Antonio Gonzales - Hypocrite

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h1><a href=http://www.tompaine.com/articles/its_not_only_illegal_its_wrong.php>It's Just Plain Wrong</a></h1></center>

<blockquote>In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Rear Admiral John Hutson pointed out that Mr. Gonzales’ recommendations regarding torture brought increased animosity toward the United States, hurt our intelligence effort, and increased the risks to our troops.

This is true. Torture IS counterproductive. But actually it’s a lot worse. It’s also just plain wrong .

That’s why there are so many laws against it. Not because it’s counterproductive...but because it’s just plain wrong. And it is the rule of law that distinguishes us from animals who don’t know right from wrong.

With some things—like torture, like slavery—well, no matter how many people might say such practices are okay, they are not okay. They are objectively evil. They are morally abhorrent...or, at least, they should be.</blockquote>

Alberto Gonzales attempted to justify inhumane practices in pursuit of a higher good, but no good can ever come from such practices. They merely serve to desensitize others to those practices and dehumanize those who are the subjects of those practices.

Mr. Gonzales is a professed born again Christian, yet I don't ever recall Jesus advocating torture. He admonished us to visit prisoners, not torture them. In attempting to rationalize and justify torture and the violation of international human rights accords the US is signatory to, Mr. Gonzales acted contrary to his own self- professed religious beliefs. Like many in the current administration, Mr. Gonzales wears the mantle of religion like a rabid wolf wears sheeps clothing, so it may go ravening amongst the flock.

Mr. Gonzales, by his words and deeds, has shown himself unfit for the post of Attorney General of the US. He should, in good conscience, remove himself from consideration for this, or any other government post.

 

[padisha emperor]

yes, i heard that the democrate opposition doesn't agree, really , because Gonzales encouraged the torture in Abu Grahib's jail.

This thing wakes up the Bush's opposition.


But with 55 senators, even if the people disagree, Bush will name him with successfully

 

[dmp]

what a crock of horseshit - can you people really believe the guy condones 'torture'? Are you both that naive?

 

[KarlMarx]

Guys,guys, guys!!!!

The "torture" you are referring to is a set of interrogation techniques that don't induce pain or physical harm. "Psy-ops" as they are called include putting prisoners in solitary confinement and subjecting the suspect to loud noise or embarrassment. The "definition" of "torture" that you two are using was cooked up by some branch of the Left Wing. If the US were to follow that definition of torture, we'd be serving the detainees at Gitmo and other prisons cake and coffee during interrogations.

Secondly, the enemy combatants of the Islamic terrorists are not covered under the protocols of the Geneva Convention which only applies to soldiers. And by soldiers I mean men and women who are wearing uniforms and target military targets. I think that even you two would agree that the detainees at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo don't fit that definition. These detainees purposely have targetted civilians, do not fight by the rules of war as outlined in the Geneva Convention.

It is interesting that you seem to have more sympathy for a bunch of people that have very likely been involved in massive atrocities than in the people that our troops are trying to protect. Many of these detainees have themselves participated in torture by any stretch of the imagination (Cutting off of limbs, fingers, tongues and so on).

 

[padisha emperor]

why "torture" ?
Fot you, isn't it a real torture ?

 

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h1><a href=http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=280963>Ten Questions for Alberto Gonzales</a></h1></center>

 

[Bullypulpit]

what a crock of horseshit - can you people really believe the guy condones 'torture'? Are you both that naive?

He signed off on the memoes condoning what amount s to nothing more, or less, than torture. If you can't understand that, you're a bigger zipper-head than I thought.

 

[dmp]

He signed off on the memoes condoning what amount s to nothing more, or less, than torture. If you can't understand that, you're a bigger zipper-head than I thought.

you're a pussy if you call that 'torture'.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Guys,guys, guys!!!!

The "torture" you are referring to is a set of interrogation techniques that don't induce pain or physical harm. "Psy-ops" as they are called include putting prisoners in solitary confinement and subjecting the suspect to loud noise or embarrassment. The "definition" of "torture" that you two are using was cooked up by some branch of the Left Wing. If the US were to follow that definition of torture, we'd be serving the detainees at Gitmo and other prisons cake and coffee during interrogations.

Secondly, the enemy combatants of the Islamic terrorists are not covered under the protocols of the Geneva Convention which only applies to soldiers. And by soldiers I mean men and women who are wearing uniforms and target military targets. I think that even you two would agree that the detainees at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo don't fit that definition. These detainees purposely have targetted civilians, do not fight by the rules of war as outlined in the Geneva Convention.

It is interesting that you seem to have more sympathy for a bunch of people that have very likely been involved in massive atrocities than in the people that our troops are trying to protect. Many of these detainees have themselves participated in torture by any stretch of the imagination (Cutting off of limbs, fingers, tongues and so on).

That does not excuse or exempt us from either the Geneva Convention or international law. The simple fact of the matter is that torture is wrong and counterproductive, and no amount of spin can make it otherwise.

If these people have been involved in attrocities bring them to trial for their crimes, present the evidence in court and, if the evidence warrants, convict them. That is what America stands for or stood for, not secret dententions, not indefinite detention without charge, not torture. I'm sorry if you cannot understand that. If that is what America is to become, then I want no part of it, and I will fight to prevent it from becoming so.

 

[padisha emperor]

sorry, I post and have not seen Marx's post.


THe terrorists are not protected by the geneva convention, but it is not a reason to torture them.
The European Convention of the Human Rights punish the inhuman treatments and the torture acts.
I think that the UNO pact of 1966 forbide them too.
And I think - I hope that USa signed this pact.

Then, even if terrorists aren't protect by Geneva's convention, USA have to respect the dignity of the Human beeing, of each man, and don't torture people, USA have to not ashame these guys....


When you told me that they weren't protect by Geneva's treaty, one example came to me : the russians prisonners during the WWII : USSR didn't sign the Geneva convention of 1929, then Hitler make inhuman and very hard treatments to these POW.
USA are better than the Nazi Germany.


The fact that these guys are terrorists doesn't mean that USa have all the rights to them.
Look at france : France is still ashamed by some torture acts in Algeria.

US acts in Abu Grahib is the same thing (maybe not, in Algeria it was to have some informations about the rebellion, nevermind).

 

[padisha emperor]

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.

 

[KarlMarx]

That does not excuse or exempt us from either the Geneva Convention or international law. The simple fact of the matter is that torture is wrong and counterproductive, and no amount of spin can make it otherwise.

If these people have been involved in attrocities bring them to trial for their crimes, present the evidence in court and, if the evidence warrants, convict them. That is what America stands for or stood for, not secret dententions, not indefinite detention without charge, not torture. I'm sorry if you cannot understand that. If that is what America is to become, then I want no part of it, and I will fight to prevent it from becoming so.

Sorry Bully, but these people are NOT American Citizens and therefore not protected by the Bill of Rights, they are NOT soldiers and thus not protected by the Geneva Convention.

The approach of fighting the war on terror with lawyers and judges was already tried by the Clinton Administration and we suffered 9/11 as a result. This is a war, and we have to fight it that way.

America hasn't become "this way" for you and I. We are still protected by the Bill of Rights.

Again, you are using "torture" to mean anything worse than speaking to someone in a normal tone of voice. These people have to be treated harshly (within certain boundaries). These people are not being subjected to torture in the traditional sense.

 

[KarlMarx]

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.

I believe Padisha that if you were to look at Algeria in the 1950s and how the French soldiers conducted themselves while fighting the Algerian rebels (with the consent of the French top brass), you would find far worse atrocities than were ever imagined by the staff of Abu Grahib prison!

Plus, taking their honor away isn't torture. These people are ready and willing to subject harm and death to all of those who do not agree with their way of thinking including other Moslems. The Islamic terrorists do not respect our religion or the rights of others, I really don't think that your argument holds much water.

 

[KarlMarx]

sorry, I post and have not seen Marx's post.


THe terrorists are not protected by the geneva convention, but it is not a reason to torture them.
The European Convention of the Human Rights punish the inhuman treatments and the torture acts.
I think that the UNO pact of 1966 forbide them too.
And I think - I hope that USa signed this pact.

Then, even if terrorists aren't protect by Geneva's convention, USA have to respect the dignity of the Human beeing, of each man, and don't torture people, USA have to not ashame these guys....


When you told me that they weren't protect by Geneva's treaty, one example came to me : the russians prisonners during the WWII : USSR didn't sign the Geneva convention of 1929, then Hitler make inhuman and very hard treatments to these POW.
USA are better than the Nazi Germany.


The fact that these guys are terrorists doesn't mean that USa have all the rights to them.
Look at france : France is still ashamed by some torture acts in Algeria.

US acts in Abu Grahib is the same thing (maybe not, in Algeria it was to have some informations about the rebellion, nevermind).

The Geneva Convention wasn't held until after World War II.

Secondly, the US did sign the Geneva Convention when it first was established. However, it did not sign on to the extensions (I believe it was called "Protocol I"), as did some other countries.

The United States is not obligated to observe any treaty unless the United States Senate votes in its favor. That is the case of the "Protocol I" extension to the Geneva Convention that you are referring to.

Secondly, if you honestly believe that Nazi Germany and Communist Russia would have observed the Geneva Convention even if it were in existence during World War II, you are more naive than even I give you credit for. Regimes like Nazi Germany, Cuba, and Communist Russia, China and North Korea don't exist because their leaders respect the rule of law. They exist because their leaders are nothing more than gangsters with a country. They would not have had any less compunction to torture and murder prisoners of war if they had signed the Geneva Convention than if they hadn't. To people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and others, treaties and agreements are just pieces of paper that don't mean anything.

As an example... if you remember your history, Hitler and Stalin both signed a non-aggression pact in 1939.... Hitler invaded the Soviet Union the following year!

 

[padisha emperor]

I believe Padisha that if you were to look at Algeria in the 1950s and how the French soldiers conducted themselves while fighting the Algerian rebels (with the consent of the French top brass), you would find far worse atrocities than were ever imagined by the staff of Abu Grahib prison!

karl, I mention it in my post.
France is ashamed by this torture in Algeria.

but one difference : Abu Grahib : for the entertainment of the soldiers.
Algeria : to have some informations about the rebel forces, and then to find and fight them.
A little bit like the US torture in VN.


For WWII : Germany repsect and treat quite well US, brits and french prisonners. Of course, the fact that USSR didn't sign the Geneva convetnion was the juridfical excuse, Hitler wanted to destruct the russians......

i'm not naive

Butr the example of torture of prisonners : N-Korea, Nazi germany, Cuba, China.....dictatorship, or not far, at one moment of their history.

USA are better than a dictatorship.
they have to respect the human rights.
Even if these guys were not covered by Geneva convention.
they are human beeing, they have to be protect.
Above all protected from some stupid soldiers who want to enjoy a little witrh these prissonners. they were solidiers of the Iraqi amry, not al quaeda members.

 

[padisha emperor]

And it was torture !

if it would happend with US prisonners, you would be the first to be scandalized by these torture acts.

 

[Flying Duck]

Speaking of hypocrites, during the interogation of Gonzales today - Ted Kennedy, of all people, spent a few minutes talking about how horrendous water torture and drowning are. :blah2:

(Footnote: Ted Kennedy has dog named "Splash." <-- True fact.)

 

[CSM]

The Geneva Convention wasn't held until after World War II.

Secondly, the US did sign the Geneva Convention when it first was established. However, it did not sign on to the extensions (I believe it was called "Protocol I"), as did some other countries.

The United States is not obligated to observe any treaty unless the United States Senate votes in its favor. That is the case of the "Protocol I" extension to the Geneva Convention that you are referring to.

Secondly, if you honestly believe that Nazi Germany and Communist Russia would have observed the Geneva Convention even if it were in existence during World War II, you are more naive than even I give you credit for. Regimes like Nazi Germany, Cuba, and Communist Russia, China and North Korea don't exist because their leaders respect the rule of law. They exist because their leaders are nothing more than gangsters with a country. They would not have had any less compunction to torture and murder prisoners of war if they had signed the Geneva Convention than if they hadn't. To people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and others, treaties and agreements are just pieces of paper that don't mean anything.

As an example... if you remember your history, Hitler and Stalin both signed a non-aggression pact in 1939.... Hitler invaded the Soviet Union the following year!

Actually, there have been many Geneva conventions....the first was in 1863.

http://www.redcross.lv/en/conventions.htm

 

[padisha emperor]

thank you CSM

 

[NATO AIR]

i have read numerous articles both attacking and defending gonzales's conduct in regards to the torture memo issue and the wider question there, and though i dislike how he and other civilian lawyers working in the administration muddled this critical issue, potentially confusing and misleading US military folks, i don't think he broke the law or had some sort of moral lapse... on the torture issue.

my problem with gonzales, and why i think he is a bad choice for AG and a terrible choice for the Supreme Court, is his conduct as counsel to then Gov. Bush... simply put, the man did a shitty job on death penalty briefs to then Gov. Bush... to the point where he really was misleading and misinforming then Gov. Bush. that's disturbing to me. there are those who have looked at the facts behind this and said bush bears blame as well, but i think it all goes down on gonzales and i think its a pity that the dems are politicizing this over the torture confusion, not the more serious legal and moral problems gonzales proved he had during his time as gov. bush's counsel.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030620.html

nevertheless, gonzales will be confirmed and the dems will only have made him look better for wear because of all the trivial bullshit they threw at him, as well as outright lies. i can only hope AG gonzales is a much better AG than he was a legal counsel in Texas.