Antonio Gonzales - Hypocrite

[Bullypulpit]

P.S. Nearly forgot the basic topic - I'm not really up on Gonzales' qualifications or lack thereof for the post of Attorney General. But I do know that his opinion that we need not restrict ourselves to conventional methods in regard to the treatment of muslim prisoner does not bother me a bit.

And I suspect you're squawking about it mostly because if you fail to bad-mouth GW at least ten times a day, you start getting twitchy.

Tch...Tch...Old son. You don't know me half as well as you think you do. My opposition to Alberto Gonzalez is a prinicipled one, on account 'a he's got none. He's Dubbyuh's consiglieri, who will do whatever it takes to keep Dubbyuh out of jail, even if it means approving of torture and unlimited presidential power to over-ride the Constituion.

Your approval of prisoner abuse shows you to be as morally bankrupt as they are.

 

[Merlin1047]

Tch...Tch...Old son. You don't know me half as well as you think you do. My opposition to Alberto Gonzalez is a prinicipled one, on account 'a he's got none. He's Dubbyuh's consiglieri, who will do whatever it takes to keep Dubbyuh out of jail, even if it means approving of torture and unlimited presidential power to over-ride the Constituion.

Your approval of prisoner abuse shows you to be as morally bankrupt as they are.

Step back and read your own posts objectively (if possible).

Now tell me that you can exercise any degree of equanimity or rationality in regard to George Bush.

And if you tell me that you can, I'm going to call bullshit - really loud.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Step back and read your own posts objectively (if possible).

Now tell me that you can exercise any degree of equanimity or rationality in regard to George Bush.

And if you tell me that you can, I'm going to call bullshit - really loud.

Sorry, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em. I'll let you know if I hear you yelling from here.

 

[Merlin1047]

Sorry, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em. I'll let you know if I hear you yelling from here.

Well, I don't doubt that you do call it as you see it. I'm just suggesting that you're in dire need of a set of glasses to correct that faulty vision.

:funnyface

 

[Avatar4321]

And at Abu Grahib, it was torture : psycholigical torture.
US humble these giuys, and honor is a very very important thing in the muslim religion.
it was worse than taking their live.

What honor? They have no honor to begin with. There is no honor in murdering women and children. There is no honor in fighting to oppress people. Whatever honor they had they lost when they became terrorists.

Also they have no rights. What do you think happens to a criminal when they break the law? the law punishes them and they lose their right. They dont have any rights outside due process. They have no right to liberty. and sometimes even no right to life. They abused their rights and thereby have lost them.

These men are terrorists and seek to destroy the very rights granted. we have no obligation to protect them. Besides the point there rights are not being violated. they have due process. Due Process is simply different for enemy combatants than for civilians. And regardless there is no right to honor in any constitution in the world so your argument is moot.

Honor is an important thing to Americans too. Which is why you dont see us running to defend these guys.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

NO, we are not betraying the Constitution or the treaties that the US is signatory to or basic humanity. Dubbyuh and his merry band, however, are. What good is the Constitution if our elected officials, who are sworn to uphold and defend it, betray its basic principles? And if those principles do not apply to all, then they apply to none

As for Iraqis and their happiness, I suggest you broaden your view a bit. Checkout the BBC, Asia Times and other international web sites...keyword "life in Iraq"...You'll see that life there is not as rosy as the Administration paints it. It's not quite as grim as some US media outlets paint it either, but it ain't good. But more to the point, it's not going to be a democracy after January 30th. It will either be a radical islamic state or a US client state teetering on the brink of civil war.

As for international law, Dubbyuh adheres to it only when it suits US business interests. Beyond that, the rest of the world can go pound sand as far as he and his handlers are concerned. But they fail to understand a crucial element...The US <b><i>cannot</i></b> function independent from the rest of the world. Just let the rest of the world not show up at a US treasury auction just one time...Just let oil imports be stopped for just one month...Let oil be traded in euros instead of dollars. It could happen. And we'll see where Dubbyuh's simple minded notion of rugged individualism gets us.

You obviously think the U.S. is beholden to the rest of the world. And you probably think we are weak and terribly dependent on the rest of the world too. Are you even an American? You obviously have no clue as to what we free Americans can do. And for your info, the U.S. Constitution does not "cover" the rest of the world, especially terrorists.

It is the weak-minded liberals of this country like you who would bring us down because you cannot fathom a world with independent thinkers and doers. America has tremendous untapped power to overcome all kinds of potential problems that may come our way. You, however, would rather have the socialist/communist organizers make the world all "safe and fair". That's why you guys hate American cowboys like Bush. He supports other American cowboys who get things done instead of you whiners who do nothing but wring your hands and try to mooch off the doers.

Bush is bringing back our economy and keeping America independent from liberal jackals like you who want to tie our hands. If he doesn't serve the terrorists tea and cookies like you liberals want him to, you are just going to have to live with it. There are better things for him to do than listen to you crybabies. Your liberal crying about torture is only a specious front anyhow.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Bully, Gonzales' name is ALBERTO not Antonio. Since you don't even know his correct name, this should be an indication to you that some of your other information might not be correct either.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, Gonzales' name is ALBERTO not Antonio. Since you don't even know his correct name, this should be an indication to you that some of your other information might not be correct either.

I know this old son and I corrected it as soon as I caught it. Your opinion is duly noted, and dismissed.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well, I don't doubt that you do call it as you see it. I'm just suggesting that you're in dire need of a set of glasses to correct that faulty vision.

:funnyface

Sorry, I threw my rose-colored glasses away a loooong time ago.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Yikes. Bully ol buddy, you need to go back to the vet and get a booster for that distempter shot.

No, I need my rabies booster.

 

[Adam's Apple]

"Good Man" Follows the Law
By Repr. John Cornyn, USA Today
January 24, 2005

Judge Alberto Gonzales is an exceptional attorney, devoted public servant and good man of humble beginnings. His nomination to serve as our 80th attorney general — and our first of Hispanic descent — is an inspiring American success story.

Unfortunately, President Bush's political opponents are attempting to use his nomination to score political points. Specifically, they condemn Gonzales for advising the president that, although every detainee deserves to be treated humanely, al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters have no legal right to the numerous additional privileges afforded to prisoners of war under the 1949 Geneva Convention.

There is one important problem with this criticism: Gonzales is right. This interpretation of the convention enjoys overwhelming support. It is well grounded in the text, structure and history of the convention. It has been affirmed by three federal courts. And it is supported by the reports of the 9/11 Commission and the special prisoner-abuse commission as well as international law experts across the political spectrum. At the confirmation hearing, even the committee's senior Democrat and the two law school deans he invited to testify conceded that al-Qaeda fighters are not prisoners of war.

The president's position is not only legally right, but essential to national security. As Gonzales has rightly noted, the war on terrorism is a war of information. The United States must use all available legal means to obtain the information and intelligence necessary to protect against further attacks.

Gonzales unequivocally opposes torture. He also opposes extending international legal privileges to those not legally entitled to them. And he's right: Al-Qaeda fighters should not be immune from questioning techniques used every day in police stations across America, or equipped with tools that could be used against our own troops. They shouldn't get combat immunity for striking the Pentagon, nor be treated better than an American citizen accused of a crime.

The president's critics have also complained about his Guantanamo Bay policy. Yet, just last week, a federal court in Washington issued a sweeping endorsement of it, concluding "there is no viable legal theory" on which to justify opponents' claims.

Gonzales is an exceptional attorney and a good man. His efforts have made America more secure. He deserves to be confirmed.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.