Blitzer described Senate passage of detainee bill as a "critical victory for President Bush in the war on terror"
On the September 28 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer described the Senate's passage of a controversial Republican-backed bill governing the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects as a "a critical victory for President Bush in the war on terror." But while Congress' approval clearly represents a victory for Bush, numerous Democratic opponents of the bill explicitly disputed the claim that it makes the country safer.
For instance, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) predicted the bill would undermine U.S. efforts to fight terrorism. He said, "When we're sloppy and cut corners, we are undermining those very virtues of America that will lead us to success in winning this war." Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) pointed out that military lawyers have expressed concern about the effect of the legislation on the future treatment of captured U.S. soldiers: "We must remember what the Army Judge Advocate General told me at a Judiciary Committee hearing this summer: that the United States should set an example for the world, and that we must carefully consider the effect on the way our own soldiers will be treated." And Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asserted that, by approving the bill, "[W]e allow the terrorists to win by doing to ourselves what they could never do and abandon the principles for which so many Americans today and through our history have fought and sacrificed."
From the September 28 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Just moments ago, a critical victory for President Bush in the war on terror. The U.S. Senate gave what amounts to final approval of a bill setting rules for the interrogation and the trial of terror suspects. It's expected to head to Mr. Bush's desk for his signature in the next few days, after he personally lobbied lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Also visible on the Hill today, new sniping over which party can better protect Americans from terrorists.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Whether or not you agree with this bill, and I have many misgivings about it and am personally very torn on this whole issue, this is "a critical victory for President Bush in the war on terror". Blitzer doesn't say it's a critical victory for America, he simply states it is for Bush.
A critical victory for Bush in his war on the Constitution.
in his war OF terror.
In the war on terror which is debateable at best. It could easilby be seen as a setback on a sane course for fighting that very war. It is certainly not a FACT as Blitzer stated it.
What did Media Matters say?
"But while Congress' approval clearly represents a victory for Bush, numerous Democratic opponents of the bill explicitly disputed the claim that it makes the country safer."
Media Matters doesn't question that it is a victory for Bush. In fact, Media Matters said that this bill's approval is a victory for Bush. Blitzer said that it was a victory....in the war on terror, and it is quite doubtful if this bill actually will turn out to be a victory, or if in fact it will actually diminish our potential victory over terror and terrorists.
Tommy apparently didn't read the Media Matters article. Tommy, have a kneejerk reaction without thinking deeply on the subject? Tell me it's not true!
Read the headline again............(waiting, waiting).
Finished? Good.
What is the misinformation in it? It has nothing to do with the Democrats reaction. Blitzer, along with you and I, are saying it's a victory for Bush. For America, that is a different matter depending on your perspective.
Usually you are more on the metal than this Sue, bad day?
And then you need to actually read the entire article before commenting again.
"Blitzer, along with you and I, are saying it's a victory for Bush."
No, Blitzer explicitly said that it's a victory for Bush in the war on terror. Is it really possible that you don't understand the distinction? It's not even a subtle one. What if someone said that it was "a victory for Bush in the war on the Constitution"? Would your reaction be the same?
- And a major victory for President Bush. The Senate has just passed a bill concerning the trying and treatment of terror detainees. - Blitzer
That should satisfy everyone. No mention of in..on..over..under the war on terror.
Wolfie said, "a critical victory for President Bush in the war on terror" and "a major victory for President Bush".
LOL...what a bunch of nitpickers.
Right, just cut out the part of the quote that's biased and, whaddayaknow, no bias! Gee, I guess you win.
Follow your own advice and read the entire transcript...he made both statements.
Inform yourself before posting nonsense...
Please explain.
It's called sarcasm...keerist.
Its called stupidity
But she is right Tommy.
The misinformation is that Wolf states that the passage of the bill is a victory for President Bush in the war on terror. The dispute is that its not a victory in the war on terror. It may be a victory for Bush but its not a victory in the war on terror.
That fact that Bush is equated with the War on Terror is also misinformation. Republicans and Bush dont won 9/11 and they dont own the war on terror.
Blitzer is saying that is a victory for Bush in the war on terror. There is nothing erroneous or misleading in that whatsoever. It isn't a victory for Bush in the war on drugs, or the war on taxes, or the war on anything else. Blitzer is specific in what the bill is for Bush. That's all.
I still say there is no implication in what Blitzer said. If he had said "Just moments ago, a critical victory for "AMERICA" in the war on terror" - then you would have a legitimate right wing bias.
is erroneous therefore, the entire statement is bunk. It is no victory for anyone for that matter, it is a solemn defeat for human rights.
The emphasis doesnt change the CONTENT of what is said. HE said it was a victory for Bush IN the war on terror. Either both propositions asserted are true or the statement is questionable. Both that it was a victory for Bush AND that it was a victory in the war on terror. The second is NOT a factual statement rather it is an opinion, one I find questionable and debateable and thats being charitible. Your strange assertion that since the FIRST part is true the second part should be ignored, we should pretend it is NOT a questionable and baseless assertion is ludicrous. The statement had two assertions only one of which is factual ergo its misinformation by dint of it being a baseless assertion.
It's a great victory for Bush, but another blow to our honor. We're becoming more like our enemies and less like Americans.
Excellent point that cuts to the heart of it. I read a quote receently, the gist of which is: The problem isn't that we are too much like our enemies; it is that we are not different enough from them.
And if we're not different enough, why would anyone in the Muslim world join our side against other Muslims?
exactly what it is that is a "blow to our honor".
While you are it, please explain specifically why this legislation makes us more like our enemies and less like Americans.
Cite for me the actual wording if you will, in the legislation that backs up your assertions.
As far as I can tell, many of you are all spouting leftist-anti-american talking points without knowing exactly what it is you are protesting.
a) whenever you equate "leftist" and "anti-American," you are revealing the depth of your ignorance and personal intolerance. Being leftist does not equate to "anti-American," and if you believe so, then you have no perspective, nounderstaning of history and must disagree with the fundamental idea of the Bill of Rights. Do you really believe what you are spouting? Don't complain about talking points by throwing out some.
b) if you are actually interested, here's some specific analysis of the language:
[link to www.truthout.org]
This bill is an assault on civil liberties and is simply another attempt to consolidate power by the Republicans. It is entirely possible that an Ameerican citizen could be picked up and sent to one of Bush's secret prisons with no recourse no matter how much of a misunderstanding it may be. If you think it can't happen here, you again have no real knowledge of American history.
c) How can you complain about others not giving specific analysis of the language and yet not provide any such analysis to rebut the so-called "talking points?" Lame, lame, lame.
exact wording that confirms this legislation will promote the health and safety of Americans.
Such literalist nonsense.
In fact don't answer this post just traipse blithely through meadows safe from the stench of torture and horror and death. Smiles everyone, smiles.
Unamerican Hate freedom rhetoric. Why do conservatives like AA hate civil liberties, dissent, and freedom so much?
These guys are radicals - the conservatives used to be staunch defenders of the Constitution. And if you go back to Nixon, the environment - many don't realize this, but the EPA was Nixon's creation. These guys are NOTHING like the conservatives of 30 years ago. These guys are radical, dangerous people who are about consolidation of power and squelching of dissent. And they are using fear as justification - just like many other times throughout history.
The "detainee legislation" doesn't make the country safer from a "terror attack"... no more than does the military excursion in Iraq make the country safer from a "terror attack".
And when these "media" hacks claim either of those things, they simply read from a script... a script of nonsense, that the American People have already read and rejected.
My favorite assessment so far of the Senate's passage of the "detainee legislation", comes from the Senior Senator from New York...
SCHUMER: “Republicans thought this would end up in a big roar for them, and it is ending up in a little whimper.”
...but as you can see from this item, their (Republican's) "media" hacks are going to roar anyway...
Right on cue, as though they were reading from a script.
Blitzer doesn't simply state that the bill's passage is a political victory for Bush. The very subtle implication in Blitzer's additional "in the war on terror"-whether it was intentional or not-is that the passage of the bill will greatly help Bush combat terrorism despite opposition when, in fact, others think this bill will have a different if not opposite effect.
There is no subtle implication anywhere. He clearly states what he states. Unless you have just opened up your own mind reading store specializing in subtle implications, you are flat out interpreting something that is only evident in your partisan mind.
If you were truly unable to grasp subtlety and fine distinction, Tommy, I'd welcome a discussion. But the fact is, I think you do grasp it and are being argumentative, antagonistic and combative, as usual. As the song goes, some get their kicks by flying in a plane. You evidently get yours this way.
So many here are so arrogant that anyone who disagrees with them has to be argumentative.
I just wonder if any of them has looked in a mirror recently.
anothermoron? why hide behing tommy's skirt?
If you can't argue intelligently without calling us morons or idiots, then please move to the playground with the other children. Weak arguments reveal themselves through your antics.
Go ahead and whine, I'm having fun playing here. If you want to actually have a discussion fine, but if you play games (and that is what you're doing on this thead) why should you expect any respect? You know exactly what the implication is of Blitzer's statement, you won't admit it though, you'd rather play word games. So let's play tommy. if you don't want to play by the rules of the game, fine don't. but don't whine when someone steps outside the rules too.
Quick, little Suzy just flew off the merry-go-round and little Johnny climbed to the top of the monkey bars.
Hurry, the teeter totter is open!
so's your mom.
What an addition to the dialog!!!
where ya been? I thought maybe you got hauled to the dump.
learn to read. I literally said that you were making an excellent point for an idiot meaning that you were explaining the point that an idiot made. That is what the sentence literally says. you may interpret that sentence anyway you choose. You may infer that I was insulting you, (or trying to insult you, since I'd be suprised if you cared what I think of you), but that is not what I wrote. This is the game you're playing tommy. you chose your rules don't pout when someonelse plays too.
Who, exactly, was the idiot you were referring to, if it was not me?
tommy. the difference between what the words literally meant in my sentence and what I said are two different things. Just like your steadfast hold on the actual words that came out of Blizer's mouth have a different literal meaning that what the logical implication is. I posted my comment in question to highlight this issue.
......intentionally vague, but it doesn't matter. We know who you called idiot, any idiot can read it and see for themselves.
So when you made the statement about how "open" my mom was, that was what? A complimentary invective slam and a kiss on my cheek, or something?
You want to split hairs for blitzer fine. I point that out with a semantic trap that you step in and you cry. typical conservative. take your ball and go home tommy.
Typical Fatbob.
Insult........change subject........insult again.........deflect argument..........gutter insult again..........cry foul...........whine accusation..........tired old insults again.........repeat above.
I am bored with you now, poof!
all your arguments are poof because you never have proof. when you get cornered you you disappear. byby.
>>"So many here are so arrogant that anyone who disagrees with them has to be argumentative."<<
In response to Another American's post, I didn't -as falsely claimed-accuse "anyone who disagrees with me" of being argumentative. I specifically addressed one person and one person only. I didn't address my comment to you or a group of people.
You chose to interject yourself here with a straw man of "anyone who disagrees", etc. in order to, ironically, start an argument with me. The person who is argumentative? Look in the mirror.
Not to be argumentative, but If you want to be nitpicky, you can see that I never specifically referred to you.
;-)
It was just an observation on my part. I did not specifically call you out nor ask for a response. So in that vein I am not starting an arguement. However, feel free to disagr... oops argue.
>>"If you want to be nitpicky, you can see that I never specifically referred to you."<<
You replied to my post. Your response was directed to me, and you clearly meant them for me to read. Now you're obviously trying to backpedal.
It just happened to come to the forefront after reading your note.
However, this is the second time I am posting that my note wasn't sent just to argue with you, but only to convey my overall opinion of many posters here at MMFA, of which you are but one.
However you seem to want to personalize it and, in my opinion, argue. So be it. Just remember that you are being the argumentative one... and one who is much more 'argumentative' than Tommy was to begin with.
Time for a little introspection my friend.
>>"you seem to want to personalize it"<<
Repeating: YOU addressed your rant TO ME. You don't want to account for it, you want to blame someone else.
Next time you launch an admonishment of the forum, address it to all of us, not one of us. That is simple common sense----for most people.
Just an observation on my part.
As I have said numerous times before, if you know the only reason I am here is to be combative or argumentative, then you would do yourself, and me, a favor and discontinue responding to my posts. For you, they are a waste of time, correct?
And we get it, anyone who disagrees with your left wing bias, or challenges it in anyway, you deem combative, argumentative and antagonistic. Perhaps if you had more conviction and confidence, it wouldn't be so troublesome for you.
>>"anyone who disagrees with your left wing bias, or challenges it in anyway, you deem combative, argumentative and antagonistic"<<
No, Tommy. Not "anyone". Look around. You have the sole distinction. Because those three adjectives fit Tommy & Tommy only -not just "anyone".
Disagreements welcome. Immature provovations are not.
It was
Whether or not you agree with this bill, and I have many misgivings about it and am personally very torn on this whole issue, this is "a critical victory for President Bush in the war on terror". Blitzer doesn't say it's a critical victory for America, he simply states it is for Bush. * - tommy / Friday September 29, 2006 12:45:18 PM EST
****************************
Tell me how this is an "immature provocation?"
>>"Tell me how this is an "immature provocation?""<<
Gladly. Here's your immature, provocative response to my original post-which wasn't even directed at you to begin with:
"Ridiculous ... Unless you have just opened up your own mind reading store specializing in subtle implications, you are flat out interpreting something that is only evident in your partisan mind."
If you were truly unable to grasp subtlety and fine distinction, Tommy, I'd welcome a discussion.
************************
What you would welcome is poster after poster agreeing with you and stroking your fragile ego with high fives.
What it is that you don't welcome, are contrary opinions - no matter how they are framed.
...would be welcome . When will you start?
Face it, your defense against an opposing opinion is to childishly label it "combative, argumentative and antagonistic". For by resorting to this transparent tactic, you seem to think you will disarm the other's argument and you won't have to defend yours.
But I, along with most I would guess, see right through it........like a plate glass window.
In fact I agree.
Maybe it comes from being in the minority around here so often and having to defend our position by logic and reference that we can see these intellectually weak and many times childish responses by people who should know better.
I think much of the arrogance comes from this group mentality of blind and near religious acceptance of MMFA's agenda driven interpretation of events. So many here don't realize that they dogmatically and uncritically accept everything MMFA espouses as "gospel". It never occurs to them that MMFA is only showing one side of every argument.
Whenever one expresses even a slightly different opinion, (as you did originally,) it is treated as heresy. Many now seem to think that normal rules of courtesy and logic can be dispensed, all in the name of protecting the orthodoxy. God forbid anyone outright disagree!
Many times I think that Ann Coulter makes a good point in her book, "Godless". The religious like ferver expressed here by so many proves her point again and again.
But.. that is just my opinion. ;-)
Agree. Often times I get criticized for posting on how silly or weak a topic is, on it's face. Immediately, I get a response saying "Well, don't read it then, move on, or that is not the topic". When in actuality, commenting on the validity and worthiness of a posted thread here goes right to the heart and legitimacy of it, in itself.
And then the argumentative argument inevitably comes, and then the troll argument, and then...........
Jumpstart an argument is good for all sides, in my opinion. It makes everyone think and rethink their positions, evaluate them and determine whether or not they are sound. Opposing opinions threaten some here, while others appreciate them and discuss intelligently.
It goes with the territory, and if I don't like it or get over it sometime, I just throw champagne at my monitor and hurl expletives at the screen. Good therapy.
That this or that thread is not worthy of being talked about is NOT striking at the legitimacy of ANYTHING, it is YOU asserting that YOUR judgement on what is and what is not worthy is more important and more valid than the people who RUN THIS SITE. ITS NOT YOUR CALL. We dont let foxes decide how to guard henhouses and we dont need conservatives telling us which topics are worthy of discussion on CONSERVATIVE misinformation. You really need to get over yourself
The reason so many of us get worked up over the arguments put forth by certain people here is precisely because they are more often than not completely illogical, and that causes the "debates" to degenerate into pointless noise, as this thread already has. I don't know...maybe that's their goal. For instance--since you brought up the ever-popular "opinion defense"--you can't counter sound logic by saying that your illogical position is just an "opinion." Opinions can't negate the facts. But if one side refuses to acknowledge that, then the argument goes absolutely nowhere, and eventually the insults starts flying.
The point is that facts spawn many differing opinions.....why do you think we are so divided on so many issues. It isn't always facts that are argued, it's philosophy, experience, selfishness, viewpoint, whatever that determine much of our opinions on issues.
People that are entrenched in their opinions and cannot waver, in spite of evidence and facts, are blind partisans and ideologues.
Those that stand by their values and beliefs, but change their opinions when presented in-context facts that are not refutable, are principled adults.
Tommy wrote a post that I agree with to the letter. Now, don't be surprised when I quote that back to you sometime in the future.
Clams,
You only get upset because someone disagrees with you. I'll wager that the odds are 20 to one that the people you refer to here:
"because they are more often than not completely illogical, and that causes the "debates" to degenerate into pointless noise, as this thread already has. I don't know...maybe that's their goal." are people on the same side as you.
Take a look at Fatbob's initial posts here and elsewhere. What about Nerzog? I never see you argue this point with them.
C'mon. If it is good for the goose it should be good for the gander! Before you go attacking Tommy next time, take a minute to count the illogical arguments and name calling that goes on by your side.
Tommy's antagonism
"...you seem to think you will disarm the other's argument and you won't have to defend yours." --Tommy<<
May I remind Tommy (and his apologists) that my original post on this thread -which wasn't even directed at Tommy-clearly outlined my opinion of the topic. I won't re-post it. But this was Tommy's "argument" in reply to me:
"Ridiculous ... Unless you have just opened up your own mind reading store ...[it is] only evident in your partisan mind."
This is not a thoughtful argument by any stretch. These are unprovoked insults designed to antagonize. And it's typical of Tommy to spew them out and then later deny, just as he is disingenuosly doing above.
In pretending that Blitzer did not say what he definitly said. He said it was a victory for Bush IN THE WAR ON TERROR. Now that makes TWO, count them you have enough fingers, TWO assertions, that it was a victory for Bush which is fine IN THE WAR ON TERROR, which is a baseless assertion. An assumption not based on facts in evidence. Tommy tried very hard to pretend only the first part of the assertion existed or mattered. That is not logic, its wishful thinking or something
She makes attacks, like that baseless assertion that you regurgitated, like the good little propaganda parrot you are. Now thats ok if its what you want to do. I am willing to flamethrow with anyone. Pretending it is a point is basic stupidity another thing you excel at. If you could RECOGNIZE what a point WAS perhaps you could do better than that but I wont hold my breath. Perhaps when they perfect brain transplants you can graduate to higher brain function. I must admit it gave me a laugh to read a Bush idolotor talking about religious fervor. The zeal with which you deny reality DEFINES religious fervor.
"...you seem to think you will disarm the other's argument and you won't have to defend yours." --Tommy<<
May I remind Tommy that my original post on this thread -which wasn't even directed at Tommy-clearly outlined my opinion of the topic. I won't re-post it. But this was Tommy's "argument" in reply to me:
"Ridiculous ... Unless you have just opened up your own mind reading store ...[it is] only evident in your partisan mind."
This is not a thoughtful argument by any stretch. These are unprovoked insults designed to antagonize. And it's typical of Tommy to spew them out and then later deny, just as he is disingenuosly doing above.
What is the literal meaning of that sentence tommy? What is the meaning I intend?
Having just skimmed 2 of the threads HERE, it appears SOME folks are extra testy this afternoon. I'm NOT gonna even ask "can't we all get along" AND debate like civil grownups...TOO late for that.
Blitzer's assessment that the Senate passage of the detainee bill is a "critical victory for President Bush in the war on terror" may be HIS opinion, BUT it likely is shared by others. Obviously not the Democrats, OR MANY here, OR even by me....for now. I'm willing to hear more about this BEFORE making a judgement. Yes it's a victory for Bush, and we'll just have to wait & see IF it helps in other areas in our fight against terrorism.
Just because SOME may disagree with Blitzer OR dispute his evaluation does NOT mean he's wrong.
Opposing views do NOT equal MIS-information.
Now I've got to get back to work.
Try to play nice kids ;-)
"Just because SOME may disagree with Blitzer OR dispute his evaluation does NOT mean he's wrong. Opposing views do NOT equal MIS-information."
But he is a newscaster, and he is stating his opinion in a newscast, as fact. The fact that you point out it is his opinion shows you understand this. If he is presenting his opinion as fact he is spreading mis-information. If he thought that bush was the second coming of satan and said that the torture bill proves that, that would be mis-information too, and I'd be willing to bet that tommy and band of singing chimps would agree. enjoy work.
Blitzer probably should have said: The Bush administration [and the GOP] believe that the Senate passage of the detainee bill is a "critical victory for President Bush in the war on terror".
Had he done that, I DOUBT this thread would even be here.
Blitzer, like TOO many "so called" journalists make the mistake of making statements without CLARIFYING that it is someone else's opinion.
HOWEVER, I'm gonna cut Blitzer some slack here. Having read his remarks again I'm NOT so certain that he was necessarily giving HIS opinion on this.
"Just moments ago, a critical victory for President Bush in the war on terror." ...Blitzer
Critical victory? True.
Detainee Bill, part of the war on terror? True.
At least I think MOST fair-minded people would accept that.
IF the Detainee Bill is NOT connected to the war on terror...then what CATEGORY would you put it in?
These are "prisoners" [or detainees] of WAR-- are they not?
Feel free to disagree, BUT please tell me WHY you do. I'm willing to listen.
For it not to be it would have to be a FACT that this was a victory in the war on terror which I would absolutly deny is a fact. He cites no evidence to support that view. It was an opinion PERIOD. He stated it as fact. It is an opinion that carries Bush administration water. Newscasters doing their jobs with some measure of integrity would not be adding partisan opinions stated as fact during a news segment.
Not to nit-pick BUT... you wrote:
"For it not to be it would have to be a FACT that this was a victory in the war on terror which I would absolutly deny is a fact."...by Solon
Blitzer said:
"Just moments ago, a critical victory for President Bush in the war on terror."
Blitzer said it was a victory FOR Bush in the war on terror NOT a Victory in the War on terror.
Ok maybe I'm parsing/mincing words ;-)
Solon, as you know I'm NOT a supporter of this administration OR the invasion of Iraq HOWEVER, when I read what Blitzer said I did NOT consider it biased or think...hey this guy is spinning this in favor of Bush.
Just curious, HOW would you suggest that Blitzer SHOULD have worded it?
He said it was a victory for Bush IN THE WAR ON TERROR. Which anyway you want to TRY to parse it IF you want to stay within the defined limits of the english language CONSTITUTES A VICTORY IN THE WAR ON TERROR. Words mean things. Real and defined things. Not whatever you want them to mean to be convienient for an argument. This claims a victory for Bush (which I have no problem with) IN THE WAR ON TERROR, which is assuming facts definitly NOT in evidence, thus misinformation by framing a partisan opinion stated as fact
Why so many of you think this bill passage is detrimental to America?
Does this law contradict the wording of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention?
Does this bill follow the dictates laid out by the Supreme Court in Hamdan vs Rumsfield?
Oh.. one last question....
Do our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan follow the Geneva Convention?
torturing people is morally wrong. period. it's what the evil ones do. are you evil? if you are not, then you should not torture people.
The only one's I seem to torture are those who like to post stupid and meaningless insults here on MMFA?
You're not one of those are you?
but it only shows your ignorance.
Since he felt it was important to claim that this legislation could put future American prisoners in more danger...maybe he could spend some time researching how American prisoners have ALREADY been treated by our enemies.
Hence the "more" in the phrase "more danger". They're already treated badly by some, this makes it worse, since it gives anyone and everyone the behave the same way we do. We have no moral authority anymore.
Did you have a point?
"anyone and everyone the right to behave...", of course.
- since it gives anyone and everyone the behave the same way we do.
Care to explain...I don't understand gibberish.
I corrected the comment immediately. If you still don't understand it afterwards, try this:If we are going to present ourselves to the world as the example by which they should follow, then our treatment of prisoners is the model they will follow as well. So when our troops are tortured (as long as the methods aren't labeled "torture" by a foreign government), or one of our citizens gets detained indefinitely just because they're labeled an "enemy" by a foreign government, how exactly are we supposed to complain? That's what we have given ourselves the license to do, so why should other countries not do the same?
Note I'm talking about actual governmental bodies, not bands of terrorists, by the way.
Now not only will evil people torture our soldiers if we get our soldiers captured in a future war with civilized countries THEY will have no reason NOT to torture them, and a very compelling argument as to why they are justified in doing so. How in the world could we reasonably complain? Oh I know that WE have condoned torture but that doesnt mean anyone should torture OUR people, just wont cut it.
Why do we no longer have any moral authority?
We have plenty of morality. Brabantio's comment is liberal gibberish.
We SHOULD expect "anyone and everyone to behave the way we do"...rather than beheading prisoners.
Terrific, so whenever our troops are tortured, that has your official seal of approval on it.
As your conservative inanities.
Look at your own post. Do our enemies abide by the Geneva Conventions? No, but the argument that we use the same abhorrent tactics as insurgents and terrorists eliminates...all together now..our moral authority.
You can't have it both ways. You can't suggest "fight fire with fire" then argue that our behavior carries moral authority.
Get it?
How in the world can we condone torture and run away from Habeous Corpus, a legal principle that extends back to the Magna Carta and even CLAIM to maintain any moral authority?
Why so many of you think this bill passage is detrimental to America?
Because locking people up indefinitely, in secret, without a chance for an impartial hearing is evil.
Because torture is evil.
Rusty, he has no moral compass. In his eyes, rebupican good! democrat bad! bush good! everyone else bad!
I disagree. Unlike some cons around here, who apparently feel it is proper for our basest enemies to set the standards of our behavior, AA has a moral compass. He has held forth very sincerely and eloquently against abortion and stem-cell research (although I completely disagree with him).
It is hard for me to believe that someone with as clearly defined a sense of good and evil as AA has can be in favor of giving the president the kind of authority to do evil that he has been given.
I appreciate the kind words. I also enjoy discussing issues with you.
Back to the subject at hand. You wrote: Because locking people up indefinitely, in secret, without a chance for an impartial hearing is evil.
me: I agree with that statement. However I detect, (and I could be wrong,) that you think the U.S. is doing that right now.
I am not sure if you realize that it is proper, (according to the Geneva Conventions,) to hold prisoners of war until the fighting ends. Simply put, the U.S. has a legitmate and moral duty to hold these detainees while we are in this war. There is no time limit.
The recently passed legislation, upon which the reporting by Blitzer got thread got started, clarifies the rights of those detainees and sets up a method of bringing them to trial while at the same time allows for the security of our country in a time of war.
So while I agree with your statement in general, I do not believe the detainees captured are being held indefinitely nor are the being denied due process.
I understand where you're coming from. I'd like to make a couple of points:
First, we don't (and can't) know whether these kind of indefinite secret detentions are going on. The amount of political maneuvering that has gone into the writing and passage of this bill leads me to think that it probably is. If the people being held are truly dangerous, then they aren't going to be released just because they got an impartial hearing.
Second, the type of POW situation you're referring to (where prisoners are held until cessation of hostilities) contemplates a "normal" war that will have an end. The "war on terror" isn't that kind of war. It will never end. People could be held until they die without ever having a trial.
It is easy to imagine the situation in which some guy is captured, and somebody in power thinks he's probably pretty bad but can't prove it, and the guy spends the rest of his life in some CIA prison overseas without ever having a trial.
The sick irony is (as I think Barack Obama put it) that the less evidence the government has against you, the fewer rights you have.
This is exactly the kind of betrayal of justice that the U.S. rightfully opposed for so long in places like the former Soviet Union.
I do believe you answered your first point. At least I think so. My apologies, I didn't quite understand it.
you wrote: Second, the type of POW situation you're referring to (where prisoners are held until cessation of hostilities) contemplates a "normal" war that will have an end. The "war on terror" isn't that kind of war. It will never end. People could be held until they die without ever having a trial.
It is easy to imagine the situation in which some guy is captured, and somebody in power thinks he's probably pretty bad but can't prove it, and the guy spends the rest of his life in some CIA prison overseas without ever having a trial.
me: I think you forget that we are not talking about some theoretical proposition but actual terrorists acting illegally to torture and kill innocents. While this is a new type of 'war', the rights of the barbaric terrorists are being worked out.
Besides, your assertion that they might never have a trial is in my opinion, false. The mechanism has been put in place, even before this legislation, to review the evidence against these combatants. It is well documented at Gitmo and Abu Gareb where hundreds, (sorry I do not have the number before me,) of combatants have had their cases reviewed and have been released. Unfortunately, some eventually were killed when they again attacked U.S. forces.
So I think your concern that these terrorists might die before having a trial is misplaced. If they do get a fair trial and are convicted of war crimes, shouldn't they then be given life in prisonment or even the death penalty like the Nazi's at Nuremburg?
hundreds of people are incarcerated for several years (while we were being told that they were terrorists) and then are let free with no charges. To me, that means they were detained without just cause. That they were eventually freed does not make up for the fact that they were incarcerated in the first place. Many in Gitmo are there (I've heard 95%), not because they were captured attacking US soldiers, but because they had been turned in by other Afghans, who received huge sums of money for every person they turned in. That's a clear conflict of interest. And yet, the administration assured us that all of the people in Gitmo were terrorists. Until they found out they weren't. Several years later.
The reason we have judicial oversight is to prevent perversions of justice. Judicial oversight does not preclude fighting and capturing terrorists. But, it does help to minimize the imprisonment of innocent people.
except your interpretation.
To assume they were detained without just cause simply because they were released is simply an opinion and not based on any facts you present. While you are entitled to your opinion, you'll have to admit that it is not based on fact, (at least as presented here).
Secondly the people you say were turned in, do you have any reference for the 95% figure you mentioned?
Of those turned in, do you think the U.S. just decided to hand out money to fill up the stockades or do you suppose the U.S. had intelligence that these people were fighting with the enemy? I myself find it hard to believe that people were turned in without cause.
I'm not sure everyone at Gitmo was classified as a terrorist as you stated, (however I could be wrong,) but I do know enemy combantants were held there and released when the military thought they were no longer a threat.
In any case, I do not believe they were imprisoned illegally. Maybe some mistakenly, but not illegally.
that refers to data released by the DOD.
[link to news.bbc.co.uk]
Sorry, I don't know how to use tags. You'll have to copy and paste.
According to the BBC, "According to the Pentagon, 95% of them were not captured by the Americans themselves.
Some 86% were handed over in Afghanistan and Pakistan after a widespread campaign in which big financial bounties were offered in exchange for anyone suspected of links to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.
The US lawyers quote the text of one of the notices the Americans handed out: "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams... You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taleban forces catch al-Qaeda and Taleban murderers.
"This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life."
So, according to the figures supplied by the Pentagon, it looks as though more than 440 men out of the total of 517 at Guantanamo were handed over to the Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a direct result of these bounties."
Also in the article: "information released by the US defence department revealed last week that 92% of the 517 Guantanamo detainees had not been al-Qaeda fighters.
Of these, 40% have no clear connection with al-Qaeda, and 18% have no connection with either al-Qaeda or the Taleban.
In total, 60% are there because they have been accused of being associated with a group which the US government regards as a terrorist organisation."
Most are designated as enemy combatants - I was using the term terrorist, since that is how they are often described. The term enemy combatant is a term that the Bush administration made up.
I didn't say there are being held illegally. I did say without just cause. I think the military overreacted to some extent, because of the gravity of 9/11. That's just my guess.
My problem with this is that the prisoners were kept for so long without any ability to question their imprisonment. Most of those released were not charged with any crime. If they had truly been enemy combatants, I would imagine that wouldn't have happened.
We only recently let go the Uigers who the Pentagon said two years ago were in no way combatants at ALL much less terrorists. We admitted that one guy(a cabdriver in Kabul) was just that a guy who was turned in for money and a grudge. Now every ONE of those who are NOT terrorists who have their rights denied by US is a violation of what is RIGHT done by US. Terrorists do what they do, they are defined by it. We do what WE do and WE are defined by it. Do we want to be a good and just people? If we do then we have to do the right thing when it is hard not just when it is convienient. We must be willing to pay the price to do the right thing even if it is not in our short term best interest. If we are NOT willing to do the hard thing because it is right we are NOT being a good people. We do not deserve to be seen as a good people. That is not a designation that you just get because you WANT it rather it is EARNED. Will we or will we not do what is necessary to EARN it?
me: I think you forget that we are not talking about some theoretical proposition but actual terrorists...
Wrong - we are talking about terror suspects. This isn't just semantics; it's an extremely important distinction. It's like calling every person who gets arrested by the police a criminal. Any rational consideration falls apart when the assumption is made that all of these prisoners are terrorists, and I think a lot of politicians count on that.
As for the potential for trials, I hope you are correct that they will be forthcoming. I think the best thing to do would be have trials out in the open, because I assume that many, if not most, of the people we've got locked up are indeed dangerous. Let the world see for themselves who these people are and what evil they stand for, and the civilized way we treat them.
That will win hearts and minds to our side. Not of the fanatics, because we'll never be able to win them over, but of the far larger populations of relatively moderate Muslims who actively or passively condone the actions of the fanatics. The only way we can win this war is to swing the opinion of those people to where they understand that we are morally right and the fanatics are morally wrong.
It is a gray area. These terrorist suspects, as you call them, are also enemy combantants.
There is a balance that has to occur between the rights of the suspects/combatants and the rights of our government to defend us from them. I believe we are in the throes of working that out.
I understand why we cannot have open trials. To do so would allow the enemy to see many of the things we do to catch them. (I personally think it is traitorous of the NYTimes to publish top secret documents in a time of war.) We cannot allow the suspects lawyers the ability to ascertain even more secrets in the guise of preparing a defense. So instead, we need a system that allows for due process for the detainees and at the same time protects the U.S.
I think many do not understand that the rights of the enemy during wartime are limited and cannot be the same as citizens like you or me. Yes, this is a new type of war and one that might take many years. Let us remember that we are in a war with terrorists and we need to err on the side of protection rather than the side of the terrorists. To do otherwise in my opinion, gambles with our future.
These terrorist suspects, as you call them, are also enemy combantants.
Not necessarily. That's the problem. There has been little or no process to make that determination.
I think many do not understand that the rights of the enemy during wartime are limited and cannot be the same as citizens like you or me.
I disagree. I doubt there is a single person who has this misunderstanding.
Not when criminal culpability is being accused. Presumption of innocence predates the Magna Carta. It is the sine qua non of civil justice. Nor are they all enemy combatants many were NOT caught on the battlefield. However for the ones who are and who are not even considered terrorists that makes them POWs who deserve the rights given POWs. I dont like the idea of secret trials but I could be convinced. However secret EVIDENCE is another matter. That is unacceptable. Everyone accused of a crime deserves to know the evidence against them. Without that there isnt even the appearance of a fair trial. Read Kafka's the Trial (or rent and watch the movie of the same name) See the nightmare that such a trial would necessarily be.
me: I think you forget that we are not talking about some theoretical proposition but actual terrorists acting illegally to torture and kill innocents. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And you can treat them like criminals. It is however completely disengenuous to pretend everyone we have in detention fits that definition. We KNOW it isnt true, the Pentagon is not even making that claim. You want to treat them like criminals then criminality must be proven in a court of law. You keep arguing like they are POWs when that is convienient then arguing they are terrorist criminals when THAT is convienient. THAT is the game we are arguing against EITHER they are POWs, so they should be treated that way which means no punishment, OR they are criminals which is not true until a court says so. YOU and Bush are trying to have it both ways
That it is allowed to hold POW's as long as hostilities last WOULD be a good one except for one thing. WE ARE NOT GIVING THEM POW STATUS. So either we treat them as POWs in which case I am ok with keeping them until hostilities are ended OR we treat them as we are now doing as criminals in which case some criminal action must be shown in a court of law. What we cannot do and claim any moral justification is try to have it both ways.
I agree with that assessment. I disagree with AA virtually all the time. He however does have a moral underpining to most of his posts
wrong again.
See below.
I thought my post would be directly after Fatbob's.
My apologies.
Our ratification of the Geneva Conventions means that whatever other nations may do, we will adhere to the Conventions. It has to do with honor and American values. It has nothing to do with our enemies. If the values that we've held dear for all this time are to be thrown away now, then we have truely lost our soul and America has no future.
It has to do with honor and American values.
Precisely. When young people join the military they often cite the honor that comes with service as a reason for doing so. In my opinion that honor arises, at least in part, from defending a country that adheres (or attempts to adhere, at least) to higher ideals than most. Where will their sense of honor come from if we abandon those ideals?
However, the Geneva Conventions are an agreement, not our constitution, and are an agreement between signories, i.e., countries. Al Queda and it's terrorists do not fall under the conventions.
I think you'll agree with me that our Country does not have to give the same rights to aliens as it does our citizens. Right? After all, illegal aliens, (at this time,) do not have the same rights as citizens.
So why do the Geneva Conventions, which we are an agreement with many other countries have to be expended on murderous, barbaric non-citizens who do not abide by the Conventions and are doing everything they can to kill us?
I argue this from a legal point of view. I know the Supreme Court has given the terrorists the same rights as lawful combatants so maybe my argument is moot.
Having said that, it is the policy of the government and the law of the land to abide by those conventions. The administration has asked for and gotten legislation to define what is and isn't permissible as per instructions by the Supreme Court.
So even though the terrorists do not fall under the agreement of the Geneva Conventions, they are being treated by the U.S. as if they were. I think your allusion that we aren't living up to our basic American values is incorrect. Have you read how well treated the prisoners in Gitmo are treated? If not, you should.
Sounds like you've been reading the National Review. Getting prayer time and decent meals does not make up for the fact that a HUGE number of these people should never have been there. At least a hundered have been released - after being imprisoned for several years - because there weren't terrorists. So, no, I don't agree that they are well treated.
I think their length of stay and how well they are being treated are two different things.
it doesn't matter how "well-treated" they are if they shouldn't be there in the first place. That's not a minor point.
I have not problem imprisoning the people who were captured in battle.
the conventions themselves stipulate that if the status of a prisoner is unknown, then that prisoner is to be afforded the full protections and status of "prisoner of war" until their status can be determined by a proper tribunal.
Secondly, I don't think this legislation does a damn thing except provide some political ammuniton to the righties during an election year. It doesn't "spell out" what is permissible except to say that certain catastrophic treatments such as rape and murder or prohibited, but then Alberto Gonzalez had already said that anything was OK up to the point of organ failure. What this legislation does is give the "president" the "ultimate authority" to decide what "is and isn't permissible" to "anyone" he deems to be a turrist, including American citizens. That is f**king scary! Oh, it also makes these activities retroactive so that any previous war crimes that "may" have been committed are now safe from prosecution, not just for CIA agents as bush (lowercase intentional) claims, but for himself and his puppeteers.
the issue is not really the Geneva Conventions themselves, but the War Crimes Act. That act makes it a violation of federal law to undermine the agreements in the Geneva Conventions. bush (lowercase intentional) claims this legislation is necessary in order to continue the detainment and interrogation policies already in place. Why would that be necessary if the policies already in place were not violating the War Crimes Act. This new legislation essentially gives him and his minions a free pass and a get out of jail free card. That's why it was so important that he get it passed before the Dems take control of the house in January.
First of all the Geneva Convention is more than just an agreement. Since it was an agreement ratified by our congress it is the highest law of the land equal with all federal laws. Under only the Constitution itself. Second EVERYONE not just citizens that are being prosecuted by OUR law is treated equally. The Constitution and Bill of rights do not make distinction between citizens and others the rights afforded in them is afforded to PERSONS NOT CITIZENS. You again use the term terrorist. This has an emotional value toward your argument but not a logical one. They are terrorists once that is proven in court. Until then they are ACCUSED. Not the same thing. We cannot treat accused people as deserving of punishment then continue to pretend we are upholding American values.
As the Geneva Convention says they should be treated. It clearly states that if there is a dispute in their categorization that a competent tribunal will be assembled to make that determination. Bush keeps demanding the right to be the one to make that determination. Until there is a competent and independent tribunal convened to make the determination in each case of whether or not they are POWs the claim they are being treated in accordance with Geneva are simply not supported by facts.
..I hope you drank your milk to help wash down the GOP talking point you swallowed whole. It helps you to not gag on it.
Good Wolfie.
you and I are much more alike in our thinking than our various disagreements on issues would indicate.
I do have to admit that IAOGC’s view, does at first blush appeal to my inner red-neck. And believe me I come from red-neck stock, so this is a very natural reaction, yet my “liberal” and “rational” self finds such views dangerous and intellectually unsuportable. It totally refuses to see the part we have played and continue to play in the radicalization of Islam, the Arab world, and the middle East in general. The part Europe and by extenstion the Americas and Russia have played in the history of the Islamic region going back to WWII, the Napoleonic wars, and ultimately to the Crusades. In particular from WWII onwards, the regions oil has been both a blessing and a curse for them and for us. If we didn’t need “stability” in that region we wouldn’t be doing so much to destabalize it.
There are other dangers too, not the least of which is instilling of a “seige” mentality at home, which allows for justification of all sorts of abuses of our laws, customs, and basic founding priciples of our society. You and I H-R may disagree on a variety of issues, but we do agree that a peacefull discussion of those issues and others without the treat of violence or state censorship is the one thing that does characterize our western liberal democractic societies. And I believe that militarization of a society is the surest and fastest way to ensure the supension of basic liberties, and the first one to go is always freespeech, followed by freedom of assembly, and then usually the suspension of elections in the interest of national security, and then martial law. Don’t think it can happen here? What do you think is the actuall driving force behind increased police powers? gun control? limiting judicial freedoms?
And well thought out post
The implications of Blitzer's phraseology are clear: Bush getting his way is good for the war on terror, which is a conflation of TWO exclusive issues, Bush's political standing in the country and the war on terror. They are not the same thing, nor are they inseparable. In fact, the preponderance of the evidence to date weighs in that Bush getting his way is actually BAD for the war on terror, as ALL 16 branches of US spy agencies ALL agreed that the Iraq War has and will continue to exacerbate the global terror threat.
When will the various news agencies of this country start telling it like it is and stop apologizing for Bush and beating the drum every time the polls go up a few points or he, surprise, surprise, gets what he wants from the rubberstamp do-nothing Republican Congress?
This is conservative misinformation? Hardly. More like looking for something where it doesn't exist.
And a complete waste of time.
I'm going back to FAIR.
Subtleties build on one another. By equating Bush's win with being good for the WOT, Blitzer is subtly implying that anyone who disagrees with this bill is blocking efforts for the WOT. That's bunk. But, the worry is that viewers won’t think critically about this distinction, and will begin to equate the two. In Blitzer’s case, the questions is: is this deliberate, or does HE not see the distinction? In the end, the answer doesn’t matter, since his JOB is to inform viewers without bias.
A prime example is the administration's constant conflation of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. The media repeated it, and the people bought it. I was delighted (and surprised) to see that only 1/3 of the country thinks there’s a connection.
So, I think it’s important to point out when people do this.
If Bush had not gotten this bill, the interrogation of Al Queda terrorists would have to be stopped. So said Bush as a result of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan v Rumsfield.
After all, U.S. interrogators cannot go around with the threat of being prosecuted as war criminals can they?
So to not have the legislation would have been a victory for the terrorists, (and a victory for the Democrats who voted overwhelmingly against this legislation.) By definition, not getting this legislation would also a defeat for Bush and the war on terror.
So by having this legislation passed, interrogators now know what their limits are and can continue to interrogate. As Bush stated, much of our actionable intelligence came from these interrogations.
So Blitzer is correct, it is a critical victory for Bush in the war against terrorism.
... and I might add, a defeat for the Bush hating Democrats ...who again seem to be on the same side as the enemy.
That was Bush playing politics. Interrogators had their limits before. They're called the Geneva Conventions, which are NOT unclear. The military seems to be able to handle this endeavor, so I have not doubt that the CIA could also comply.
I'm not willing to take Bush at face value when he says that most of our actionable intelligence came from these interrogations. He's been known to bend the truth in his favor on more than one occasion.
I've been reading this site for quite some time. While I often disagree with your posts, I've thought that you engaged in reasonable dialogue. This most recent post is making me reconsider. Same side as the enemy? Are you serious? The logical next step is to imprison everyone who disagrees with Bush.
First of all, Pickle is right. Interrogations would not have had to stop. Interrogations could have continued using the usual methods that comply with the Geneva Conventions. The types of interrogations that Bush wanted may have had to stop, but interrogations could have continued. Bush was exaggerating, to put it mildly.
... and I might add, a defeat for the Bush hating Democrats ...who again seem to be on the same side as the enemy.
This statement signals to me that you have tired of rational discussion. That's cool, it was good up 'til now. I hope you have a good weekend, AA.
I guess I did throw in that zinger at the end...
My apologies.
I'm the last one who can complain about zingers. I have no moral authority to make such a complaint. :^o
Are you totally immue to logic? I guess after reading your defense of embryos, the answer is no. I suppose anyone who thinks an embryo is a human being and misquotes and doesn't understand science would post this kind of nonsense.
>>If Bush had not gotten this bill, the interrogation of Al Queda terrorists would have to be stopped.
Oh really? So if we don't torture people we can't interrogate them?
>>After all, U.S. interrogators cannot go around with the threat of being prosecuted as war criminals can they?
Yes they can, and as a point in fact, they still can after this bill is signed into law. For one thing, if they violate the Geneva Conventions they could be prosecuted by other countries (though this threat is more hypothetical). If they go beyone what the law stipulates, they can still be prosecuted. All cops and all detectives work under the threat of being prosecuted if they go too far. *That is what keeps them from going too far!*
>>So to not have the legislation would have been a victory for the terrorists, (and a victory for the Democrats who voted overwhelmingly against this legislation.) By definition, not getting this legislation would also a defeat for Bush and the war on terror.
The first part of your statement makes no sense. You have not defined how it would be a victory. One could argue that since the terrorists want to destroy democracy and replace it with fundementalists, it would be a victory for them since that is what the bill leads to. And you apparently don't understand the words "by definition." You can use them in a scientific debate, for example. If we define a human as a mamal that has a certain brain size, then we can say "by definition" (found here), X is human.
>>So by having this legislation passed, interrogators now know what their limits are and can continue to interrogate. As Bush stated, much of our actionable intelligence came from these interrogations.
The interrogators knew how far they could go before. It is outlined in the Geneva Conventions. The second sentence is really ludicrous. Just because Bush says something doesn't make it true. Remember about the uranium from Niger?
>>and I might add, a defeat for the Bush hating Democrats ...who again seem to be on the same side as the enemy.
Right. This is about the level of argumentation I would expect from you. If we are against torture, we are for Al Quaida, who also uses torture.
As others have pointed out, there is a huge difference between a suspect and a criminal. Our founding fathers grasphed this over 200 years ago. The people in the medieval ages did not, just as they did not understand science. It is pretty clear to me which group you feel more comfortable with.
solid comeback.
However arguing that an embryo is not a human being is not one of them.
The point, which I feel I failed to make, is that the Supreme Court, in it's opinion of Hamdan v Rumsfield, (correct me if I'm wrong,) stated the Congress had to legislate what shall be the way enemy combatants/detainees shall be interrogated and adjudicated.
If anyone reads the Geneva Conventions they'll see they are vague to the point that anybody can interpret them any way they want. Therefore, in order to protect Americans doing their duty while properly interrogating terrorists from being litigated, Bush asked for clear definitions of what was and was not acceptable. Without that clarification, the interrogations would have to stop. That is what I would call a 'victory' for the terrorists since they would no longer be subject to aggressive interrogation.
As an aside, I' ve read that right now, the military in Gitmo feel the Al Queda detainees are sending messages back and forth through their lawyers, (many of which are American volunteering their services to act as defense attorneys for these terrorists.) Who knows if any of the information is being transferred by the lawyers elsewhere.
So, in our crazy world, only when the Congress passes a law that expressly points out the exact limits available to the interrogators and adjudicators toward these detainees is that considered a victory for Bush.. and argued by so many here, a defeat for the United States.
It is in this vein that I made the connection of the Democrats and the terrorists. That was out of line. However, even though the motives are different, it looks to me they both wanted this legislation defeated.
pertaining to this legislation. I certainly admit I wanted it defeated. It does an end run around Habeus Corpus which goes back to the Magna Carta and allows waterboarding and sleep deprivation both of which are outright torture.
Even if terrorists did want it defeated so what. Just because Hitler liked German Shepherds does that mean if I like German Shepherds that somehow links me to Hitler? That Manichean thinking is sooo logic free.
As far as the Geneva convention being vague I guess if its hard for you to understand what human dignity is then it might seem vague to see what attacks on it are but thats irrelevant. See the Uniform Code of Military Justice long ago specified EXACTLY what the lines we could and could not cross were according to common article three. No one has argued with them since. However waterboarding and Sleep deprivation were NOT allowed. Bush didnt like that he wanted all the torture he thought he could get away with. AND protection against being tried and sent to prison for violating the Convention against torture statute.
I dont like seeing my country be the ONLY civilized country in the world parsing language to allow torture. Its demeaning and it erodes whatever moral authority we have left after its shredding from Bush lying to start a war of aggression.
Torture loving neandrathals in other words the republicans who have no sense of decency and the morals of a weasal on speed. The interrogations would NOT have to stop, that was Bush being the spoiled brat he is saying either we do things my way or I wont do them at all. Interrogations would just have to be done in accordance with Geneva Convention common article three. The UCMJ already has interpreted exactly and specifically what that constitutes and no one has disputed their interpretations since WW2. It seems only republicans who lack any sense of moralit whatsoever are confused about what human decency is.
It is contended by many that ours is a Christian government, founded upon the Bible, and that all who look upon the book as false or foolish are destroying the foundation of our country
Our Constitution was framed, to declare and uphold the deity of Christ .
Our constitution was formed to PREVENT the government form doing any such thing, but to allow the freedom to worship as you choose.
to choose NOT to.
You are just flat wrong. I have the constitution right here.
CIA director Colby admitted in front of the church investigation, that they had hired many "journalists" as agents of the CIA.
I believe Blitzer is on the payroll of some goverment agencty, by his parroting of U.S. policy/bush policy. His many goverment lines he advances, quite regulary is, "why do they(muslims)hate us, we deployed troops to muslim countries to help them". I heard him state that faslehood several times. We "deployed", I thought we ATTACKED Iraq, with shock&awe. There are many other examples of his pro govt. bias.