Antonio Gonzales - Hypocrite

[Bonnie]

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.

This is not about trials Bully............This is about getting information that may save many American and other lives.........You don't have trials until conflicts are OVER!! And the Geneva Convention applies only to those in uniform fighting for a specific country, not al Qaeda terrorists! What about Roosevelt and World War II? We did much worse things to actual soldiers back then, and guess what WE WON!! We are doing nowhere near that today! what do you propose having tea with them?

 

[Bonnie]

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.)

Isn't that amazing????

 

[no1tovote4]

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.)

I could not believe when I heard the words "I would be personally offended by the drowning feeling" come from this guy's mouth. How crass can he be?! And naming the dog "Splash" I had no idea. This guy simply cares nothing for anybody but himself. I don't think that there is a person in government anywhere that I respect less than Ted Kennedy.

 

[Bonnie]

I could not believe when I heard the words "I would be personally offended by the drowning feeling" come from this guy's mouth. How crass can he be?! And naming the dog "Splash" I had no idea. This guy simply cares nothing for anybody but himself. I don't think that there is a person in government anywhere that I respect less than Ted Kennedy.

Maybe the years of drinking have him convinced it was his evil twin at Chappaquidick (sp)..........

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This whole fracas about the U.S. condoning "Torture" is nothing more than another ridiculous attack by the international Left. If they were really serious about squashing Torture around the world, they would not be wasting their time here in the U.S. There are way too many other places to spend their time and effort to get rid of serious Torture practices.

The whole point of this fracas is to bully and shame the U.S. into eventually submitting its sovereignty to international controls.

We ain't going to buy it.

PS: As I've pointed out before the Left thinks it is the big cheerleader for "Human Rights" which is really such a crock overall. What they are REALLY doing is using "Human Rights" as a lever to create international control.

 

[Bullypulpit]

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.

It applies to all...or to none. What part of that don't you understand? If our elected leaders are unwilling to extend the same protection under the law to non-citizens, that's "furriners" for you low-brows, that it extends to US citizens, how long before it comes to withdraw those protections from US? Not long...remember Jose Padilla?

 

[Bullypulpit]

This is not about trials Bully............This is about getting information that may save many American and other lives.........You don't have trials until conflicts are OVER!! And the Geneva Convention applies only to those in uniform fighting for a specific country, not al Qaeda terrorists! What about Roosevelt and World War II? We did much worse things to actual soldiers back then, and guess what WE WON!! We are doing nowhere near that today! what do you propose having tea with them?

As I said elswhere, "If you weren't so effing clueless...".

 

[Bullypulpit]

This whole fracas about the U.S. condoning "Torture" is nothing more than another ridiculous attack by the international Left. If they were really serious about squashing Torture around the world, they would not be wasting their time here in the U.S. There are way too many other places to spend their time and effort to get rid of serious Torture practices.

The whole point of this fracas is to bully and shame the U.S. into eventually submitting its sovereignty to international controls.

We ain't going to buy it.

PS: As I've pointed out before the Left thinks it is the big cheerleader for "Human Rights" which is really such a crock overall. What they are REALLY doing is using "Human Rights" as a lever to create international control. (<i>Now <b>that</b> is so much shit...bully</i>)

You wish, boyo! The Constitution speaks plainly to prohibitions of "cruel and unusual punishment". The US is signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Conventions Against Torture which specifically prohibit torture, and the UN Convention Against Torture defines torture. Needless to say, that definition does not match the one put forth by Alberto Gonzales.

As signatory to the above mentioned treaties, those treaties are from a Consititutional standpoint, the law of the land. Mr. Gonzales attempted to justify the Administration's attempts to nullify or outright ignore these treaty obligations. They have betrayed the values they say they wish to instill in Iraq...Democracy...Freedom (from torture)...Safety...They have cynically placed our troops in greater danger than they already face...They have given the enemy new resolve...They have aided, and abetted, the enemy by their actions. If you seek traitors, you need look no further than the current Administration.

 

[Merlin1047]

They have aided, and abetted, the enemy by their actions. If you seek traitors, you need look no further than the current Administration.

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

 

[Shattered]

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

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:

 

[NATO AIR]

again, this shows you the lunacy of the left.

the torture issue is a non-starter, there is little proof or real concern there, as far as him being fit for AG or unfit because of this issue.

the real issue, which the left avoids because it isn't as juicy an indictment of bush, is the terrible job gonzales did as bush's legal counsel in texas. the man robbed then gov. bush of important knowledge about death penalty cases, knowledge that COULD have made the governor speak out in favor of clemency, new trial, etc etc. in regards to questionable death penalty cases, of which there were and are many in texas.

Gonzales is not a good choice for AG. Ted Olson should have been the pick, a man who faithfully and skillfully served the government as solicitor general, and knows full well the importance of safeguarding america, he lost his wife on 9/11. plus he's more of a conservative than gonzales, and in a time of judicial activism, we need a conservative as AG.

 

[Bullypulpit]

again, this shows you the lunacy of the left.

the torture issue is a non-starter, there is little proof or real concern there, as far as him being fit for AG or unfit because of this issue.

the real issue, which the left avoids because it isn't as juicy an indictment of bush, is the terrible job gonzales did as bush's legal counsel in texas. the man robbed then gov. bush of important knowledge about death penalty cases, knowledge that COULD have made the governor speak out in favor of clemency, new trial, etc etc. in regards to questionable death penalty cases, of which there were and are many in texas.

Gonzales is not a good choice for AG. Ted Olson should have been the pick, a man who faithfully and skillfully served the government as solicitor general, and knows full well the importance of safeguarding america, he lost his wife on 9/11. plus he's more of a conservative than gonzales, and in a time of judicial activism, we need a conservative as AG.

I have to agree that Ted Olson SHOULD be the AG. And I don't think it would've made any difference whether Dubbyuh recieved accurate and timely information from Gonzales regarding capital cases. Dubbyuh positively delighted in sending people to the death house.

As for the torture issue being a non-starter, I have to disagree with you on that one. Gonzales is playing the same role here that a mafia consiglieri does...Using legal tactics, obfuscations and plausible deniability to keep his don out of prison.

 

[NATO AIR]

And I don't think it would've made any difference whether Dubbyuh recieved accurate and timely information from Gonzales regarding capital cases. Dubbyuh positively delighted in sending people to the death house.

As for the torture issue being a non-starter, I have to disagree with you on that one. Gonzales is playing the same role here that a mafia consiglieri does...Using legal tactics, obfuscations and plausible deniability to keep his don out of prison.

Bush didn't and does not delight in sending people to death.

Gonzales is a lightweight who has skated by in this business because he's a successful Mexican-American success story. That's the harsh truth, because other than his ethnicity, he has nothing going for him. He's incompetent, unknowledgable and did a terrible disservice to Pres. Bush when he was governor of Texas.

Ted Olson should be the AG, but then the libs and dems would cry foul over another older white man getting the job, and hit Pres. Bush over the head for being a hypocrite.

Its a no win situation for the president with these guys.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You wish, boyo! The Constitution speaks plainly to prohibitions of "cruel and unusual punishment". The US is signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Conventions Against Torture which specifically prohibit torture, and the UN Convention Against Torture defines torture. Needless to say, that definition does not match the one put forth by Alberto Gonzales.

As signatory to the above mentioned treaties, those treaties are from a Consititutional standpoint, the law of the land. Mr. Gonzales attempted to justify the Administration's attempts to nullify or outright ignore these treaty obligations. They have betrayed the values they say they wish to instill in Iraq...Democracy...Freedom (from torture)...Safety...They have cynically placed our troops in greater danger than they already face...They have given the enemy new resolve...They have aided, and abetted, the enemy by their actions. If you seek traitors, you need look no further than the current Administration.

Your very reply indicates how much you think that the international community should have control over the United States. The whole Human Rights "game" is on a defininte collision course with National sovereignty.

Exactly what do the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Conventions Against Torture say specifically about torture and our rights to gather intelligence? Why is the U.S. being singled out all the time for petty "torture" infractions? Why aren't the real torture practitioners being addressed and condemned? Especially those that are also members of the UN?

You also seem to think that the Geneva Convention is what we should follow with regard to Al Qaeda and other terrorists. These terrorists are not soldiers and therefore do not fall under the Geneva Convention. If we were to regard them as regular soldiers then we would not have the right to interrogate them under the GC. Terrorists sure don't follow the Convention. Why is it the Human Rights people aren't having serious talks with Al Qaeda about their torture practices? Hmm?

The liberal Democrats and the anti-American internationalists are clawing at Gonzales and the Administration because they wish to tear down any sovereignty the U.S. attempts to retain, attack Bush, and also to put a crimp into anything concerning the Iraq war. They are also trying to define how we should fight the war by limiting the U.S. abilities to gather intelligence through captured enemy combatants.

By your stupid support of these anti-American forces infiltrating our legal system you are helping destroy the sovereignty of the United States, you are helping the enemy, and you are putting more Americans at risk. I am beginning to think that your ilk hates the Bush administration more than Al Qaeda does.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Your very reply indicates how much you think that the international community should have control over the United States. The whole Human Rights "game" is on a defininte collision course with National sovereignty.

Exactly what do the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Conventions Against Torture say specifically about torture and our rights to gather intelligence? Why is the U.S. being singled out all the time for petty "torture" infractions? Why aren't the real torture practitioners being addressed and condemned? Especially those that are also members of the UN?

You also seem to think that the Geneva Convention is what we should follow with regard to Al Qaeda and other terrorists. These terrorists are not soldiers and therefore do not fall under the Geneva Convention. If we were to regard them as regular soldiers then we would not have the right to interrogate them under the GC. Terrorists sure don't follow the Convention. Why is it the Human Rights people aren't having serious talks with Al Qaeda about their torture practices? Hmm?

The liberal Democrats and the anti-American internationalists are clawing at Gonzales and the Administration because they wish to tear down any sovereignty the U.S. attempts to retain, attack Bush, and also to put a crimp into anything concerning the Iraq war. They are also trying to define how we should fight the war by limiting the U.S. abilities to gather intelligence through captured enemy combatants.

By your stupid support of these anti-American forces infiltrating our legal system you are helping destroy the sovereignty of the United States, you are helping the enemy, and you are putting more Americans at risk. I am beginning to think that your ilk hates the Bush administration more than Al Qaeda does.

Neither America, nor any other nation, exists in a vacuum. The consequences of our actions impact countless live around the world. The Adminstration must, therefore, be aware of and consider those consequences in the formulation of policy. It is the failure to do so by this and other administrations, both democrat and republican, that has led us to our current straights. None, however have been more egregious in this failure than Dubbyuh's administration.

Is American sovreignty worth the betrayal of the Constitution...? Of the treaties to which the US is signatory...? Of our basic humanity...? If we betray these things, the Republic dies.

And, what of the sovreignty of Iraq, a nation which has been shown to be no direct or imminent threat to anyone but its own people. The Administration claims it is there to promote democracy, but you cannot impose the institutions of democracy at the point of a gun. You save the gun for Al Qaeda and others of its ilk.

Your concerns regarding national sovreignty are a canard and your worries about "anti-American internationalists" smacks of nothing more than conspiracy theory. And you call liberals looney conspiracy theorists.

 

[Bonnie]

Neither America, nor any other nation, exists in a vacuum. The consequences of our actions impact countless live around the world. The Adminstration must, therefore, be aware of and consider those consequences in the formulation of policy. It is the failure to do so by this and other administrations, both democrat and republican, that has led us to our current straights. None, however have been more egregious in this failure than Dubbyuh's administration.

Is American sovreignty worth the betrayal of the Constitution...? Of the treaties to which the US is signatory...? Of our basic humanity...? If we betray these things, the Republic dies.

And, what of the sovreignty of Iraq, a nation which has been shown to be no direct or imminent threat to anyone but its own people. The Administration claims it is there to promote democracy, but you cannot impose the institutions of democracy at the point of a gun. You save the gun for Al Qaeda and others of its ilk.

Your concerns regarding national sovreignty are a canard and your worries about "anti-American internationalists" smacks of nothing more than conspiracy theory. And you call liberals looney conspiracy theorists.

Thanks Bully I needed a good laugh today!!!!! I can always count on you to privide that!!!!!!!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Neither America, nor any other nation, exists in a vacuum. The consequences of our actions impact countless live around the world. The Adminstration must, therefore, be aware of and consider those consequences in the formulation of policy. It is the failure to do so by this and other administrations, both democrat and republican, that has led us to our current straights. None, however have been more egregious in this failure than Dubbyuh's administration

Is American sovreignty worth the betrayal of the Constitution...? Of the treaties to which the US is signatory...? Of our basic humanity...? If we betray these things, the Republic dies..

We are not betraying the Constitution - the terrorists in custody are not U.S. citizens.
We are not betraying any treaties - there is no way you can point to any specifics.
We are not betraying basic humanity - look how we're helping Iraq & Afghanistan, not to mention protecting our own country. Just how do you think we were able to obtain intelligence to track down most of Saddam's henchmen?
The fastest way our Republic would die would be to submit our Constitution to international "authority". Our Constitution is what makes America stand out from all the others in this world.

And, what of the sovreignty of Iraq, a nation which has been shown to be no direct or imminent threat to anyone but its own people. The Administration claims it is there to promote democracy, but you cannot impose the institutions of democracy at the point of a gun. You save the gun for Al Qaeda and others of its ilk.

Do you think we are "pointing the gun" at most of the Iraqi citizens? Of course we are not. Most of the Iraqis are very happy to have this chance to finally govern themselves after being under Saddam's thumb. You should be rejoicing right along with them if you are a liberal who believes in freedom.

Your concerns regarding national sovreignty are a canard and your worries about "anti-American internationalists" smacks of nothing more than conspiracy theory. And you call liberals looney conspiracy theorists.

The world is changing and the NGOs of the world are having definite ramifications on international law.

 

[Bullypulpit]

We are not betraying the Constitution - the terrorists in custody are not U.S. citizens.
We are not betraying any treaties - there is no way you can point to any specifics.
We are not betraying basic humanity - look how we're helping Iraq & Afghanistan, not to mention protecting our own country. Just how do you think we were able to obtain intelligence to track down most of Saddam's henchmen?
The fastest way our Republic would die would be to submit our Constitution to international "authority". Our Constitution is what makes America stand out from all the others in this world.



Do you think we are "pointing the gun" at most of the Iraqi citizens? Of course we are not. Most of the Iraqis are very happy to have this chance to finally govern themselves after being under Saddam's thumb. You should be rejoicing right along with them if you are a liberal who believes in freedom.



The world is changing and the NGOs of the world are having definite ramifications on international law.

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.

 

[Merlin1047]

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

I'd have no issue with your conclusion to this statement so long as you apply your logic only to citizens of this country. But you would extend those same rights to those work to destroy us and then attempt to hide behind rights which should not apply to them.

Muslim nutbars are now accusing the USA, Israel and India of causing the earthquake which resulted in the devastating tsunami. Here is a little example of some of their "logic" about this tragedy:
==============================================
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200501/FOR20050107b.shtml

No accolades for America


More than $4 billion in aid -- much of it from Western nations -- has been pledged for emergency assistance and to help rebuild the ravaged regions

The U.S. relief effort reportedly has been well received on the ground. But Arab media have not had much to say about the enormous sums of money the West has pledged to the region, which includes Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world.

The Arab media has largely ignored Western contributions, instead concentrating on their own relief efforts, said Yotam Seldner of the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Oil-rich Saudi Arabia, which initially pledged just $10 million in disaster aid, tripled its pledge and then held a telethon on Thursday. Other local Arab television stations also launched fundraisers.

Other Gulf States have made sizeable contributions: the United Arab Emirates pledged $20 million, Kuwait $10 million and Qatar $25 million in aid.

In last Friday's sermon on Palestinian Authority television, Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris said that all those who died by drowning were martyrs. Nevertheless, he accused America and the Jews for bringing corruption to the area, which caused the judgment Allah to descend.

"The oppression and corruption caused by America and the Jews have increased," Mudeiris said, according to a translation provided by MEMRI.

"We...knew [Bangkok] as the center of corruption on the face of this earth. Over there, there are Zionist and American investments. Over there they bring Muslims and others to prostitution. Over there, there are beaches, which they dubbed 'tourists' paradise,' while only a few meters away, the locals live in hell on earth. They cannot make ends meet, while a few meters away there is a paradise, 'tourists' paradise,'" he charged.

"Whoever reads the Koran, given by the Maker of the World, can see how these nations were destroyed. There is one reason: they lied; they sinned; and [they] were infidels. Whoever studies the Koran can see this is the result," Ibrahim Al-Bashar, advisor to Saudi Arabia's Justice Minister argued on Saudi/UAE Al-Majd television.

"These great tragedies and collective punishments that are wiping out villages, towns, cities, and even entire countries, are Allah's punishments of the people of these countries, even if they are Muslims," said Saudi Professor Sheikh Fawzan Al-Fawzana on Al-Majd television.

He called it unfortunate that corrupt resorts exist in Islamic and other countries in South Asia.

"The fact that it happened at this particular time is a sign from Allah. It happened at Christmas, when fornicators and corrupt people from all over the world come to commit fornication and sexual perversion," he said, adding that all that is left is to ask for forgiveness.

But Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-Majid said during the Saudi fundraiser that this was his country's opportunity to export Islam.

"Some elements hostile to our country try to portray it as a country that exports terrorism, bombings, accusations of heresy, and hatred of the 'other,'" Al-Majid said. "But, through this campaign...we are showing the whole world that our country exports global empathy, love, harmony, peace, and Islam."

According to the State Department, Saudi Arabia has one of the worst human rights records in the region.
====================================

I don't know about you, but I think that it's high time we took the gloves off and started fighting this war as if we actually intend to win it.

And as far as the "rights" of muslim terrorists - screw 'em.

 

[Merlin1047]

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.