"Bush is a war criminal."
BS
"What can you think of that is better since he became president? "
Have you been blown up by a terrorist lately? Very short memory huh? Also, the economy is great, check the actual figures, not the boys down at the corner bar.
Walt Conner
One month after taking office, obviously before Clinton's national security people were in place the World Trade Center in New York was attacked by a foreign group with a half-dozen fatalities. There was no other significant successful attack by a foreign paramilitary group within the borders of the United for the remainder of the Clinton Administration.
Nine months after Bush took office, by which time HIS national security people were in place, the World Trade Center was attacked and 3,000 people killed.
Yes, you have a very short memory indeed.
I sugest you DAGS for the text of the 1949 Geneva conventions. A declaration of war in s not a predicate condition for their applicability.
I've read the the US has never fully ratified the 1949 conventions. If you can find out which parts the US has rejected, please let me know.
False. AFAIK, no one otld the Congress that the yellowcake documents were forgeries, something that the Bush administration could harldynot have known. No one told the Congress the truth about the
81mm Medusa missle tubes. No one told the Congress that the only administration source for information about the Iraqi bioweapons programs was a man who had not been to Iraq in 15 years and was described by German intelligance as a crazy drunk.False. The Congress did not declare war, which would have compelled the President to make war. The Congress authorized the use of military force, which left that use to the discretion of the President. That authorization was necessary to force Iraq's compliance with UN 1441. Iraq then complied with UN 1441, and Bush invaded anyways.
False. The 2001 resolution authorized the use of military force in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. It was not a blanket authorization to make war any time, any place, for any other reason. It also restricted the President to necessary and proper actions. The invasion of Iraq was neither, within the context of the 2001 resolution.
ISTR The second resoution was acted on at the request of the President. It was entirely proper for the President to request it and entirely proper for the Congress to pass it. The President should then have supported the UN inpsections that he had so adamantly inisted upon, instead of materially obstructing them, and politically undermining them.
It is accurate. The decision to invade was left to the President. The Congress waived it's authority to weigh in on that issue when it declared to include any conditional language within the war powers resolution.
Given that the Geneva convention applies to uniformed combatants, the insurgents and terrorists that we are fighting (Geneva Convention does not extend protection to "irregulars" and "spies") do not fall under protection of the Geneva convention. That we are attempting to extend those protections to such irregulars says more about us. [as does the Al Quaeda bill of rights that Democrat John McCain got squirrelled into the latest defense appropriations bill].
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+... snip
Let me guess, you don't actually *read* or *watch* Fox News, do you? If you did, you would realize that they have the same biased sources as all of the other news outlets. The majority of their stories come from the AP (hardly a bastion of conservative apologists) and are published verbatim from the AP. The only thing that makes them "conservative" is that fact that they have more than one or two token conservative commentators on staff and their commentators try to restore some balance to the slant that AP, Reuters, and the NYT put on all of their "news" reports.
... snip
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
You should read them before commenting on them.
The US has not ratified all of the Geneva conventions which does tend to complicate the issue as to exactlywhat our obligations are. But a refusal to regognize some of the convention, or parts of them does NOT justify saying that the Conventions themselves do not have those provisions.
The US _has_ ratified the Convention prohibiting torture inhuman treatment and cruel aand degrading punishment which applies to everyone without exception, even our own citizens.
Again False. Protections for spies,sabotuers and civilians accused of a beligerant act (e.g. guerillas or partisans not in uniform) not only are found in the 1949 Geneva Conventions but also in other international treaties
at least as far back as the early 20th century. Check out the Hague Conventions.In the US protections for spies date back to a time befor there even was a United States, by an act of the Continental Congress in 1775.
Check it out for yourself and then let Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson know for me, OK?
The prohibition against torture in that bill was certainly not needed. What was needed was enforcement of existing laws.
The UCMJ prohibits assault, battery, and acts of cruelty making it impossible to torture a prisoner without violating the UCMJ. No officer, not even the Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to order a violation of the UCMJ.
Be serious. You expect a Rush Limbaugh parrot to read something. This clueless idiot just regurgitates what he hears on right wingnut radio.
Fine Fred, yes the Geneva Convention addresses spies and saboteurs, not allowing torture, but fully allowing execution of said spies and saboteurs, they just have to be granted a trial prior to execution. They are NOT treated as prisoners of war in the same manner as uniformed regulars.
Therein lies the problem, we are now extending that "cruel and degrading" treatment clause to include "making the terrorists uncomfortable".
"Please Mr. Terrorist, we know you are planning an attack, we found parts of the explosives, the rest are gone. Where are they? Please tell us. Oh, you're thirsty -- here's a glass of water, is it too warm in here? Please, tell us where that car bomb is, please. Are you hungry? Is that chair comfortable enough. Where is that car bomb?"
Bottom line, with thinking like this, we are doomed as a country.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Good. I'm glad you took the time to read them.
Now, the nest time one of your idols prattles on about how the GCs don't protect someone, what are you gonig to think about him?
OTOH, water torture is tortue, no matter what you call it.
How were Habibullah and Dilawar killed?
Why?
If by thinking like this you mean abandoning morality and rejecting the rule of law, which you seem to advocate or at least excuse, yes.
Dave,
Do you know Frank Church by chance? He's one of the folks from over in the fly fishing newsgroup who was a 97 and then 135 boomer. I was just one of those guys sucking up underneath on the drogue in an EA-6B
Allen
OK, I'm lost...lot's of arguing about people who don't give a crap about me so I'm finding this debate hard to follow. I just pay the bills when they come in...
So anyway, does anyone have any sites with pics of Carter's woodworking?
I'd even be interested in sites with Bush I, Bush II, Reagan, Clinton, Ford, Nixon, Roosevelt, Truman's woodworking..thanks!.
Doesn't appear so though one person did give you a mag. that he said had some work. You might try searching for this mag. on Internet. I think that Wood Mag. had an article many years ago, perhaps back in the 80s, might try a search there also. Did you look at the Carter Library site?
Walt Conner
Well a quick check turned up at an auction - A baseball signed by Cuba President Fidel Castro and Jimmy Carter and - Two bottles of homemade wine made by President Carter.
Walt Conner
Actually Mark, I used to watch Fox News overseas. It's a completely different show, and is actually pretty good. Coming back to the US I was amazed to see the US version is like a weird parody of a news show. Everything is an swoosh-swoosh-swoosh NEWS ALERT! DANGER! PAY ATTENTION NOW! They claim that they are 'fair and balanced (tm)', but my experiences say otherwise. Flipping through the channels during 2004 it seemed like every day they had a TERROR ALERT! when none of the other channels did. Their trumped up "War On Christmas" is almost surreal, and seems to be aimed purely at getting people angry. And their hosts make me nervous - Bill O'Reilly seems to get most of his popularity by raging at and intimidating people who don't agree with him, and Hannity isn't much more open minded. As a regular guest, Anne Coulter's weird jokes (at least I think they're jokes) creep me out about killing people who don't agree with her. The other news channels report bad things happening in Iraq and Fox prefers to report how happy people are there. There's this bizarre circus atmosphere to Fox News that makes my head hurt. Yet, they're #1 I believe. Personally I think it's a deer in the headlights phenomenon. Get people's hearts pounding in anger, fear, or self-righteousness, and they'll keep watching.
After reading the London Times and the Guardian for a few years, I realize that all US media is biased. It pretty much has to be, since Americans report the news. The Brits will report things like "US Troops invade Fallujah, 2000 killed and tens of thousands driven from their homes." It's just a cold, naked fact. The US services will report the same story as "US Forces Liberate Fallujah, Rumsfeld optimistic for continued success." There's a lot of spin in that headline.
Well, have a Merry Christmas and I hope you all get your news from more than just one source.
Dave
... snip
That's quite an interesting statement. You believe Bush is evil incarnate but FDR was a great man. Just to remind you :
1) FDR ordered the internment of 10's of thousands of *American Citizens* of Japanese descent. Without trial. Without due process. Without reparations. Without protest from the media. 2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*. Just to see if they had any interesting information. 3) Under FDR's watch, German infiltrators were *shot* when captured on American soil. Not imprisoned, not questioned, not held without communication or access to lawyers, but shot after appearing before a *military* court. In that case, FDR's government, and the Supreme court (that he had previously packed) argued that the military had such power. Note that one of those German infiltrators claimed to be a US citizen. The case was Ex Parte Quirin, the German saboteurs case. In World War II, eight German naval officers, one of whom claimed to be a U.S. citizen, landed secretly in the United States and were arrested. After trial by a military tribunal, seven were executed. The Supreme Court held that because they were members of the enemy armed forces, the military had jurisdiction (as it did over members of our own armed forces) to try them. The Court said that military jurisdiction was permissible because the defendants were "admitted enemy invaders." 4) FDR oversaw wage and price controls 5) FDR oversaw rationing and restrictions on what Americans could buy. Now, this was in a time of war, but just imagine if Bush were to have tried the same thing. 6) A number of historians are beginning to postulate that the policies implemented by FDR during the depression actually served to deepen and prolong the depression rather than alleviate it. One example, the 90% income tax on those who were succeeding stifled any recovery as those who "prospered" were penalized to the point of not finding being able to grow new businesses. 7) FDR deliberately mislead the news media (and members of the news media deliberately and willingly did not report) information regarding his health and physical condition.Had Bush done any or all of the above, this would have caused the press and the left to raise howls of indignation and cries for impeachment. Yet, to the left, FDR is a hero and a great man. Truly amazing.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+Thats very interesting. I never heard of this before. What is the source on this? Thanks!
Mark & Juanita wrote:
Huh? And what is that reason, after more than 60 years have elapsed?
Like Mr. Connors, I'd like to see a cite.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.