On Your World, Cavuto let DeLay claim that newly elected House Dems are "Republican-lites"
SUMMARY: Neil Cavuto allowed Tom DeLay to
repeat the common GOP claim that Democrats gained control of the House and
Senate in the 2006 midterm elections by running candidates DeLay called
"Republican-lites." In fact, all of the Democratic candidates who
had won Republican-held seats backed central issues in the Democratic platform
-- raising the minimum wage, changing course in Iraq, and opposing any effort to
privatize Social Security.
During a one-on-one interview on the December 13 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto allowed former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) to repeat the common GOP claim that Democrats gained control of the House and Senate in the 2006 midterm elections by running conservative candidates -- or, as DeLay put it, "Republican-lites." But as Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, and here), the Democratic candidates who, as of November 20, had won Republican-held seats in the November 7 midterm elections have all backed central issues in the Democratic platform -- raising the minimum wage, changing course in Iraq, and opposing any effort to privatize Social Security. These new Democrats also largely agree on the most contentious social issues of the day. Indeed, all but two of the 29 newly elected Democrats (as of November 20) support embryonic stem cell research and only five describe themselves as "pro-life" on the issue of abortion.
Since November 20, Ciro Rodriguez, the Democratic candidate for Texas' 23rd Congressional District seat, defeated incumbent Republican Rep. Henry Bonilla in a December 12 runoff election, increasing to 30 the number of House seats picked up by the Democrats this year. Rodriguez opposes efforts to privatize Social Security, supports raising the minimum wage, advocates changing course in Iraq, supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and supports "a woman's right to choose as established in the case of Roe v. Wade."
During the December 13 interview, Cavuto did not bring up Rodriguez's victory a day earlier, despite the fact that it was widely seen as another reversal in DeLay's controversial redistricting efforts in Texas in 2003. Rodriguez entered the race after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the redrawn 23rd District violated the Voting Rights Act. A three-judge panel then remapped the district to include a greater number of Hispanic voters and scheduled a November 7 special election. Because Bonilla, the leading vote-getter on November 7, received less than a majority of the vote, he faced Rodriguez -- who garnered the second highest number of votes -- in the December 12 runoff. From a December 14 Washington Post article headlined "House Win Adds Insult to Injury for DeLay":
Former congressman Ciro Rodriguez's victory in a House runoff election Tuesday in Texas not only allowed Democrats to pick up their 30th seat of the 2006 elections but served as a final rebuke to one of the architects of the Republican House majority: Tom DeLay.
The former congressman from Texas was the mastermind of a 2003 redrawing of congressional lines in the state that led to the removal of six House Democrats in the 2004 elections.
Two years later, DeLay's fortunes have suffered a near-total reversal, as the redistricting map that once seemed certain to cement his legacy and GOP majorities for years has instead led to the end of that career and may well be a building block for a reenergized Democratic Party in the state.
[...]
The Supreme Court struck another blow to DeLay when it ruled that portions of the map he devised were in violation of the Voting Rights Act. That decision forced the redrawing of Bonilla's district to include thousands more Hispanic voters.
Even so, Bonilla nearly avoided a runoff when he won 49 percent of the vote on Nov. 7. Six Democrats and an independent split the remainder, with Rodriguez, who had held the neighboring 28th District from 1996 until 2004, leading the pack with 20 percent.
From the December 13 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: All right. We hope, as well. Congressman, let me ask it a little bit about some -- speaking of politics -- news that you raised a couple of days ago, saying Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States. Were you taken out of context? Or did you mean that?
DeLAY: Well, the headlines didn't explain what I was talking about. What I was talking about was, there -- there's a reason why a minority party, the Democrat [sic] Party, with no agenda, with trying to hide that they're liberal, running as Republican-lites, won the majorities in the House and Senate this year.
And I -- one of the reasons is a very -- very important reason, and that is, the Clintonistas, the people that were the hit people in the White House for Bill Clinton -- Harold Ickes, Morton Halperin, Sidney Blumenthal, Cargill [sic: James Carville], [Paul] Begala -- and I could go on and on and on -- didn't go away. They left the White House, and they put together, over the last six years, one of the most massive coalitions that I have ever witnessed. And I congratulate them. It's -- it's -- it's a political -- an effective political machine that they have put together.
CAVUTO: Yeah, but then along comes this guy Barack Obama out of nowhere. How does that machine deal with him?
DeLAY: Well, he could be groomed by them to be vice president. But Barack Obama is a creation of the national media. He's the media's guy. And -- and, when you really look at how leftist he is, he won't last six months. The point is, is that Hillary Clinton has this massive organization that's capable of raising millions upon tens of millions of dollars to support her, and nobody else has it.
CAVUTO: Yeah, but, you know, normally -- and you're better at this political stuff than I'll ever be, Tom -- but I -- I always wonder, when a party trips over itself for a new name, that it's saying something about the names that are already out there.
DeLAY: No, I don't think so. I -- I'm -- I'm -- as you're right -- you're right, Neil. I am a great believer in organization and hard work and persistence and energy -- drive the politics in -- in America. But if you -- if you read the book Shadow Party by David Horowitz, or go to discoverthenetwork.org, you see how massive this organization is. And it's all connected, all very well coordinated.
And no one else has that, including the Republicans. And if the Republicans don't get up and start articulating a vision for the future and put together coalitions and bring people together and build something close to what the Clintons have, she'll be the next president.
CAVUTO: Yeah, but money and organization doesn't buy you a seat at the table. Your old colleague and friend [former Sen.] Phil Gramm [R-TX] had a lot of money running for president [in 1996] and all of that, and it didn't really -- didn't really do much for him. Another old friend of yours, [Former Texas Gov.] John Connally, years back, had the same thing.
DeLAY: All they had --
CAVUTO: Didn't do much for --
DeLAY: -- all they had was money, Neil. They had no organization. They had no groups. I'm talking about hundreds of organized groups and companies -- groups that have come together. When they needed something, like opposition research, they went out and created a new group. Americans Coming Together, for instance, has 1,400 full-time employees that are the people that are on the ground going door-to-door with their Palm Pilots.
CAVUTO: All right. So, they --
DeLAY: That's -- that's powerful stuff.
CAVUTO: -- she's got the organization. So, very, very quickly, tell your Republican colleagues and friends how they can stop that.
DeLAY: What they can stop that is, quit -- forget the election and let's go kick some butt. Let's start working together and quit pointing the finger at each other. We -- ideas are on our side. The American people on our side. Most Americans in this country are to the right of center. What we need are leaders, and leaders pulling people together to work together, and we will win. That's -- that's why we have been in the majority for the last 12 to 15 years.
CAVUTO: All right, Tom DeLay, thank you for addressing this and all the breaking news. Appreciate it, as always.
DeLAY: My pleasure.
DeLay couldn't be more wrong. It was the Democrats sharply steering away from running as Republican-lite that earned them the House and Senate. That was the lesson of 2004. Differentiate yourself from the opposition. They did that and won.
Please return to your undisclosed location, Tom, and never ever come out again.
This means DeLay ... and those others in the rightwing who desire for rightwing governance ... will be well pleased with the work of this next Congress.
Since this last election did not repudiate Republicans, but instead celebrated "Republican-LITE", DeLay has a Congress he can get behind. And that's good news, because we saw what DeLay does to public servants of whom he does NOT approve politically; Bill Clinton.
Of course, since DeLay is now totally irrelevant in the political sphere, there's another way to view his evaluation of this newly elected Contress: Piss off, Tom. Who cares what you think? Tell it to your cell mates in prison.
The Democrats who won have some conservative positions but they ran on progressive values.
"all of the Democratic candidates who had won Republican-held seats backed central issues in the Democratic platform -- raising the minimum wage, changing course in Iraq, and opposing any effort to privatize Social Security."
Those are just a few moderate positions that are popular with the public. The real Democratic agenda is higher taxes, abortion on demand, stringent gun control laws, a weaker national security, civil rights for terrorists, and a coarsening of society. Most of the new Freshmen Democrats rejected the real Democratic platform. That's the reason why they won.
and by voting for those new Democrats the electorate yelled a resounding NO to the agenda that the right wing nutballs have been advancing for the last 12 years. The house became progressively crazier crazier, yes America said enough already!
At least you got the crazier part right.
"all of the Democratic candidates who had won Republican-held seats backed central issues in the Democratic platform -- raising the minimum wage, changing course in Iraq, and opposing any effort to privatize Social Security."
If these are moderate positions what does that make the consevatives who so vehemently opposed them?
Authentic progressive values won the day: compassion and empathy.
Authentic progressive principles held sway with the hearts and minds of the American people: Expanded civil rights. Moral economy. Effective government. Mutual responsibilty. Broad prosperity. Better future. Stronger America.
"If these are moderate positions what does that make the consevatives who so vehemently opposed them?"
It makes them conservatives. Also, I'm not sure how you get broad prosperity by raising taxes. Every reasonable person knows that raising taxes hurts the economy. And I'm not sure how you get a stronger America by creating a Terrorist Bill of Rights at the expense of the safety of the American people. Most Democrats seem more concerned with protecting terrorists than they do the American people.
Why do you keep saying raising taxes. The Democrats are thinking of repealing the tax break for the most wealthy in this country to pay for all the spending the Republicans did. Where do you think the money we owe is going to come from. Tax breaks need to be targeted to the middle and lower classes. This is because it will stimulate the economy by giving the masses the ability to spend more. As they spend more there will be greater opportunities for people to increase business. The trickle down effect does not work. If there is no spending only the foolish would increase business. The demand needs to be there first. As far as a terrorist bill of rights the Democrats are only saying the bill of rights applies to all Americans. If you are the type that want to give up your freedoms then you do not deserve them. Everyone within the United States have rights. Even the people who wish to do us harm. Don't forget we are all innocent until proven guilty.
"As far as a terrorist bill of rights the Democrats are only saying the bill of rights applies to all Americans."
Once again, THESE TERRORISTS ARE NOT U.S CITIZENS! These people are nothing more than thugs from the Middle East. They don't deserve and aren't afforded the protections of the U.S. Constitution.
If you are talking about Terrorists who are outside of the US then they should be afforded the rights of the Geneva Convention. If you are talking about people who the government believes could be terrorists who are currently residing within the US then until they leave the US they should be afforded all the rights of the Constitution. Of course if they are found to be terrorists they should be removed from the US immediately.
Since you seem to be stuck on a "Terrorist Bill of Rights" please show one place where a Democrat has said that terrorists outside of the US should have a Bill of Rights.
please show one place where a Democrat has said that terrorists outside of the US should have a Bill of Rights
Well, I'm not a Democrat but I'll say it: Terrorists outside the US should have a Bill of Rights. Because everyone should have a Bill of Rights. In fact, there is such a Bill of Rights: It's the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, adopted in 1948 by the General Assembly with the support of the United States.
Oh, I know there can and perhaps will be a lot of snarky comebacks from, among others, Truthiness Detector, about this being observed more in the breach, and how I supposedly don't understand the threat and oh me oh my I'm urging "preferential treatment for terrorists" and all kinds of other crap.
But the bottom line is you either believe in human rights or you don't. You are either prepared to take some risk to do what is right or you're not. And you're prepared to maintain some moral distinction between you and your enemies, or you are willing to become, as you inevitably will become and already are becoming, that which you say you oppose.
The "you" in my final paragraph is generic.
Well, not entirely, I did have someone in mind, but it is still a general statement. In any event it was not aimed at H-Man.
I agree that everyone deserves human rights. I think that "The Truth Detector" was referring to things such as a right to council and self incrimination and what not. Different countries have different levels of protections for their citizens. I totally agree with you that everyone deserves basic human rights. I think our argument was speaking more about the protections afforded by our constitution. But you bring up some great points. Shouldn't the goal of America be to spread as many freedoms and rights around the world as possible. Giving rights to people you like is easy. It is when you believe they are guilty or they are your enemy that is becomes difficult.
We rejected the consevative reverse Robin Hood principle of upward redistribution of wealth.
We rejected torture and occupation without end.
We are in this together and we have rejected the cruel conservative refrains of, "you're on your own kid."
And give a specific example of liberals giving preferrential protections to terrorists, if you would.
"We rejected the consevative reverse Robin Hood principle of upward redistribution of wealth."
I have absolutely no idea what your talking about there. I and most other conservatives don't want to redistribute wealth in any way. We simply want the government to lower taxes for everybody and let them live their own lives.
"We rejected torture"
Ya, so do most conservatives. Torture consists of cutting somebody's arms or legs off or anything that causes irreversable bodily damage. We simply do mild forms of interrogation like water boarding. Even our own military go through waterboarding as a standard procedure when they join. I think that if it's all right to put our own military through the procedure, then it's surely all right to put terrorists through the procedure. Even a reporter on Fox News went through the procedure. That's how mild this procedure is.
"And give a specific example of liberals giving preferrential protections to terrorists, if you would."
When they voted against the military commisions act. They gave preferrential treatment to terrorists at the expense of the safety of the American people.
Our military tries to drown recruits upon enlistment???
And if you think that isn't torture, wanna try it?
You don't try to drowned someone when you waterboard them. Waterboarding is a simulated drowning. They only think they are going to drown. They are never in any physical danger. And yes, members of our own military have been put through it. A Fox News reporter has been through it as well on T.V. And yes, I would try it if it meant that by doing it I could prevent a terrorist attack and save millions of lives. But that will never happen since I'm not a terrorist. And as a side note, I'm not exactly sure why you're so concerned about people who want to kill you. It doesn't make much sense to me.
...I have to note this:
A Fox News reporter has been through it as well on T.V.
Yes - but unlike prisoners, he could stop it any time he wanted to. And he lasted less than two seconds.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Waterboarding is torture. As far as the Fox news reporter I saw that. First, he only got to step 3 of 5. Second, he knew he was safe the entire time and still panicked. The fact that you would state this as fact indicates you lack of knowledge. I guess you would say there is no such thing as psychological torture since we are not hacking off body parts.
We are concerned about the treatment of people. Most importantly we are concerned with the people who are mistakenly detained and then forced to go through these procedures. However, either way torture is wrong. And it does not create good intelligence. People will eventually say what you want to hear and that may not be the truth. I love the way people like you blindly believe that our government can not make mistakes. I seem to remember that Senator Kennedy ended up on the No Fly list at one point. We have also let many people go from Guantanamo because they had nothing to do with terrorism. But hey you don't care cause you feel safe. I've said this before and I will say it again. People with your attitude do not deserve the liberty you have. You are cowards who are not willing to give up some safety to help protect the people who may be wrongly scrutinized. I feel sorry for you.
I think we need to waterboard conservatives. Its the only humane way to deal will these sociopaths.
So you think no one is EVER falsely accused ever hear of Wen Ho Lee? Do you know why Governor Ryan put a moratoriam on the death penalty in Illinios? Because at the time since 1975 they had executed 12 people and had to let 13 go who were PROVEN innocent. What is it about the difference between ACCUSED and guilty that you cannot understand? They arent terrorists JUST because they are accused. It is just convienient for you to CALL them all terrorists. Its really very simple either EVERYONE has the protection of the law or NO ONE DOES. Remember A Man for All Seasons?
"So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! "Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?" "Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!" "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!" - William Roper and Sir Thomas More, "A Man for all Seasons"
is privatization that takes the form of replacing a tax-supported service or activity with something paid for by private user fees. The results of privatization are a net transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy. You like the right to control that comes with private ownership don't you?
Prisoners have been killed by waterboarding but I guess death by asphyxiation is mild compared to decapitation and forced amputation.
Liberals opposed the military commissions act on moral principles as it permits the continuation of secret detention, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating treatment, denial and restriction of habeas corpus, indefinite detention without charge or trial.
Torture consists of cutting somebody's arms or legs off or anything that causes irreversable (sic) bodily damage. We simply do mild forms of interrogation like water boarding.
Bull cookies.
Torture includes a wide spectrum of physical and psychological mistreatment. You know it, I know it. This definition you whipped up is born of cognitive dissonance.
You know torture is wrong and you know the United States tortures people, so you define OUR torture as a "mild form of interrogation" to eradicate the CD. Worse than that, you ASSume the Unites States isn't chopping off limbs because it's not the top story on Fox News. Hate to break it to you, TD, but the USA is employing mercs in Iraq, and mercs answer to nobody. They can do whatever they want without fear of the military code of justice or prosecution in the United States. They are sadistic thugs acting in the name of the US government. Your name and mine. And they are torturing people, for real, not a simulated controlled demonstration for cable news as to appease the American need to feel on the side of "right".
Torture consists of cutting somebody's arms or legs off or anything that causes irreversable (sic) bodily damage.
I guess that means US POWs held in North Vietnam during that war were not tortured, merely "mildly interrogated." Quite a relief, eh?
It has already BEEN defined in the Convention against torture Act. It doesnt need to rise to the level of mutilation. The fact you wingnuts still support torture shows you have no decency. Its very simple. If we wouldnt want it done to OUR soldiers we shouldnt be doing it to others. People cannot be given different treatment in the US because they are SUSPECTED of a crime, once they are found guilty THEN they are terrorists.Why do you conservatives hate the Bill of Rights so much? You just hate our freedom. People NOT JUST CITIZENS, in THIS country are innocent until they are SHOWN to be guilty and cannot be treated by a different set of rules because YOU dont believe in the Constitution.
Seem mostly interested in getting as many Americans killed as possible in Iraq and starving poor children.
Nice try. If by higher taxes you mean more tax cuts for the middle and lower class as opposed to tax cuts for the wealthy then I guess you are right. By abortion on demand you mean a woman's right to choose what she does with her body versus other religions determining the outcome I guess you are right there too. If by stringent gun control laws you mean closing loop holes in our gun policy to make it more difficult for criminals to get legal guns then you are right. If by weaker national security you mean American's get to keep their rights to privacy then you are right. If by civil rights for terrorists you mean civil rights for ALL people in this country and not just those who are not minorities then you are right. If by a coarsening of society you mean progressing out of the bigoted dark ages of the conservative movement you are right. But alas I know that is not what you meant so all I can say is you are WRONG WRONG WRONG. The conservative movement is finally being shown for what they are. Money hungry, xenophobic pigs. The moderate Americans could only be fooled for so long. It's nice to have my country back. GET USED TO IT!
"If by civil rights for terrorists you mean civil rights for ALL people in this country and not just those who are not minorities then you are right."
So terrorists are a minority who should be protected? Wow. That's a pretty extreme statement even for a liberal. Also, the terrorists are not "in this country." They are not citizens of the U.S. That's another ridiculous ultra far left statement. You want to give murderous terrorists the same legal rights as American citizens. That's a scary and very extreme position.
No people outside of the country are obliviously not protected by our bill of rights. The main sticking point of the conservatives has been the "Terrorist Surveillance Program". Us liberals believe the government needs a warrant to listen to the calls where one of the people involved is in the United States. The conservatives say we need to be able to listen to terrorists. Well duh. But you need to get a warrant from the FISA court. And the minority statement was meant for all the extra scrutiny all Muslims in this country now needlessly go through.
That's a valid argument. I wasn't referring to the NSA program when I referred to a Terrorist Bill of Rights. I was merely talking about the fact that Democrats want to end the interrogation program, give all the terrorists personal lawyers, and let them challenge their detention through endless litigation in the courts. My point is simply that they are not U.S. citizens and are not protected by the Bill of Rights.
Ok. I guess we were arguing different points. As far as interrogations I believe we should do as much as is allowed by the Geneva conventions. I personally believe as the worlds remaining super power we need to be careful. Using techniques which could be construed as torture (such as water boarding) could cause our troops to undergo similar techniques in a future confrontation. As far as the lawyers go I'm not sure what the Geneva convention says so I would only say Americans (ie Jose Padilla) should have access to them. But once again the others should have some form of due process.
"As far as interrogations I believe we should do as much as is allowed by the Geneva conventions."
I guess we just interpret the Constitution differently. I agree with justices Scalia and Thomas that foreign terrorists are not entitled to the Geneva Conventions, because they fight for no country and don't wear a uniform. They haven't signed onto the Geneva Convention themselves and don't abide by the Geneva Convention. Also, if the terrorists ever capture a U.S. Soldier, they won't abide by any kind of law. Treating the terrorists nicely won't make them treat us nicely, because they will torture and kill our soldiers regardless of what we do.
You completely miss the point. We follow the Geneva Conventions because it is the right thing to do and we as Americans hold ourselves up as the moral standard for the rest of the world.
That isn't going to stop an extremist from causing harm to our troops, but what it does is prevents any other future enemies (troops from other countries) from using our precedent to commit torture on out troops.
If we are going to remain a great country and if we are going to live up to the standards set by the founding fathers, then we must hold ourselves to the highest standards whether or not we lose our lives in the process.
Do you understand that many, many brave people gave their lives to make this country what it is today and that people like you are willing to throw it all away because you are afraid of the "terrorists"?
Give me a break.
"We follow the Geneva Conventions because it is the right thing to do and we as Americans hold ourselves up as the moral standard for the rest of the world."
It isn't our job to be the moral beacan for the rest of the world. The U.S. governments' #1 responsibility is to stop terrorists from killing Americans. We need to do whatever it takes to keep that from happening. It may get ugly at times, but war is ugly. Why is it perfectly all right to shoot a terrorist between the eyes on the battlefield, but dunking them in water violates their civil liberties? How does that work?
And one other thing. Yes, you should be VERY scared of terrorists. They want to kill you and destroy our entire country. You are extremely misguided if you believe that terrorists are not a threat to the U.S. The war on terror is the biggest challenge our country has faced in a long time.
Again you completely and entirely missed the point.
If we can't live up to the standards set by our Founding Fathers, then we don't deserve to live.
Can you understand that there are ideals that are greater than you and I and the greatest thing that we as Patriotic Americans can do is to give our lives standing up for those ideals and principles.
Cowards are afraid of "terrorists". I am not!
Do you also understand that the "terrorists actually pose an insignificant threat to 99% of the population and that you display a very irrational fear of a group of people that have very limited resources and that you are more likely to be killed by the flu than by a "terrorist"?
"If we can't live up to the standards set by our Founding Fathers, then we don't deserve to live."
I imagine that if our founding fathers were still alive, they would probably deport all of the liberal terrorist sympathizers that we have in this country. Just look at what Abraham Lincoln did. He wasn't one of our founding fathers, but he is considered to be a great president. He deported people from the union and sent them to the south for merely expressing disapproval with the union. If he was alive today, I imagine he would deport all the countless liberals who are trying to undermine the War on Terror.
Also, you're just one of those people who won't face the terrorist threat no matter what happens. If you don't want the U.S. government to protect you from terrorists, then you are going to have a very hard time protecting yourself. But good luck. Maybe the terrorists will just recruit you and you can join them. They would probably want someone who sympathizes with them on their side.
Just come out from hiding under your bed. Being afraid of the bogeyman is nothing to be ashamed of.
Lots of chickenhawks are just like you. Proponents of someone else fighting a war but not you.
You want someone else to defend you but you sure as hell are not going to do it.
Very typical of conservatives, let the liberals fight your battles and then call them names.
Explain how you're facing it? Did you mean you personally, or you letting someone else face it for you?
You claim that "war is ugly". I won't disagree. But do you come by this knowledge first hand?
You also have no respect for the Geneva Conventions? Signatories to the GC don't sign to uphold it if others do. A nation that signs it, is making a statement, that no matter how other nations treat prisoners, we, as ratifiers of the Geneva Conventions, hold ourselves to the highest standards, regardless of how other nations or people treat our prisoners.
Have you ever spoken to a prisoner of wear? Do you know anyone who was a prisoner? Have you yourself ever held a prisoner? Have you ever discussed the Geneva Conventions with someone who was held prisoner? Or with a combat veteran? I'm really curious as to how you come about your un-American views.
You face the terrorist threat by simply realizing that there is a threat, and that the government has to take the necessary steps to protect us from future attacks. Examples are the NSA program, the Patriot Act, and the interrogation program. These are all tools that you oppose, and you want our country to be much weaker and more open to terrorist attacks. That, my friend, is dangerous and very UN-AMERICAN.
If you really want to see how we should be taking on these terrorists, then you should watch a season of the T.V. show 24. I just got done watching Season 5 on DVD. It's really awesome. The main character is a man named Jack Bauer who realizes that the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. Our country needs to adapt that kind of mentality if we're going to win the War on Terror.
24 is a TV show.
This is real life. I too watch 24. I also recall on many occasions Jack has to answer for what he does. He acts outside the law and knows he does. He also knows that if he does he's breaking the law.
I asked you rather direct, questions about your experience and how you arrive at your core values and you answer "from TV".
That says it all.
I was simply trying to point out that sometimes the ends do justify the means. Sometimes you have to provide for the greater good, and you may have to break a few laws along the way. Also, your argument that you can't talk about national security if you haven't served in the military is ludicrous. Very few people would be able to voice their opinion on these issues if that were the case. I draw my conclusions from observing the events that occur around the world. I have every right to voice my opinion on the role that our government should be taking to prevent future terrorist attacks. Don't tell me that I can't voice my opinion because I haven't served in the military. That's the only argument that you guys can ever make, because you can't debate the actual issue. You have to make it personal.
I asked if you ever spoken to anyone who was held as a prisoner, or spoken to a veteran about the Geneva Conventions. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm trying to see how you might have arrived at your core values. You did give the most absurd answer I've ever received and that is "from TV".
I was raised by veterans who thought that our constitution and our ratifying of the Geneva Conventions was something to be proud of. A very good friend was a prisoner of the Japanese and made the Battaan Death March. He could not have been more proud to wear the uniform of a nation that believed in the Geneva Conventions. None of these people allowed a cathode ray tube to inform their beliefs and build their core values.
That is because you dont KNOW that your means are going to achieve any specific ends. You can justify ANYTHING. He we needed to kill a million Jews, they were trying to enslave all of Europe we actually saved lives. Or we ought to just nuke the middle east and kill a hundred million Arabs so that we can end terrorrism. Except there is no way to KNOW that your MEANS will gain you the end you desire. So you ALWAYS restrict yourself to moral means. You can SAY hey we know there is a serial killer in this neighborhood so we are just going to execute EVERYONE in the nighborhood that way all serial killers will know they dont have a chance. Except what if the killer only made the police THINK he lived in the nieghborhood, all you really accomplished was to make yourself the evil you were trying to get. THAT is what YOU are trying to do. Make America the evil we are supposed to be fighting. There are always unintended consequences. When you TRIED to do what is RIGHT not what is convienient then you can always hold your head up, when you do what is convienient and eschew what is morally RIGHT, then you dont get what you thought you were going to get you are just evil.
I'm consistently amazed at the lengths people will go to justify their viewpoints. I actually pity them because I think they are 'tortured' souls. I truly believe they know right from wrong and have a moral compass, but are so blinded by their partisanship that they create arbtrary standards and twist logic into a oretzel to assuage their conscience.
To wit:
'Torture consists of cutting somebody's arms or legs off or anything that causes irreversable bodily damage.' Does psycholigical damage count? Is the brain part of the body or not?
'Waterboarding is a simulated drowning.' Well, if it were real drowning then the person would be dead and it wouldn't be torture. It would be murder or depending on your viewpoint justifiable homicide.
'It isn't our job to be the moral beacan for the rest of the world.' If it isn't job of the greatest and most powerful nation in the world, whose job is it? Latvia's?
'If you really want to see how we should be taking on these terrorists, then you should watch a season of the T.V. show 24.' Uh- it's a TV show. Personally, I think we should be watching reruns of Green Acres for examples. That Oliver really knew how to put that pig in his place.
There are traitorous Freeom haters among conservatives and YOU are one of them. You think our founding fathers would have deported people because of their political beliefs? So they WROTE the bill of rights you just dont think they believed in them. Terrorists are a threat. That is certain. So are people like YOU. We would live in a police state in one day if you had your way. Freedom would not EXIST if freedom hating people like you had your way.
Only sadists can justify torture.
You also called war "ugly", I personally don't believe that you have any idea what war is.
You just like making stupid statements.
what a coward
Once they are prisoners where is the threat? You keep saying they are terrorists. Fine then try them PROVE that and then you can treat them like terrorists. Just because they look vaguely like other people who were terrorists really isnt a good enough reason to torture them. Labelling isnt enough. You would destroy this countries values because you are so afraid you are hiding under your bed. Personally I think there are worse things than dying and losing all my decency and integrity is one of them. As a nation if we lose our values then what is the point, in that case the terrorists have won. YOU are the danger. People like you with no respect for decency and integrity, no respect for the values that made us a great country and no respect for what constitutes freedom will destroy this county a lot more surely than terrorist attacks.
I agree with justices Scalia and Thomas that foreign terrorists are not entitled to the Geneva Conventions, because they fight for no country and don't wear a uniform
Then Scalia and Thomas have no clue what the Geneva Conventions say. First, there is no such category as "unlawful enemy combatant." That was created out of whole cloth by the White House for the specific purpose of trying to dodge our obligations under the Conventions.
Second, while there is a Convention dealing with uniformed soldiers, there is also one dealing with others captured and they are to be treated in a manner in accordance with human dignity. That is our legal and our moral obligation and remains such even if "they haven't signed."
On human rights, you are just like the "summer soldiers and sunshine patriots" that Thomas Paine condemned: all ready and all supportive so long as it's easy and convenient but ready to take flight and cringe in a hole at the first sign of stress.
"there is also one dealing with others captured and they are to be treated in a manner in accordance with human dignity."
Prove it. Give me a source for that. Also, even if that was true it would not mean that terrorists are entitled to the Geneva Convention protections. As I said earlier and as you wrongly denied, you are not entitled to Geneva Convention protections if you haven't actually signed on to the Geneva Convention. These are sick human beings who murder innocent women and children, and they are entitled to no more than the worst that life has to offer. They haven't signed on to the Geneva Convention and are afforded no rights in the Convention.
These are sick human beings who murder innocent women and children, and they are entitled to no more than the worst that life has to offer. They haven't signed on to the Geneva Convention and are afforded no rights in the Convention.
- The truth detector
-------------------------------------------
I agree, Bush is reponsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents and rejected the Geneva Convention, thus he is entitled to no more than the worst life can offer.
Prove it.
Third Geneva Convention, Article 3 In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: * violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; * taking of hostages; * outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; * the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. 2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
Article 4 defines "prisoner of war" in a way that, it could be argued, does not include accused terrorists. However, Article 5 states that
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 4 Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
I guess we just interpret the Constitution differently. I agree with justices Scalia and Thomas that foreign terrorists are not entitled to the Geneva Conventions, because they fight for no country and don't wear a uniform. truth detector
-------------------------------
If terrorists fight for no country, why did your cronies declare war on Iraq?
No one is beyond protection. It doesnt ONLY protect soldiers under uniform. IF they are criminals then they need to be tried and it needs to be proven then they ARE criminals IF they are not criminals then they need to be treated like POWs. No one is trying to end interrogations, just torture. Bush threw a hissy fit and said either he gets his way or HE would end interrogations. So he is the ONLY one that advocated ending them. If you want to treat them like criminals then prove they ARE criminals. Otherwise they are POWs. NO ONE should be tortured.
So I suppose guys like Mcveigh and Nicholls were closet Islamofascist extremists who managed to conceal their Arab heritage. Terrorism is not restricted to a select religion and/or ethnicity. So, following your logic we are all terrorist suspects with no rights and protections, so go have fun at Guantanamo.
George Duhbya Bush, Trick Cheney, Rummy Rumsfeld
And remember NO DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT LOST, by repudiating the REAL GOP agenda. Getting as many Americans killed in Iraq as possible. Using the Constitution for toilet paper, and starving poor children in order to give more money to the Filthy Rich. This may not be exactly true but it is as good a characterization of GOP values as yours was of Dem values. Probably better.
Then I guess the authors of our Constitution were scary amd very extreme people. Yep...that's it...just a bunch of wild and crazy guys!
Which was, as I dimly recall, the claim that winning Democrats were "Republican-lites."
First, the idea that we're still supposed to take Tom DeLay seriously is pretty funny. Be that as it may, when you come right down to it this particularly pathetic attempt at GOPper spin is based on precisely one argument: Democrats who won in more conservative areas of the country are in a general way (and often just on some specific issue) more conservative than Democrats in more liberal areas of the country.
This is surprising or meaningful exactly how?
And in fact, the claim is often enough bogus. For example, on November 10 Atrios ran down a list of stands taken by newly-elected Montana Senator John Tester. After noting that a few of them would usually be considered conservative, he said that overall, "if these are our new conservative democratic overlords, fine by me."
Equally important, the Democrats who won were universally more liberal than their opponents. (If someone want to fuss that that should be "less conservative," fine; I won't quibble.) The election saw the electorate moving away from the selfish, greedy, ignore-your-neighbor, warmongering of the right. Maybe not dramatically rapidly away, but away.
The right can try as hard as it wants in an inane attempt to spin that as a victory for conservatism, but the American people won't care - and, with the exception of a few folks here any of us could name, they won't fall for it.
Conservatives sure do get all pissy and whiny when they lose.
Considering that we very seldom lose, then you may be right. We haven't had much to whine about over the last 12 years. Also, I think it's funny how much you guys are celebrating over one midterm victory. You lost the previous three elections before that, and now you're all pumped up because you won one midterm election in the 6th year of an upopular President. You can't win the Super Bowl every year. Even the worst team in the N.F.L can beat the best team in the N.F.L on any given Sunday.
All pissy and whiny.
That was the best, the absolute best.
But due credit must go to my straight man, The Truth Detector. He makes it so easy.
Considering that we very seldom lose, then you may be right. We haven't had much to whine about over the last 12 years. Also, I think it's funny how much you guys are celebrating over one midterm victory. You lost the previous three elections before that, and now you're all pumped up because you won one midterm election in the 6th year of an upopular President. You can't win the Super Bowl every year. Even the worst team in the N.F.L can beat the best team in the N.F.L on any given Sunday.
- The truth detector
------------------------------------------------
Waaaah the good ole days is over waaaah
Hahahaha
"We haven't had much to whine about over the last 12 years." -td
However, that didn't stop republicans from whining.
12 years is pathetic in comparison to the previous 60 years of Democratic control. Republicans couldn't even manage to accomplish 1/3 of what the Democrats accomplished. Conservatives had it all but lost it because they can't be trusted to run our government, they don't even believe government can be good.