Let's impeach the president.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Exactly, I think he was simply pointing out the hypocrisy within the administration.

That being said, there is talk the Chair of House Judiciary Committee is going to start stirring a debate, more or less, to impeach Bush.

I highly doubt that it will get off the ground, however.

This past weekend, I spoke to a former captain who was responsible for the prison system in Baghdad after the Abu Gharaib fiasco. He said that, after AG, the Americans basically cleaned up their act and that his main job was protecting Iraqi prisoners from their Iraqi keepers. The Iraqi had hidden jails, (essentially unventilated, unsanitary warehouses - nothing like what we would consider a prison) in which Iraqis tortured and killed their detainees. The biggest problem he had with his men was that they consistently intervened between the Iraqi "lawful authority" and the detainees in order to save the detainees lives.

My point is that the Iraqi's and us have completely different ideas on what constitutes the rule of law. Human rights apply only to those of your sect b/c only they are human.

While on its face the statement seems hypocritical, in fact, it is not given the vast differences between Iraqi "justice" and American justice.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

This past weekend, I spoke to a former captain who was responsible for the prison system in Baghdad after the Abu Gharaib fiasco. He said that, after AG, the Americans basically cleaned up their act and that his main job was protecting Iraqi prisoners from their Iraqi keepers. The Iraqi had hidden jails, (essentially unventilated, unsanitary warehouses - nothing like what we would consider a prison) in which Iraqis tortured and killed their detainees. The biggest problem he had with his men was that they consistently intervened between the Iraqi "lawful authority" and the detainees in order to save the detainees lives.

My point is that the Iraqi's and us have completely different ideas on what constitutes the rule of law. Human rights apply only to those of your sect b/c only they are human.

While on its face the statement seems hypocritical, in fact, it is not given the vast differences between Iraqi "justice" and American justice.

The whole AG thing was/is ugly. Heads are still rolling over that, and many are still calling for Gonzales to step down over this.

In the end, I just hope that we can somehow be restored back to the international community when it comes to matters of foreign policy.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

The whole AG thing was/is ugly. Heads are still rolling over that, and many are still calling for Gonzales to step down over this.

In the end, I just hope that we can somehow be restored back to the international community when comes to matters of foreign policy.

What did Gonzales have to do with AG?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

What did Gonzales have to do with AG?

Basically Gonzales wrote a very controversial memo that some believe had to do with the torture techniques used at AG. This is why his confirmation drew so much critism. That along with the latest on the firings of these U.S. Attorneys is just more egg on the face of this Administration.

Here are a couple of links.

Does the Right Remember Abu Ghraib? (washingtonpost.com)

NPR : Ghosts of Abu Ghraib May Haunt Gonzales Hearing

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Basically Gonzales wrote a very controversial memo that some believe had to do with the torture techniques used at AG. This is why his confirmation drew so much critism. That along with the latest on the firings of these U.S. Attorneys is just more egg on the face of this Administration.

Here are a couple of links.

Does the Right Remember Abu Ghraib? (washingtonpost.com)

NPR : Ghosts of Abu Ghraib May Haunt Gonzales Hearing

You mean the US Attorneys that the President can fire anytime that he wants to and other presidents have done the same thing. The problem is that Bush should have just come out and said I decided to fire them so that what I did. End of story. The Washington post has done so many stories on Abu Ghraib you would have thought that we were breaking their arms, cutting off fingers, shocking them and all of that bad stuff. Ok, we had a few people do some dumb stuff but that should be the end of the story. What torture techniques that we are using that are so bad Depriving them of sleep, dripping water in their face?

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You mean the US Attorneys that the President can fire anytime that he wants to and other presidents have done the same thing.

Yeah, you are right to a point. Everyother Presidents did fire US Attorneys, the difference here is that the other Presidents fired the US Attorneys shortly after they took office, not half to 3 quarters way through there administration. These US Attorneys were ok for the first 6 or 7 years but now all of a sudden for the last year or so they are fired? Tell me another President, that wasnt newly elected, that fired as many US Attorneys as Bush did. I have no problem with the firings if the Attorneys deserved to be fired, but the ones that got fired all are singing the same tune. They did not adhear to their politcal parties demands. Basicly they decided to up hold the CONSTIUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, rather than surrender to the demands of the Republican party.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

Yeah, you are right to a point. Everyother Presidents did fire US Attorneys, the difference here is that the other Presidents fired the US Attorneys shortly after they took office, not half to 3 quarters way through there administration. These US Attorneys were ok for the first 6 or 7 years but now all of a sudden for the last year or so they are fired? Tell me another President, that wasnt newly elected, that fired as many US Attorneys as Bush did. I have no problem with the firings if the Attorneys deserved to be fired, but the ones that got fired all are singing the same tune. They did not adhear to their politcal parties demands. Basicly they decided to up hold the CONSTIUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, rather than surrender to the demands of the Republican party.

This hardly amounts to an eye-popping distinction. It's okay to fire all of them right away but you can't fire a few after 2 or 5 years? This is pure politics. The Democrats think that if they hold enough hearings someone will slip up. I'm amazed that they haven't found a crime to prosecute yet. I'm not sure if the obdurate simpleton, Janet Reno, could have withstood such scrutiny.

The Democrats seem to be operating under the misapprehension that somehow their 2006 election victory nullified the 2004 presidential election. Wishful thinking. The President can do what the hell he wants with hiring and firing.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You mean the US Attorneys that the President can fire anytime that he wants to and other presidents have done the same thing. The problem is that Bush should have just come out and said I decided to fire them so that what I did. End of story. The Washington post has done so many stories on Abu Ghraib you would have thought that we were breaking their arms, cutting off fingers, shocking them and all of that bad stuff. Ok, we had a few people do some dumb stuff but that should be the end of the story. What torture techniques that we are using that are so bad Depriving them of sleep, dripping water in their face?

The torture technique we use was first developed by Brazile and then adopted for use by the U.S. at Gitmor and Abu Graib. It is regarded as the most viscious permanently impairing system of torture, both physically and psychologically, in the world. It was demonstrated for Rumsfeld at Gitmo, where Rumsfeld participated in the torture of a prisoner. The Red Cross once reported that two eighty year old men who were both mentally ill at Gitmo we kept in a small cell 24 hours at day lying in their own excretement.

To date, it has produced much destruction and death, but almost no useful information or convictions.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

The torture technique we use was first developed by Brazile and then adopted for use by the U.S. at Gitmor and Abu Graib. It is regarded as the most viscious permanently impairing system of torture, both physically and psychologically, in the world. It was demonstrated for Rumsfeld at Gitmo, where Rumsfeld participated in the torture of a prisoner. The Red Cross once reported that two eighty year old men who were both mentally ill at Gitmo we kept in a small cell 24 hours at day lying in their own excretement.

First, to say that the "torture" techniques employed at Gitmo are the "most vicious permanently impairing system ... in the world" is a major overstatement. Hyperbole works great with some people, but not with me.

Second, to say that Rumself personally participated in the torture on a prisoner is also a little strange. Please see my first point. Speaking the truth and making sound arguments goes a lot further than making things up or exaggerating.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

This past weekend, I spoke to a former captain who was responsible for the prison system in Baghdad after the Abu Gharaib fiasco. He said that, after AG, the Americans basically cleaned up their act and that his main job was protecting Iraqi prisoners from their Iraqi keepers. The Iraqi had hidden jails, (essentially unventilated, unsanitary warehouses - nothing like what we would consider a prison) in which Iraqis tortured and killed their detainees. The biggest problem he had with his men was that they consistently intervened between the Iraqi "lawful authority" and the detainees in order to save the detainees lives.

My point is that the Iraqi's and us have completely different ideas on what constitutes the rule of law. Human rights apply only to those of your sect b/c only they are human.

While on its face the statement seems hypocritical, in fact, it is not given the vast differences between Iraqi "justice" and American justice.

Bush is still torturing people in Gitmo and in so called secret prisons. He also ships people to Cairo and other places where they can be tortured and/or killed. It's call "rendition."

He also bombed and killed over 50 thousand children with bombs, including cluster bombs, which are banned internationally because they are particularly dangerous to children, sometimes for long after they are dropped.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Bush is still torturing people in Gitmo and in so called secret prisons. He also ships people to Cairo and other places where they can be tortured and/or killed. It's call "rendition."

He also bombed and killed over 50 thousand children with bombs, including cluster bombs, which are banned internationally because they are particularly dangerous to children, sometimes for long after they are dropped.

War ain't pretty. He's not the first Commander-in-Chief to order bombing attacks, many of which leave behind innocent victims.

By the way, I "love" how you keep saying Bush is torturing, as if he personally is the one going down there.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

War ain't pretty. He's not the first Commander-in-Chief to order bombing attacks, many of which leave behind innocent victims.

By the way, I "love" how you keep saying Bush is torturing, as if he personally is the one going down there.

Our torture policy is Bush's torture policy. Cluster bombs are internationally banned because of their special danger to children. It is a war crime to use them. Bush has used cluster bombs in Iraq knowing this and also knowing that Iraq is no threat to us. Truman wiped out people with nuclear bombs, but Japan was a danger to us and it can be argued that the bombs saved lives by ending the war quickly. Also, at the time Truman hit Japan we had not yet created the Geneva Conventions and signed them. Bush's continued bombing of civilian populations after the capture of Saddam was not only heartless and illegal but helped turn the Iraqis and the world against us.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Our torture policy is Bush's torture policy. Cluster bombs are internationally banned because of their special danger to children. It is a war crime to use them. Bush has used cluster bombs in Iraq knowing this and also knowing that Iraq is no threat to us. Truman wiped out people with nuclear bombs, but Japan was a danger to us and it can be argued that the bombs saved lives by ending the war quickly. Also, at the time Truman hit Japan we had not yet created the Geneva Conventions and signed them. Bush's continued bombing of civilian populations after the capture of Saddam was not only heartless and illegal but helped turn the Iraqis and the world against us.

Geneva Conventions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Our torture policy is Bush's torture policy. Cluster bombs are internationally banned because of their special danger to children. It is a war crime to use them. Bush has used cluster bombs in Iraq knowing this and also knowing that Iraq is no threat to us. Truman wiped out people with nuclear bombs, but Japan was a danger to us and it can be argued that the bombs saved lives by ending the war quickly. Also, at the time Truman hit Japan we had not yet created the Geneva Conventions and signed them. Bush's continued bombing of civilian populations after the capture of Saddam was not only heartless and illegal but helped turn the Iraqis and the world against us.

So I guess Clinton is a war criminal since he ordered the armed forces to attack Kosovo with cluster bombs and DU-shells?

[70Chip]

Here's a good debate related to this topic:

YouTube - Noam Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley Debate : Part 1 of 2