrong. I do remember saying that I was upset at the legnth of time they have been held without legal representation, and I do remember expressing my disgust at the prisoners treatment in Iraq. If it disappoints you that I am willing to not rush to judgement over this, then my apologies.

Dread...still thinking. about this one.
 
Anyone have the memo in NON PDF format?

All I know, having completed research in a Presidential Libraryfor almost an entire year, is that as a HISTORIAN it would be wrong to attribute the AUGUST 1 memo as being this man's words. If it was a memo to him. It clearly is not HIS legal advice to President Bush, from what I can see before my computer freezes.
 
Thanks Sharky. I'm glad to read, as well, the Powell "hit the roof" when reading it. What do supporters of this Orwellian kind of thinking say to that? A MEMBER of the admin clearly saw the dangers of hinting that the GC was "quaint". I do, too.

Finally, we have a memo FROM Gonzales's office TO the President. NBC, you've been hung up on the fact that the memo was "for" our new AG. But it was then, as the Post article I linked to states, sent from his office to Bush. You really think this was done without Gonzales approving it?

Any Christian, any civilized person or nation, must not ever condone torture.

SD
 
I agree with you Sherry. I don't think torture is ever justified. It's just totally against my moral values. I think I know what at least one thing I'm going to be protesting against is already. I wonder when I have to make the sign? Thank God for poster board.
 
Weird...half my post was gone....

I believe I said that I expected the President to conduct the war in accordance with the law. I also suspect that LEGAL COUNCIL is supposed to present both pros and cons to the President.

I believe I said that I do not believe the Geneva Convention applies to members of Al-Qaeda because they do not belong to a nation. The operate outside the rules that are accepted by nations.

I wish I could remember it all.
 
Last edited:
1st....the memo Sherry linked to is for Gonzalves from someone who worked for Gonsalves. In my opinion, having pured through documents at the Kennedy Library, this is NOT the memo that was sent to the President.

2nd...the memo that WAS sent to the President was as I suspected designed to give the President BOTH SIDES of the issue. Having looked at the document, Gonsalves is not there to look at it from anything more than a legal standpoint.

3rd....In the document that WAS sent to the President, gonzalves also points out the NEGATIVES of the Presidents initial stand that the members of Al-Qaeda were not protected.

4th....In the memo Gonsalves clearly says to the President it is HIS decision as to which course of action he is to take.

5th In the memo he stresses that the detainies will still be treated humanely and in the spirit of the Geneva conventions.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/

I fail to see where he urges soldiers to do what happened in Iraqi prisons.
 
One thing I do care about here....is his legal interpretations about the people at GITMO was partially wrong in the courts eyes. I am referring to their right to legal council. It is my understanding that he was of the opinion they were not required legal council. The Supreme Court disagreed on this.

This to me is telling about his interpretations of the law.
 
I think that is a great point Dread. If the Supreme Court disagrees with you, what does that say about your policies? Also, it took three years for that case to come before the court. How many human rights will be violated by this guy before the court strikes them down?

Regardless of who wrote the memo, Gonzales signed off on it. It came through his office to the desk of the president. In fact, there were at least four memos as part of this whole torture thing if I remember correctly. Either way, this guy has been soiled and I would not want someone like him in office.

And even if you take away this memo issue, he still oversaw the largest number of death penalty executions in the U.S. in one year and said he was proud of it. he is still fighting to shield the White House from being responsible for leaking the name of a CIA operative for political gain. It's not just this memo thing -- it's many, many things. Because of that, this is going to be dirty dirty confirmation process and there is no way you can get the 60 senators you need to bypass any filibuster of this guy.
 
sharky said:
And even if you take away this memo issue, he still oversaw the largest number of death penalty executions in the U.S. in one year and said he was proud of it.

Many would call this enforcing the law. If you have a law, and you are incapable of implementing it, you are actually deemed a failure in the legal world.


If a Democrat has already said Gonzales is better than Ashcroft, and Ashcroft was confirmed, how do we get the conclusion that this will be a "dirty dirty confirmation process"?
 
Back
Top Bottom