By Beauty Damned

The really frightening thing is the general belief that the A G job is to be used as a waiting room for a Supreme Court vacancy. Further speculation is that Thomas will become the next Chief Justice and Gonzales will take Thomas's spot.

It gets even stranger. There are those who say that Gonzales will be another David Souter. UH HUH.
RGE

Gonzales as Supreme Court Justice is a scary thought. He makes David Souter look like an absolute pillar of integrity. Thomas as Chief Justice wouldn't be much of a leap from Rehnquist, so all I can do is sigh heavily on that one.

.
This creep will be confirmed, unless some MAJOR stink bomb hits the Senate floor, or the Press, in the next few days, on Gonzales. His defense will be, ironically for an anti-"trah loyah" Repuke, that he was just doing a lawyer's job: Acting as a good attorney for his Chief Executive, and providing citations of relevant law for policy decisions.

The people who brought a sense of moral responsibility to the White House are never responsible for anything they do. They've hung the Abu Graibh prison torture scandals on the lowest-ranking people possible, and stifled investigations aimed higher. They'll NEVER get to the White House: Even though Gonzales' own memo's make it clear that the torture policies came from above: And that they were POLICIES, not "deviations."

This is why I say we're becoming Nazis: The deliberate, premeditated violations of our own laws and customs are mandated by the very top people, who then never have to answer for them. That's not right, it's not lawful, and it's not democratic: It's not American. It's Nazism.

"Conservatives" used to stand for Responsibility, by the People to the Law, and by the Government to the People. Now, they stand for nothing, but the raw, untrammeled exercise of power, for its' own sake. Now, they are Nazi's.
.

This issue is not about politics," said an aide to Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat. "It's about American values and the rule of law."
That quote right there is where you lost me in the arguement.

That's assinine Pam. What about that quote is inaccurate? Oh wait, let me guess, must be because it was said by Ed Kennedy's aide and as soon as you see the name Ed Kennedy, the ABCs start streaming through your head at top volume...

Don't knock Fat Teddy. If it wasn't for him, passenger side life jackets wouldn't be standard features in all Massachusetts vehicles.

speaking of Fat Teddy: http://www.heterophobic.org/journal/past/001067.php

Why all the cracks about Ted Kennedy? He is, by several country miles the best Democratic senator we have. Over the years his personal life has been a mess, but I don't care. His effectiveness in office could be a model to his Democratic peers.
RGE

I second that RGE. It's pretty amazing that republicans can have a tendency to be so condescending and judgmental about the personal lives/mistakes of democratic leaders, but when it comes to their own side of the fence, they just turn the other cheek and ignore the same types of mistakes. Bush and Cheney have three DUIs between them, do you ever hear these folks who harp on Ed Kennedy mentioning that? Heck no.

Ed Kennedy is a standup guy.

Did Bush or Cheney leave a girl for dead while on a drunken binge? Yeah, I didn't think so.

No. They've just left thousands dead in Iraq while on a power/oil binge. That's not as bad though, right?

eh-eh- nobody wants to hear your excuses.

girl, I said that his personal life was a mess, but that he was a great senator. Why don't you get the other 87 keys repaired on your one-note piano? That one note consists entirely of ad hominem non sequitirs.
RGE

It's funny how personal lives only matter when we're talking about Republicans.

Now THAT was a non-sequitor. Geoffrey, don't try to turn it around. What you said is exactly what was said in response to the comments about Ted Kennedy, and now you are turning around and trying to make it appear that WE started by criticizing personal lives? We were just pointing out the hypocrisy. Personal lives only matter when we're talking about Dems. REMEMBER? Next time maybe you could allow yourself to fully wake up before injecting nonsense into threads. I seriously don't care that Bush and Cheney have DUIs. I used to work in an office where we primarily defended DUI offenses. But I think it's funny that you and girl would make mention of Ted Kennedy's auto accident as if it holds some relevance to the comments about Alberto Gonzales, if you don't want it thrown right back at you.

Whose trying to turn it around? Oh wait, you are. Either personal lives matter or they don't. I don't care which. To me, they matter. For everybody. Your personal life speaks of your character. Even yours.

Fat Teddy is a disgrace professionally and personally. Would you care to discuss either, or just content to stomp your feet and cry because someone made fun of your moonbat idol?

Would you care to have a real discussion, or just stomp your feet and patronize others like the condescending twit that you are?

I want to talk about the issues, yes. Which is why I wrote this fucking post, and why it's rude to derail the subject with stupid diversions such as "Fat Teddy" jokes.

Geoffrey, are you really blind? Review the thread. Who derailed the subject from Gonzales? Pam. With her ignorant comment about being lost on the argument as soon as she saw a quote by Ted Kennedy. Who followed with more personal attacks on him? You.

Now, care to justify the confirmation of Gonzales?

And to me, personal lives of politicians very rarely matter if the person's professional track record far outshines their personal transgressions.

If you didn't want to discuss the authors of quotes you use, why use them? The credibility of your sources is relevant. The fact that it upsets you to learn one of your idols is personally corrupt is even more reason to bring it up.

Gonzales? Best man for the job. His record speaks for itself. Getting brow beaten by partisan idiots who would have brow beaten ANYONE nominated doesn't detract from his qualifications at all.

And to me, personal lives of politicians very rarely matter if the person's professional track record far outshines their personal transgressions.

Translated as: Democrats personal lives don't matter, Republicans do. I'm not surprised.

I'm going to say it once more for the slow readers. Ted Kennedy has been, the most effective Liberal senator for a number of years. His non-senatorial behavior several decades ago is a non sequitir in this discussion. The Massachusetts voters continue to give a resounding vote of approval to his role as a senator.

As to condemning Republicans for personal behavior, you will note that the ones who fall are those who have been the most condemnatory of Democrats for sexual misbehavior. Their fates have been those of persons who are attracted by the very behavior they condemn. I despise them for their hypocrisy and believe that justice is served when they are forcced to resign.
RGE

I'm going to say it once more for the slow readers.

So much for keeping it respectful, huh moonbat?

Ted Kennedy has been, the most effective Liberal senator for a number of years. His non-senatorial behavior several decades ago is a non sequitir in this discussion.

That was exactly my point. Fat Teddy is a joke. Again, it's funny how the personal lives of people you support are unimportant, but for the last year the personal lives of those opposed was the topic of discussion. Sorry moonbat, the rules haven't changed.

The Massachusetts voters continue to give a resounding vote of approval to his role as a senator.

Well duh. It's a liberal cesspool.

As to condemning Republicans for personal behavior, you will note that the ones who fall are those who have been the most condemnatory of Democrats for sexual misbehavior

Whoop whoop! Hypocrisy justification! Danger Danger! Whoop whoop!

How is Gonzales the best man for the job?

"If you didn't want to discuss the authors of quotes you use, why use them?"

First of all, because it came from the article that I linked. Second of all, because the author of the quote is not relevant. It is the quote itself. Donald Duck could have said it. It would still be true. Even if it came from the mouth of an animated talking duck.

Remove Ted Kennedy from the equation and it says this: "This issue is not about politics. It's about American values and the rule of law."

That is a true statement, no matter where it comes from. It is just sad that republicans are so narrow minded that they can't look beyond the name of a person they've decided to dislike to examine whether or not the statement is true and relevant.

I have noticed that it's very common for republicans to come to my site and derail the subject with derisive comments about a person, rather than discussing what really matters. I guess it's an easy way to avoid having to rationally justify your position.

How is Gonzales the best man for the job?

Well, he may not be the best man for the job, but he's definitely a great candidate. My point still stands. The moonbats would cry regardless who was nominated.

Second of all, because the author of the quote is not relevant.

It's completely relevant. How the hell could the author of a quote not be relevant?

It is just sad that republicans are so narrow minded that they can't look beyond the name of a person they've decided to dislike to examine whether or not the statement is true and relevant.

Equally sad moonbats can't look past the party of a person they've decided to dislike to examine whether he'd be good at the job.

have noticed that it's very common for republicans to come to my site and derail the subject with derisive comments about a person, rather than discussing what really matters.

Perhaps that's because what you think really matters is so absolutely ridiculous at times, it only warrants laughter.

It's completely relevant. How the hell could the author of a quote not be relevant?

I already explained that to you. Read it again Geoffrey. It is the truth in what was said that is relevant. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? That quote could have fallen from the sky on a scrap of paper, the author never to be identified, and it would still be true. Satan himself could have wired that message up from hell, and it would still be true.

Equally sad moonbats can't look past the party of a person they've decided to dislike to examine whether he'd be good at the job.

Actually, I didn't mention his party a single time in this post. But I did mention at least five good reasons why he shouldn't be Attorney General. You haven't named one reason that he should.

You are accusing me of doing the exact thing that you are actually doing. You've decided he's the best man for the job because Bush says so, not because of his track record. If he called himself a democrat, you would automatically decide he was the wrong person for the job. Admit it. That in itself would indicate to you that he has bad judgment.

I, on the other hand, couldn't care less what party he identifies with. The reason I think he's a terrible choice is because he has written numerous memos condoning torture and proven definitively that he cannot be trusted to crack down on those tactics that he has already wholeheartedly endorsed.

Now tell me again, why you feel he's a good candidate for the job?

Geoffrey, we had our brief interlude. If I had known your fuse was so short, I'd have been more careful.
I though that you could actually stand a little needling without turning into sort of an unfunny Daffy Duck.

I stand by every word I wrote, especially those having to do with being attracted by the the behavior one condemns.

A final thought, you actually write rather well when you forget about juvenilia and other name-calling. You don't give a damn, but I could rather like that Geoffrey even though I believe him to be wrong about most things and he returns the favor.
RGE

already explained that to you. Read it again Geoffrey. It is the truth in what was said that is relevant. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

You explained it, but like most things you don't understand it. How can the author of a quote NOT be relevant? That's asinine.

Actually, I didn't mention his party a single time in this post. But I did mention at least five good reasons why he shouldn't be Attorney General. You haven't named one reason that he should.

You don't have to mention his party for it to be the underlying theme of your message. Again, that's the point. The very reasons you list against Gonzales are the very reasons he is going to make an excellent AG.

You've decided he's the best man for the job because Bush says so, not because of his track record.

BZZZZZZ Thanks for playing.

Admit it.

It's simply not true. There is a difference between a Democrat and a moonbat. I respect many Democrats, my family included.

The reason I think he's a terrible choice is because he has written numerous memos condoning torture and proven definitively that he cannot be trusted to crack down on those tactics that he has already wholeheartedly endorsed.

Which is exactly why I want him in that position.

I though that you could actually stand a little needling without turning into sort of an unfunny Daffy Duck.

Which is what I thought. It's all or nothing. It's obvious how I'd prefer it, I just held back so you'd stop crying.

You don't give a damn,

Bingo. I give what I get. You set the standard, I follow it.

You explained it, but like most things you don't understand it. How can the author of a quote NOT be relevant? That's asinine.

It's not asinine at all. Watch:

George Bush: "the sky is blue"
John Kerry: "the sky is blue"

Does it matter who said it?

The very reasons you list against Gonzales are the very reasons he is going to make an excellent AG

I'm just going to laugh at that because I know you must be joking.

Does it matter who said it?

Of course it does, since that example isn't universally accurate.

You can laugh. It's what you always do when faced with the knowlege that you are taking the wrong stance........Again.

Geoffrey, I wasn't crying or even coming close. The thing that concerns me is that you seem to have no concept of writing that is between good manners and argumentation and all out name calling and abuse. I really enjoyed what I choose to call our brief encounter.

Finally, I wasn't thinking particularly of you when I mentioned saying this one more time. Also under definition 4 as sent me by you, I am proud to be a moonbat.
RGE

The thing that concerns me is that you seem to have no concept of writing that is between good manners and argumentation and all out name calling and abuse.

No, I have no use for veiled insults and petty slurs. If I have something to say, I say it. It's all or nothing.

Also under definition 4 as sent me by you, I am proud to be a moonbat.

I never sent you anything. If you are referring to definition 4. that I posted in the other thread, then you need to go take your meds. When I posted that yesterday, your definitive answer was: "I'm in no way a moonbat".

Make up your mind. You guys wonder why we laugh at you.

I'm sorry, I didn't know that my opposition to torture, belief in the humane treatment of prisoners and endorsement of adherence to the Geneva conventions was "taking the wrong stance."

Of course it does, since that example isn't universally accurate.

Wrong answer poindexter. The sky is blue. Doesn't matter who says it. It's the truth. Democrats' opposition to Gonzales is not about politics. It is about American values and the rule of law. That's the truth. It would have been true if Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly said it, and it would be true if Al Franken or Jon Stewart said it. It would be true if Satan said it. It would be true if it fell from the sky on a scrap of paper. Face it. You're wrong. Where the truth is concerned, when it has already been determined to be true and factual, it doesn't matter from what direction it is delivered, as its reality has already been established. I know it is true. Because I do not oppose Gonzales because of his political leanings. I oppose him because he represents a failure in American values and a desire to deviate heavily from the rule of law.

I don't wonder why you laugh. You laugh because you're certifiably fucking out of your gourd.

I'm sorry, I didn't know that my opposition to torture, belief in the humane treatment of prisoners and endorsement of adherence to the Geneva conventions was "taking the wrong stance."

Where did Gonzalez say anything opposing that?

Democrats' opposition to Gonzales is not about politics.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! I can't believe you actually said that! HA!

You laugh because you're certifiably fucking out of your gourd.

Most mentally challenged people think the rest of the world is nuts. You're no different.

Where did Gonzalez say anything opposing that?

Get with the program Geoffrey. Time to wake up and smell the news. This isn't up for debate. It's been established that he endorsed tactics which violate the Geneva conventions. It's also established that he argued heavily that the state of Texas has no obligation to abide by international treaties, in order to dismiss State Department concerns about the impending execution of a Mexican national whose rights under the Vienna convention had clearly been violated by Texas police. Do a google search.

"[The war on terror] renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." - Alberto Gonzales, Jan. 2002 memo

Why is he the best man for the job again?

If it's well established, you shouldn't have any trouble providing me with the link that establishes it then, should you?

Geoffrey, would you mind at least reading the current day's news before you leave clueless comments on my website? Read the latest entry on this blog. Even the people who "love him" recognize precisely what it is that you are attempting to deny. Do a google search Gonzales + Torture + Memo. I don't need to provide you with anything more than I already have. Read his January 2002 memo. Pull your head out of the sand. It's all plain to see.

Ahhh, so it ISN'T so well established that you can provide a link. If you assert it, back it up. Otherwise it's just more of your propaganda.

I backed it up with his exact quote. It doesn't get anymore well established than that.

I won't play that game with you. Sorry pal.

Just as I thought. Cut out part of a quote, take it out of context and play it to be something it isn't. Of course you won't play that. You've been exposed again.

Unless, of course, you'd like to back up your assertions.....

You really make yourself look like an idiot.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6733213/site/newsweek/

p.s. how do you take his statement out of context? It's clear as the day is long. He heavily argued the point that the president, nor the U.S. military was obligated to abide by the Geneva conventions. This, if nothing else, is common knowledge.

Geoffrey, yes I did mean definition 4 in the other thread and relied on my memory which was a tragic mistake. I ahould have written "I like defiition 4 which makes the distinction between a liberal and a moonbat clear and I'm no moonbat."

I think that we're both a little thinskinned, but has it ever occurred to you that I'm only using an air rifle and you are retaliating with a howitzer.
I shoot only to make people pay attention. You shoot to kill.

RGE

HAHA! I'm stupid? You rant and rave about this memo you've read, then when pressed for evidence you post a link to an OpEd that mentions the memo, but doesn't show it either?

THAT'S why the only people that take you seriously are other moonbats. You sit around and make things up, then quote each other as fact.

If Gonzales supported what you claimed, let's see it. Or did you make that up too?

I'm only using an air rifle and you are retaliating with a howitzer.

Yep. Why does that matter? If you slap me I'll break your nose. If you pull a knife I'll shoot you. I'm all about escalating retaliation.

That's not an op-ed piece jackass. It's national news. What's most hilarious is that you're in the dark about something that even mainstream news media has been candid about repeatedly! All you want to do is distract from the real question I asked: WHAT MAKES GONZALES QUALIFIED TO BE AG?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38894-2004Jun13.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/

So what is it that qualifies Gonzales again?

Geoffrey, I mistakenly thought you had a core of decency and perhaps a shred of humor. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong and on that score I couldn't have been more wrong.
RGE

Any thoughts on that memo Geoff.

Schooled Bitch.

This gets funnier as we go.

Your first link was written by the Justice Department as guidelines FOR Gonzales. What fault did he have there again?

The second link is a copy of the memo I assume you were referring to. In that memo he lays out the positive AND negative aspects of following the recommendation OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. Is it just that you can't read? No wonder you were afraid to link this. It completely debunks everything you've been crying about.

Now THAT'S worth laughing at again. Here's some advice: Actually read the material you use to form your opinions.

On the first, his fault was that he got exactly what he asked for and touted it.

I read the material. He states quite unequivocally that the Geneva conventions are "quaint" and "obsolete." Isn't that exactly what you said I was bullshitting about? Ya dumbass. How does it feel to get schooled?

Geoffrey, I mistakenly thought you had a core of decency and perhaps a shred of humor. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong and on that score I couldn't have been more wrong.

Being wrong is a habit with you. Looks like you're wrong again.

Any thoughts on that memo Geoff.

Schooled Bitch.

Yep, only I read it before I responded. Something you should have done before you went and made an ass of yourself.

YOU'VE been schooled, "bitch". Maybe you need that education.

HAHAHAAA. You are a piece of work Geoff. DENY DENY DENY. Keep repeating that mantra. I read the memo. Looks like you didn't though.

Deny? I knew that would be your comeback.

Fact: Your first memo linked wasn't written BY him, but TO him, and was a recommendation from the Justice Department.

Fact: The second memo written BY him was a list of the positives AND negatives of following the advice of the Justice Department. That's his job.

You cited memos you obviously didn't even read. How's it feel to make an ass out of yourself?

You obviously don't read many legal briefs Geoffrey. That second one was his opinion plus the possible downsides to taking that position. His position is as he stated:

"[The war on terror] renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

That is what I stated initially. You claimed that was something I made up. I proved it. You look like a jackass. End of story.

That memo is an endorsement of tactics that violate the Geneva Conventions. When an attorney writes a brief like that, laying out a strategy, the negatives, or the arguments that will undoubtedly arise from any adversaries to that position are ALWAYS discussed and laid out as well. You don't just write out a memo and say "this is what we should do" without also pointing out the pitfalls.

Your ignorance is showing Geoffrey. I proved my point.

I said: "It's been established that he endorsed tactics which violate the Geneva conventions."

You said: "If it's been established, provide a link."

I provided three. You told me the quote I provided of his was probably taken out of context. It wasn't and I proved that as well. So now that I've answered all of your questions, why don't you answer mine:

What makes Gonzales the best man for the job?

Sometimes I forget I'm speaking to someone who's intellect is slightly less than average. You made yourself look like a jackass, only you're too stupid to realize it.

Using your logic, you could also argue it was a memo in opposition of torture. He said adopting such a position could leave our troops open to the same treatment, would receive the condemnation of our allies. It would give other nations cause to not cooperate with us and undermine US military culture.

Hmmm. It sounds like he's opposed to it. Why? Because HE'S OFFERING BOTH SIDES OF THE COIN, which is his job.

Your ignorance has already been shown. This is just a continuing example. Funny how you've decided to ignore your other "evidence".

The title of your thread is "say hello to cruel and unusual Punishment, yet you still provide no example of his support of it.

Keep trying. I'll stick around to continue pointing out how foolish you are. Again.

You've already been proven wrong. I know that you'll never accept it. You're just not that kind of person. I've known you long enough to realize that you never admit you're wrong. Go ahead and clown yourself into believing that Gonzales hasn't clearly endorsed torture, as has been reported by every news source out there and evidenced by the memos I linked.

So you gonna answer the question or what, dodger? What specifically qualifies him for the job? Since I've told you what I personally oppose about his appointment as AG, why don't you tell me what you personally support about it. Oh I forgot. George Bush says he's the man for the job, so he must be the man for the job. Way to think for yourself wiseass.

Gonzales hasn't clearly endorsed torture

You haven't shown a single example of Gonzales endorsing torture. Not one. Not a shred. Nothing. You've claimed it often. You've yet to offer a single shred of evidence to support it.

So you gonna answer the question or what, dodger? What specifically qualifies him for the job?

Keep trying to change the subject. You made the assertion. Back it up. Show one single document that evidences his support of torture. Just one.

Oh wait, you've tried......and failed.

I've provided tons of evidence. If it were painful to be clueless, you'd be writhing on the floor, too wretched to type another single idiotic word.

Aaah. You just can't answer the question can you Geoffrey? You don't know, do you? You don't have any fucking idea who Gonzales is above and beyond all the accusations that are being made all over the place about him. You can't name one single good solid reason why he should be AG. Pathetic.

You make me sick.

I've provided tons of evidence. If it were painful to be clueless, you'd be writhing on the floor, too wretched to type another single idiotic word.

tons of evidence? All you've done is stomp your feet, wail loudly, provide evidence that supports MY position, and try to change the subject.

You've been schooled, bitch.

"you're fucking out of your gourd" - maria

"you're too stupid" - geoffrey

"you make me sick." - maria

"you've been schooled, bitch" - geoffrey

I'm trying not to laugh but you two really DO remind me of that episode on Roseanne where Dan and Roseanne scream, swear, throw furniture at each other and threaten bodily harm, only to end up in bed. I really think you all got this major love/hate thing going on :)

Why is Gonzales the best man for the job, Geoffrey?

He wouldn't be worth the effort it would require to lift a piece of furniture and huck it across a room. Nor do I imagine he would be worth a fuck.

Subject change subject change. I'll be more than happy to give you a list of reasons why I think he's qualified. As soon as we finish establishing your blatant ignorance.

You said he condoned torture. You claimed it was well established. However, you've failed to provide a single shred of evidence to back up your claim. Why? Because there is none. Why? Because as much as you'd love to believe it's true, it isn't.

You've been schooled, bitch. Prove your case or suck it up and admit you don't have a clue what your talking about and I'll be more than happy to prove mine.

Thank you Maria and Geoffrey. I've been feeling so crappy these last few days and nobody can lift my spirits like the two of you.

:-)

Ya right Geoffrey. WHATEVER. I'm going to stop before we both turn into a broken record, I can already see it happening. Anyway, it's been predictably retarded talking to you and I do hope once you can come up with one single reason that Gonzales is qualified to be AG, that you'll share it with me. bye now.

Rosemary, It's good to know that I lifted at least one person's spirits today!

Of course this is predictable. It's what you do every time. You make a claim, then fail to back it up. Only this was more of a train wreck than usual. This time you actually posted a link to a memo attributing it to him when he didn't even write it.

Normally you at least scan your sources first. You're getting lazy.

Thanks for the opportunity to school you yet again. Time for your typical "get the last word then lock the thread" move.

He's right.

All this post (and the subsequent comments) shows is that you think Gonzales isn't qualified - you haven't provided anything to substantiate your claim(s) except inuendo (sp?).

From what I've observed, you're just fuming that we do not agree with your opinion....which by the way is all fine & dandy but opinions aren't in contention here.

I've said this before: you have to show why your opinion(s) is/are valid with some sort of substantiation. Quite frankly, the onus is upon you.

I read the memo that he wrote the POTUS that Maria linked.

He is correct that the Geneva Convention (GPW) doesn't apply to Al Qaeda and the Taliban but it (the memo) didn't mention Iraq or Iraqi POW's. He is simply referring to terrorists.

Terrorists didn't sign the any treaties, aren't official members of any State Armies and therefore wouldn't be entitled to POW treatment according to the Geneva Convention. They don't and won't treat any of our soldiers accordingly so, unless you feel beheadings, lynchings and burnings to be in accordance, it stands to reason that we don't have to accord them higher standards than they would treat us with. Again, the memo was referring to terrorists with no State affiliation not legitimate members of any Enemy Armed forces.

I'm not seeing a problem with the memo. Why should we be treating terrorists better than they would treat us? It certainly won't change their minds about us.

That's true.

If they're not going to abide by the Geneva Conventions - especially when they behead non-combatants - then why should the U.S.?

I am certain that we would anyway, but not because we're compelled to, but rather that it's in our nature as Americans to be more civil in the war on terror.

Rosemary and Mad Mikey,

You two boneheads can agree with the arguments set forth in Alberto Gonzales's terror memos as much as you want, but you're terribly wrong. Just because you think it's an acceptable way to deal with what you call "terrorists" (ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? So many of those jailed in these foreign jails as terrorists haven't even been convicted of anything and most of the time there isn't nearly enough evidence to do so! You're talking about the asshole with the wire that he's attaching to someone's penis and fingertips being the judge and jury of each and every prisoner! sick!) doesn't mean it will ever be acceptable to erode our adherence to the Geneva Conventions. Just because you two AGREE with Gonzales's controversial opinion that the United States is not obligated to abide by the Geneva Conventions in questioning terrorists doesn't make it any more acceptable or accepted. Just so you know, the rest of the world strongly disagrees with you. The United States does not just decide that they no longer want to abide by international treaties on the basis of one man's sick, twisted attempt to manipulate the law. Do you two comprehend that that is the very attitude that led to major abuses within these prisons by people like Lyndie England? The only thing you've proved with your statements is that you are two sick fucks. The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you and so does the international community at large.

Just so you know, the rest of the world strongly disagrees with you.

lol. do you have some sort of secret link with "the rest of the world" which gives you all of their opinions that the rest of us don't know about? I mean, really, feel free to share.

She has "tons of information" because it's been "well established", she just never feels like letting the rest of us in on it.

Not true, Maria. I didn't say that I agree with not abiding by the Geneva Convention rules. I said that it is an accurate statement that we aren't obligated to treat terrorists by them.

I actually think we, The United States, should abide by them because we are not the moral equivalents of terrorists and if we don't follow them we lose the moral high ground. I also don't think torture is a proven method of extracting information.

So, if that makes me a sick fuck in your eyes I can live with it. The only point I was making was on legal grounds the memo was correct. If you think I'm wromg then you should spend time reading the Geneva Convention rules of warfare and show me where I'm wrong. The rules only apply to Nations and national armies. Terrorist factions don't recognize them, don't follow them and THAT is the point. Legally, anyway. Morally the issue is different.

And what happened in Iraq is separate from what the memo stated was legal because the prisoners in Abu Ghraib that were abused are/were POWs. That was illegal and that is why the soldiers involved are on trial.

Rosemary, the matter of whether or not Gonzales's argument holds water can be debated from here to eternity, but the bottom line is that it has already been determined to be a moot point. Criminals in the United States do not abide by the laws of the United States and they are still afforded all the rights and privileges that are laid out in our Constitution and Human Rights Act. Just because terrorists are international criminals does not mean that they should not be afforded the same rights and privileges as laid out in the Geneva Conventions and other international human rights treaties. I don't understand why any American citizen would take the position that American criminals are entitled to certain human rights that those who we consider international criminals are not. It makes no sense. They're called "Human Rights" for a reason. Not "American Rights" or "the Rights of Those Who Follow Our Rules of Engagement."

I can see that you understand this Rosemary, and you state that you don't believe that Gonzales's reasoning should be applied, yet you defend its validity anyway and I find that disturbing since there's really no basis for it.

Girl, don't be cute. do you have some sort of secret link with "the rest of the world" which gives you all of their opinions that the rest of us don't know about?

Yes, I do have a secret link with "the rest of the world." It's called "human rights treaties." Those have already determined the stance that the rest of the civilized world takes on human rights/torture/imprisonment. Gonzales's memo turns those principles on their face and contradicts the most fundamental reasoning that brought those treaties into existence. So yes, I do consider the very human rights treaties that he has attempted to render inapplicable, as an already established system and standard by which the United States and the rest of the world has already committed to follow. That in itself is an indication of "the rest of the world's" stance on human rights. We are not talking individuals here, of course, nor those areas of the world that are not party to those human rights treaties.

I defend it as a matter of law only. From a legal standpoint, he was correct. I also believe that he was issuing a legal opinion not a personal one. I may be deluded in thinking that but I'd like to believe the best in people until they prove me wrong.

American criminals are treated the way they are because that is their right as a citizen and because We the People demand it. They are afforded only what the Constitution grants them, not the Human Rights act. As proof of that assertion, we still have the death penalty in this country.

Do you have a link to the current Human Rights Act? The one that we are joined to I mean. I can only find the British and Canadian versions. Is the one from the UN in 1968 the current applicable version?

Wah Wah Wah.

The crux of the matter is you declared that Gonzales supports torture, yet it's patently untrue and you've yet to establish that it is. We can argue the point you've attempted to shift the focus too, though.

The entire problem with your argument is it's based in emotion. It's just another example of you deciding that YOUR feelings should exist outside the law. The fact remains that there is no legal basis for your assertion, as Gonzales wrote about in his memo.

The purpose of criminal courts, POW status, and the Geneva Conventions are entirely different from each other. The purpose of criminal courts is to establish proof a crime was committed and sentence the appropriate punishment for that crime.

The purpose of the GC and POW status is to sequester a member of an enemy fighting force until the conclusion of the battle. The methods for establishing whether or not a combatant is protected under the GC is spelled out, with conditions made for civilians and militia also.

It does not, however, make allowances for nomadic terrorists with no gov't affiliation. Given the purpose of POW status, how long should these terrorist be held for? There won't be a definitive end to hostilities. Neither have all of them committed crimes punishable under a criminal court. Does that mean we should just let them go?

Your assertion that each individual be given a criminal trial is not only asinine, it's unrealistic and threatens US security. I think the only obligation we have to them is a military tribunal to establish whether or not they actually are affiliated with a terrorist organization.

Gonzales agrees, which puts him head and shoulders above anyone you'd suggest for the job. Regardless, it does not substantiate that he condones "cruel and unusual punishment" as you claim, yet fail to give evidence of.

I'm going to try this from another direction. I'm going to draw a parallel and see if we can see this logically and not emotionally. Because this is a really emotion issue and I'm talking logic and law not emotion.

Let us suppose, that the memo was about the issue of abortion. Let us say that Gonzalez was explaining the barbaric procedure of Partial Birth Abortion and the legalness of the procedure. The description of the procedure is pretty gross and not something anyone with a soul would want to do unless they had to, IMHO, but it was a legal, medical procedure.

I believe in my gut, many people would be going spastic if the memo was explaining how and why this is a perfectly legal issue and they be demanding the head of Gonzales for appearing to support the procedure. But you, Maria, wouldn't be one of them. Because this issue would charge your emotions the same way, you'd be able to see this from a legal standpoint and that is what I am doing.

The memo doesn't say whether or not he personally supports it only why it is legal under our current law. If the memo were about abortion, I think that you would be arguing from my point and that you would understand that it was a legal not moral position.

From a legal standpoint, he was correct.

Rosemary, as I said, that is a matter of debate. It has been determined that from a legal standpoint, it is NOT correct. People do not want torture. The people of the United States do not stand behind torture, nor do they stand behind Gonzales's interpretation of the law. So, in that sense, it is not legal at all. When you say "from a legal standpoint, he was correct" what you mean is that he can argue that the sky is green if he wants to, but that doesn't make it correct in any sense. Any lawyer can take the laws and try to twist them around to fit his objective, no matter what the objective is. That is what Gonzales has done, and that is why it is so clear that he supports inhuman torture as a means to extract information. Because that is where he begins, and his memo builds around that theory, distorting the law to try to support the position. It's obvious that Geoffrey is naive about this strategy. The objective of every legal brief is to present one position and build up a firm justification for that position, in the process, the adverse positions will also be brought up and shot down in an attempt to further cement the basic objective: to find a legal justification for torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners. Geoffrey accuses me of basing my objections to that memo on "emotions." What are human rights if not the fundamental belief that all human beings are entitled to the same basic treatment? There is not room for deliberating circumstances in that fundamental belief.

I don't have a copy of the Human Rights Act. How silly of me to think the U.S. would have one...

This is an interesting article though:

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/21/usint9925.htm

They don't support and condone torture, huh Geoffrey? It would be ludicrous to think so! Since all the red flags point towards a real concern for the preservation of human rights...please forgive the fucking sarcasm dude.

"The only thing you've proved with your statements is that you are two sick fucks."

"You two boneheads can agree with the arguments..."

I Probably will get slammed for this, but it REALLY bothers me, Maria, that you were the very first one to chastise me early last year over DS' "Wetback" issue where I began calling the names and you made a REALLY big deal about the namecalling issue; that you do not initiate namecalling but that you stick to the issues. I realize that A) it's your blog and B) the issue is highly charged and passionate to you, but it still pisses me off to watch you bring your argument to that level, especially when it wasn't acceptable when I did it and I don't think anyone here deserves to get attacked in that manner. Like I said, your blog, your rules, and if you want to slam me it's your perogative. Just making a notation since we went at it ourselves last year.

Duly noted, Vickie. But allow me to justify my gentle namecalling by saying that neither of those are racial or ethnic slurs and that anyone who condones torture is both a sick fuck and a bonehead in my dictionary.

Point taken.

Just sayin'; no offense intended on my part.

And may I also say that in my opinion, putting cigarette butts out in people's ears and forcing them to endure torture and humiliation somehow warrants namecalling that attempting to cross the U.S./Mexico border via the Rio Grande does not.

no offense taken.

I will add that I was not offended by Maria's choice of labels. I believe she misunderstood me and her response was a result of her misunderstanding. I also don't believe that I am a sick fuck or a bonehead, evil maybe but not the other two. ;-)

That's true Rosemary, you're not either of those things. Mad Mikey and Geoffrey, maybe, but I do believe you're far better than them on many levels.

You bring up the legality of this, and say:

Rosemary, as I said, that is a matter of debate. It has been determined that from a legal standpoint, it is NOT correct.

Then, after offering a legal claim, your fact is supported by your very next sentence:

People do not want torture.

In what bizzaro world does what people WANT have anything to do with a legal determination? As I've said a million times, you're arguing with emotion, not logic. You have a failed argument, and you repeat the same tag lines and offer no evidence.

The people of the United States do not stand behind torture, nor do they stand behind Gonzales's interpretation of the law.

Where is your direct line to what the people of America want or don't want? You quote what "the world wants", you quote what "the people of America want", but you're just blowing hot air. Evidence, my dear. This schooling is one of the easiest I've accomplished. One of the dimmer students, though.

That is what Gonzales has done, and that is why it is so clear that he supports inhuman torture as a means to extract information.

There you go again. We're coming up on 100 comments. Do you plan to insert any proof to back up that moonbat mating call? Still waiting.

They don't support and condone torture, huh Geoffrey?

Is that another article you neglected to read before posting? There's quite a bit of "it's not proof" and "maybe he knew". Wait! I think Hanoi John did it! Well, I don't have any proof, but I WANT SO BAD FOR HIM TO BE GUILTY.

**Yawn**

The very fact that you can read back through this and not be embarrassed at your continued attempts to argue a failed position with no evidence, no documentation, and no support beyond "my secret line to the world" is further indication of what's wrong with the America you want. Heck, using your logic we can lock up anyone we want, since you don't need proof and evidence anymore. What are you crying about?

Duly noted, Vickie. But allow me to justify my hypocrisy.....

The real question is, what are YOU crying about Geoffrey? Rambling idiocy...

Rambling idiocy? I'm still waiting for you to provide all this evidence you've been talking about. All you've done is toss out ad homs and talk about your secret link to the world.

As Mikey pointed out before you deleted his post, you're crying and stomping your feet in hopes that no one will notice you don't have an argument.

You're just puking the party propaganda. Why don't you learn to think for yourself?

Here comes the broken record of whining and denial.

Still no evidence?

Not surprised. Denying what? I laid out my case very factually. All you've had to say is "but it's not gooooood".

You've been schooled. All you have no are one liners to draw attention from that fact.

La Raza!

Your peeps, no, Maria?

Couldn't handle the truth Maria?? Is that why you deleted my post?

Figures....

Chet, what is that supposed to mean to me?

Mad Mikey, you can go ahead and keep telling yourself that.

Geoffrey, your keyboard called. It wants you to stop wearing out the same keys.

And the saga continues. You've been schooled. If you keep repeating nonsense loudly, maybe you'll draw attention from the fact that you have no game.

Keep puking the party propaganda. It's easier than thinking.

Or, for a change, you can actually back up any of the claims you've made.....

Still waiting.

Mad Mikey, you can go ahead and keep telling yourself that.

Nothing to repeat to myself.....except that you're obviously afraid of my pointing out stupid aspects of your *cough* argument as is evident by your deleting it.

Go ahead and keep burying your head in the sand Ms. Ostrich.

Your argument has been busted apart. You're like the Black Knight in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' - you're being hacked to death and you still keep thinking you've got a leg to stand on.

Maybe if you research it enough, you might find some juicy Michael Moore snippet to use as a rebuttal......

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!

You've been taught - again. Waaapisssshhhhhhhh!!

Ha! Black Knight! Good one!

it's just a flesh wound! come back here and I'll bite your kneecaps off!

*snort* I think I'll watch that tonight. thanks, Mikey.

Personally, my favorite part of the whole confirmation hearings was listening to Teddy "glug glug glug" Kennedy lecture Gonzalez about water torture. Does Ole Ted have no sense of irony?

Wow. Is that all you have? Whenever someone brings dirt up on any of your guys, all you can do is dig out that dead horse and continue to beat it?

Talk about pathetic. I am going to bed now. I have had enough of these kooks. (Where do you find these right winged fools at Maria?).

Seriously? I can't get rid of them. It's like having a maddening rodent infestation. You try to brush them off. Doesn't work. You try to ban them. They grow a new IP address like a lizard grows tails. Try to blast them with fury. They kick and scream like the children that they are and never, ever, ever fucking leave you alone.

They think that if they just say "that's false!" in response to everything you say, then eventually, when they've done that enough times, they've won the debate. It's really twisted dude. Most people don't even comment because they fear getting caught up in the web and feeling compelled to tear every hair out of their own head.

But then again. That's why the rodents are here. They're sadistic little bastards.

Oh yeah, and if you get really tired of their bullshit and start deleting their comments or closing threads, they really throw a fuckin tirade. It's really charming.

Maria,

Gonzales' memo - for lack of better words - is appauling.

The Geneva Convention is not "quaint." It is a set of guidelines that are meant to be followed by us, as a major superpower, when dealing with any country, state or faction in war. I do not believe we should allow our military to use it, as Rosemary accurately attested, to only those groups which have mutually signed it. We are not obligated to, and I believe RM is correct on that issue.

HOWEVER, I do believe that as the largest free nation in the world, it is our DUTY to oblige by it in each and every act of war we indulge in.

The equating of the rights of a US citizen for equal protection and civil rights even though they have broken the law does not make a good legal argument. I will tell you why.

In 1997, one of my best friends and Phoenix Police Office Marc Atkinson was brutally ambushed and gunned down by 3 illegal Mexican Nationals. Each of those three were treated to stays in an Arizona jail, each of them were granted council and were afforded the rights as if they were a US citizen, including the right to trial. They also exersized their "instant rights" to bargain for a plea agreement instead of the death penalty or deportation.

Did we have to do any of that? No. We did not have to give them any of the same rights as a US citizen. Those three "terrorists" were distributing the largest WMD known to man (illegal drugs) and killed one of our Soldiers (police officers).

We, as a country, SET THE STANDARD FOR OTHERS TO FOLLOW.

If Marc were alive (a Desert Storm veteran, and proud Marine), he would be sick at the notion that a man like Gonzales felt the Geneva Convention was "quaint," regardless of how Gonzales meant, interpreted, or executed his memo. Marc fought in wars abroad and here in the US, to show that the US has much more compassion and wisdom than that. Gonzales comment stripped that wisdom away.