Printable View
Hot off the presses, the JAG memos from 2003 concerning Gitmo have been declassified, so feel free to give them a read. For context, I found a pretty good commentary on the subject. Representative quote:
It's always nice to be able to hear a snatch of the real dialogue, and not just pre-packaged spin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Lederman
Its funny how the whole contrived "Gitmo Contraversy" the media suddenly chose to play up disapeared after the London attacks..
It seems like when people are reminded of just how real the threat is, they arent so receptive to liberal crying about the treatment of terrorists.
Oh, the bomb attacks may have made people temporarily less receptive to the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo, for the same reason people were not receptive to the treatment of Germans after the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
In the end they will want to uphold certain standards of decency that are at odds with your variety of fascism, such as the presumption of innocence and the humane treatment of detainees who have been found guilty. We don't want to be the next 'Asian' whisked away to Gitmo under the cover of silence or shot in the head eight times on an underground platform, do we?
Another reason why your attitude to torture should be rejected is that it is so ineffective in the fight against terrorism.
That there are soldiers and entire departments in the U.S. military who want to uphold those standards is testimony to the strength of American democracy. I would rather subscribe to what Air Force General Rivers says in the papers:
Finally, the use of the more extreme interrogation techniques simply is not how the U.S. armed forces have operated in recent history. We have taken the legal and moral "high-road" in the conduct of our military operations regardless of how others may operate. Our forces are trained in this legal and moral mindset beginning the day they enter active duty. It should be noted that law of armed conflict and code of conduct training have been mandated by Congress and emphasized since the Viet Nam conflict when our POWs were subjected to torture by their captors. We need to consider the overall impact of approving extreme interrogation techniques as giving official approval and legal sanction to the application of interrogation techniques that U.S. forces have consistently been trained are unlawful.
Ah your getting the jest of the American system now - one of the main reasons I was never overally concerned about Gitmo - because I had faith (and still do) that eventually we would sort out the right way from the wrong way. That it might have created other problems in the mean time - well is also a problem of the American system. But at least we air out our dirty laundry for all to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Quote:
Oh, the bomb attacks may have made people temporarily less receptive to the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo, for the same reason people were not receptive to the treatment of Germans after the war.
In the end they will want to uphold certain standards of decency that are at odds with your variety of fascism, such as the presumption of innocence and the humane treatment of detainees who have been found guilty. We don't want to be the next 'Asian' whisked away to Gitmo under the cover of silence or shot in the head eight times on an underground platform, do we?
Another reason why your attitude to torture should be rejected is that it is so ineffective in the fight against terrorism.
Yet Americans understand the claims of torture to be pure bullshit and that enemy combatants in a time of war do not in fact have the same rights as Americans.
It seems like the MSM saw an opening to pander to the left earlier in the summer. There hadnt been any terror attacks and terrorism had fallen from the spotlight. Senator Durbin made his comments and Gitmo was put up as a sacrificial lamb to the left.
However, to America's credit, people realized just how crazy Senator Durban and those who sympathize with the enemy are and the issue didnt gain any real momentum. The MSM played it up as best they could and still got no where.
The attacks in London put the final nail in the coffin of the Gitmo controversy.. it may rise again like the ugly leftist driven monster it is.. but for now its dead.
Those are fascinating documents. I was especially interested in the way the JAGs noted that the conclusions of the DoD and executive branch were 'contentious' and that some of their recommendations could be considered breaches of domestic US law. When I get more time to look at them, I'll be back.
So the JAGs of the Army, Navy and Air Force are leftist conspirators now? Man, your armed forces must be in trouble...Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
That's where you take the wrong turn time and again, Panzer. Critics of any policy do not, by implication, sympathise with a country's enemies. And doing a 'McCarthy' on every critic of this administration is not going to convince anyone either.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Anyway, the British are going ahead with the prosecution of soldiers suspected of abusing 'terrorists' regardless of the bomb attacks. That's the way to go: you don't shut down democracy in order to save it.
Actually you are incorrect - some of the claims of torture are indeed crap - others have to do with the intent of the laws that govern the military and the treaties that were signed by the United States. The defination of torture and its different interpations lead to this confusion - and its the reasonable and right thing to do - to question the governments actions in regards to its activities. While I don't see minor sleep deprevation, loud music, and other such minor discomfort techinques as torture - it can be argued that these things do indeed fall within the scope of the intent of the anti-torture statues of the United States and International treaties -which I beleive is the jest of the JAG thesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Durbin is an politicial animal - he stated what he did to pander to what he believes is his politicial base - it could cost him his next election. Again a free society questions its governments actions. If the governments actions is right - then the defense of the actions by the supporters will have logical basis for their opinion. Emotional appeal - is not a logical method to defend the governments actions.Quote:
It seems like the MSM saw an opening to pander to the left earlier in the summer. There hadnt been any terror attacks and terrorism had fallen from the spotlight. Senator Durbin made his comments and Gitmo was put up as a sacrificial lamb to the left.
That because many of us understand that it was an emotional appeal - and he got criticized by many groups for his pandering comments.Quote:
However, to America's credit, people realized just how crazy Senator Durban and those who sympathize with the enemy are and the issue didnt gain any real momentum. The MSM played it up as best they could and still got no where.
Oh I don't think it did - Because while I agree holding detainees in GITMO is not against the statues governing the United States Military - nor is it against the Geneva Convention - certain aspects of what is happening there can be seen as illegal according to United States Law and is against the Genva convention.Quote:
The attacks in London put the final nail in the coffin of the Gitmo controversy.. it may rise again like the ugly leftist driven monster it is.. but for now its dead.
That was not torture - it was prisoner abuse. While you might think there is no difference - there is a sutle difference. Should I call you a moron because you think different?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
The JAGs did not call a press conference or stand up on the floor of the US senate and call America a totalitarian country akin to Stalins Russia or Nazi Germany. They did not make such wild statements as "America is shutting down her democracy" like adrian made.Quote:
So the JAGs of the Army, Navy and Air Force are leftist conspirators now? Man, your armed forces must be in trouble...
The JAGs acted in the correct fashion. They handled their disagreement with US policy in a respectful, and not traitorous, way.
It seems that I am not the one who needs to convince people of anything. Gitmo was on the chopping block of public opinion and it got no where. People understand the nature of war and what that entails.Quote:
That's where you take the wrong turn time and again, Panzer. Critics of any policy do not, by implication, sympathise with a country's enemies. And doing a 'McCarthy' on every critic of this administration is not going to convince anyone either.
And it takes an idiot to assume an isolated incident translates into a policy.Quote:
Panzer.. after Abu Graihb I think it takes a moron to deny that the US Military tortures people.
Im not sure how I was incorrect. Public opinion is that it is not torture and no court rulings that I know of support the notion that the treatment in Gitmo is torturous.. therefore it seems to be BS.Quote:
Actually you are incorrect - some of the claims of torture are indeed crap - others have to do with the intent of the laws that govern the military and the treaties that were signed by the United States. The defination of torture and its different interpations lead to this confusion - and its the reasonable and right thing to do - to question the governments actions in regards to its activities. While I don't see minor sleep deprevation, loud music, and other such minor discomfort techinques as torture - it can be argued that these things do indeed fall within the scope of the intent of the anti-torture statues of the United States and International treaties -which I beleive is the jest of the JAG thesis.
However that does not make it so -especially since there are several court cases being brought forth concerning Gitmo. The adminstrations defination of what consitutes torture should be challenged - and it is being challenged.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
A natural inclination against the military is not a fact.Quote:
Considering the track-record of this administration, and the military in general over the last several decades, I'm more inclined to follow the camp that says Abu Graihb was not an isolated incident.
McCarthy wishes he had it this easy.. ~:rolleyes:Quote:
Considering the track-record of this administration, and the military in general over the last several decades, I'm more inclined to follow the camp that says Abu Graihb was not an isolated incident.
You based your belief that the US tortures people on the "military in general over the last several decades".
Where is this objective fact with examples? All I see is someone who doesnt like the military.
What track record of the military as an institution being abusive toward prisoners. Are there individuals within the military that committ abuses. Sure and most if not all are held accountable for thier actions. However it seems you are wanting to make a generalization while protesting Panzers generalization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Yep another one that makes comments about what they don't know and only read in the media. Bah (And I was beginning to think you actually had a brain. - this comment goes to show you don't really think for yourself.)
And you should just stick to this logicQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Yep - you surely don't understand the command structure and the mission of the military. Mai Lai happened without the understanding of a lot of the command structure. Just the local level command. Just like Abu Graihib happened because of the failure of the local level command at doing there jobs. You might want to read up on the investigation - more then one little stupid girl has been held to account for their individual actions.Quote:
Abu Graihb is not possible without knowledge from the higher ups; the fact that it got blamed on the poor stupid girl is a case of successful scape-goating.
[sarcasm on] One man's outsourcing another man's deporting illegal immigrants back to their country of orgin.[sarcasm off]Quote:
And, of course, there is the matter of the US "outsourcing" it's prisoners to other countries to be tortured as well.
LOL, sounds like we have another "I don't support the war, but I support the troops" person. I served 10 years in the Air Force and I know what the bullsh## smell like. ~D
Honestly, I don't think she was under orders to have sex with her boyfriend in front of prisoners. She was clearly a bad apple. Now, if you want to say lack of oversight was a problem- I agree. But I seem to remember that the general in charge at Abu Ghraib was punished as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Maybe the higher-ups were looking the other way, maybe they were even implicity encouraging guards to be 'tough' on prisoners- but I see the specific acts as sick abuses orchestrated by some perverse people. She and the others involved were not simple patsies.
Yep, Dubya has introduced the new McCarthyism and there are a lot of misguided folks swallowing it hook line and sinker. Heaven forbid that one should be tough on terror, yet think the administration is completely bungling this.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Now don't go and accuse others of something you yourself are doing. Where is McCarthyism in the adminstration? In fact since you called it McCarthyism which implies its a Congressional Investigation into Un-American activities by citizens. Where is congress investigating anyone or any organization for Un-American Activities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Yep critize others for what you yourself are doing.
Mc Carthy wasnt as big a jerk as he has been made out to be.
Quote:
"The myth of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie."
The truth about Joe McCarthy and the story of his successful exposure of the communist conspiracy that infected our government during the FDR Administration is once again being trumpeted but this time by a cultural icon who has already sold millions of books and who can't be ignored or dismissed. Hallelujah!
Regarding the ongoing and unrelenting big-lie attack on Joe McCarthy from the left, a man who was simply doing the job he was elected to do, namely, to guard our Constitution and our way of life against a conspiracy to undermine it, Coulter comments:
"Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals...McCarthy was not tilting at windmills. Soviet spies in the government were not a figment of right-wing imaginations. He was tilting at an authentic Communist conspiracy that had been laughed off by the Democratic Party."
It should be noted that it is certainly a protected right in this country for an individual to be a Communist. It is also a right for an individual to be a Nazi, or a Klansmen. Contrary to leftist agitprop, Joe McCarthy recognized this right, he expressed that recognition on many occasions, and he was quite careful to play by the rules in his investigation of government subversion. Joe McCarthy, contrary to leftist lies, was involved in investigating the phenomena of secret communists operating within the Federal Government, nothing more and nothing less.
During his brief tenure in the U.S.Senate, Joe McCarthy confronted and uncovered the bizarre phenomena of certain government officials, in some cases very highly placed and regarded government officials, as engaging in a concealment of their communist involvement. An analogous situation to the one that Joe McCarthy confronted would be if an al-Qaeda operative were working in the State Department or another sensitive agency of government today and keeping his affiliation secret. Joe McCarthy demonstrated the fact that Communists had no more of a right work in our government than Nazis or a Klansmen. The American people, conversely, have a right to know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position where they could adversely influence the future of the country.
The liberal response to Joe McCarthy's revelations, then and now, was to submit him, and his reputation to a public auto da fe, one that continues to stand as an example of what the left will do to someone who dares to defy their agenda. Coulter states: "While consistently rooting against America, liberals have used a fictional event forged of their own hysteria - "McCarthyism" -- to prevent Americans from ever asking the simple question: Do liberals love their country?"
At a frightful sacrifice, even of his own well being and life, Joe McCarthy was nevertheless successful in fulfilling the public obligation he shouldered. His work was not in vain. In spite of a campaign of vilification, hate, and lies, Joe McCarthy successfully alerted the American public at large to the danger Communism posed. Joe McCarthy's career parallels that of Winston Churchill in that Churchill likewise tried to warn the British people about the impending danger of Nazism in the 1930's. Churchill was vilified before World War II but like Joe McCarthy, Churchill understood his times and the nature of evil. Human history can often hinge on the conscience and action of a single brave individual. We should remember with gratitude that the left failed in its attempt to silence Joe McCarthy as most Americans woke up in time to their treachery.
Nice distortion there, McCarthy was good at it as well. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
This admin and its supporters are masters of the smear campaign. There is concerted effort to label everyone who disagrees with it as lefties, soft on terrorism, yada, yada, yada. Same ole' stuff on this board.
and the first line of your quote is..."The myth of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie."Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Sorry, you lost me I never made it past that bullshit...I was thinking you had something of interest, but it look's like some sort of whacko extremist stuff instead.
Yes I know it was - but again you made a specif allegation of Yep, Dubya has introduced the new McCarthyism and there are a lot of misguided folks swallowing it hook line and sinker. Again where is the Congressional investigations charging people with un-american activities. A smear campaign is nothing but mud slinging to people who might or might not believe the same things you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
And again accusing others of what you yourself are doing - its so pathic that its humerous to me. Why else do you think I responded in such a way.
Can you ackownledge that you are doing the exact same thing you are complaining about, or are you so blind in your politicial believes that it prevents you from seeing even that?
No, I can't, because it isn't true. Complaining about McCarthyism doesn't qualify one as using McCarthy-esque tactics. Sorry, it just doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I could have been more specific, and said, "those individuals that equate opposition to the admin's policies to being a lefty, liberal, soft on terror, etc are delusional idiots that enjoy convenient lies rather than rational discussion" but I chose to be a bit more diplomatic.
Fact is, there is a concerted effort by the Right to try to treat the rest of us as unpatriotic. That is McCarthyism. Don't like it? Tough! It is true.
Your right - expect that you are making broad generalized comments about it- without making spefic allegations and points about where this is being done is a systemic way by the government. And that is what makes your counter arguement hypocritical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Again I ask - Yep, Dubya has introduced the new McCarthyism and there are a lot of misguided folks swallowing it hook line and sinker Where is the proof in the pudding so to speak - that President Bush is going beyond normal political rethoric in countering those that politicial oppose him. Where is the investigations by congress into the activities of those that oppose the President.
And just as delusional as your accusing those who oppose your idealogical standpoint. When individuals make comments like that - as individuals not as members of the government - they are not instituting McCarthyism into the equation - but are expressing their opinion be it irrational or delusional in your opinion. However it seems that you are once again accusing others of being irrational and using buzzwords - while not finding fault with yourself for doing the exact same thing.Quote:
I could have been more specific, and said, "those individuals that equate opposition to the admin's policies to being a lefty, liberal, soft on terror, etc are delusional idiots that enjoy convenient lies rather than rational discussion" but I chose to be a bit more diplomatic.
Actually its not McCarthyism - unless you can show where it fits within the actual defination of the term - either as it was orginal met or what it has become to mean.Quote:
Fact is, there is a concerted effort by the Right to try to treat the rest of us as unpatriotic. That is McCarthyism. Don't like it? Tough! It is true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyismQuote:
McCarthyism, named for Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, was a period of intense anti-communism in the United States primarily from 1950 to 1954, when the U.S. government was actively engaged in suppression of the American Communist Party, its leadership, and others suspected of being Communists or Communist sympathizers. During this period people from all walks of life became the subject of aggressive witch-hunts, often based on inconclusive or questionable evidence. It grew out of the Second Red Scare that began in the late 1940s.
Modern term for it
Since the time of the red scare led by Joe McCarthy, the term McCarthyism has entered American speech as a general term for the phenomenon of mass pressure, harassment, or blacklisting used to pressure people to follow popular political beliefs. The act of making insufficiently supported accusations or engaging in unfair investigations against a person as an attempt to unfairly silence or discredit them is often referred to as McCarthyism.
The term has since become synonymous with any government activity which seeks to suppress unfavorable political or social views, often by limiting or suspending civil rights under the pretext of maintaining national security.
Again lets see the evidence where an aggressive witch-hunt is being done by the government because individuals disagree with the stated governmental postion on terrorism; or to supress their view? (classic and modern defination of the word)
edit: even using the modern defination of it - show me where mass pressure or harassment is being used to pressure people to follow the adminstrations guidelines. (modern usage of the word)
Come on now - you can do better then the simple politicial rethoric - or have you become so blinded that you can longer think beyond your own political belief system.
Hahaha and hes claiming the right likes to label people? The hypocrisy is staggering. ~:eek:Quote:
Fact is, there is a concerted effort by the Right to try to treat the rest of us as unpatriotic. That is McCarthyism. Don't like it? Tough! It is true.
Because the media is even easier to distract than a 10 year old with ADD?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
I don't think that what the Republicans are doing is McCarythism, however. If that were true, then there would be far more Hollywood actors and directors in jail. In addition don't think any government officials have been accused of being terrorists.
Your own definition proved my point, thanks again. This admin has been systematic at going after those who oppose it, and the rhetoric is monotonous. Want examples, look at this Rove cover up. It was an attempt to "get back" at an enemy. I could cite other examples, but I'm talking to a wall here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Mass pressure? Just watch the conservative attack dogs in this forum sometime. Gawain's even defending McCarthy, LOL.
I'm not blinded by political rhetoric. I try to actually weigh things and make a judgement rather than aligning with either sides own definitions. For that I've been told I lack principles...again by the conservatives who believe the world is black and white, and that gray is not a real option. Excuse me for not being an extremist.
These guys are not POW's nor are they civilians. They are 'unlawful combatants', and this means they get due process protections under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), but they are not covered by American constitutional protection, nor the Geneva Convention. They do not get the same protections as a civilian (Noncombatants). Lawful Combatants get the POW protections. Unlawful combatants being saboteurs, spies, bandits and terrorists do not.
Older examples of what was intended.
From 1863 "Lieber Code" (Civil War field manual, art 82):
"Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities. . . without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war . . . are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates."
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...aw/quirin.html
From Ex Parte Quirin:
". . . an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war . . . "
http://www.genevaconventions.org/
Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
In no case does it extend to those who wage war by stealth, in civilian guise, not being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, without fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, not carrying arms openly, and not conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
It would IMO apply to the Taliban militia as they are clearly defined as separate from the civilian population (black turbans and scarves) and the PLO militia (again scarves, red checkered IIRC). It would not apply to non-militia terror groups. This doesn't mean these people couldn't be tried for warcrimes, and IMO many of them should be.
In addition the US hasn't signed Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions.
Article 16 of the CAT (Convention Against Torture) would apply as far as I can see.
"undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
Guantanamo is under US jurisdiction by any rational standard. Does anyone know why it is held that Guantanamo is exempt from this?
The Uniform Code of Military Justice. Prohibits U.S. armed forces from, among other things, engaging in cruelty, oppression or maltreatment of prisoners (art. 93), assaulting prisoners (art. 128) (a prohibition that includes a demonstration of violence that results in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm), and communicating a threat to wrongfully injure a detainee (art. 134).
The Federal Torture Statute: 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 2340-2340A clearly applies as well.
I believe that they can be shot (and should be if Al Qaeda) but not tortured. What constitutes torture is of course the question. An execution would require a court or tribunal I believe, but not the extensive kind we are used to. A summary judgement as to the facts would probably be enough.
Of course the fact that Mc Carthy was for the most part correct is the real falacy here. I suppose there was no communist trying to take over the US. Joe made it all up. If you repeat a lie often and long enough people believe you.Quote:
McCarthyism, named for Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, was a period of intense anti-communism in the United States primarily from 1950 to 1954, when the U.S. government was actively engaged in suppression of the American Communist Party, its leadership, and others suspected of being Communists or Communist sympathizers. During this period people from all walks of life became the subject of aggressive witch-hunts, often based on inconclusive or questionable evidence. It grew out of the Second Red Scare that began in the late 1940s.
Again the pot calling the kettle black. The tactic of a poor debator is to attempt to dismiss the individual they are debating with on an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Actually your not debating with a wall - but its nice to see you think I am but then you missed the initial part of my comment direct at your very first accustion - which is to provide proof of your allegation - because to just mud sling your doing the same thing that you are accusing other of doing.
The Rove coverup by the way is not an examble of McCarthyism - its something else.
And you say your not blinded by political rhetoric. By the way since your brought it up - how does the Rove Coverup as you called it - fit into the defination of The term has since become synonymous with any government activity which seeks to suppress unfavorable political or social views, often by limiting or suspending civil rights under the pretext of maintaining national security.
or within the other modern usage of the term
The act of making insufficiently supported accusations or engaging in unfair investigations against a person as an attempt to unfairly silence or discredit them is often referred to as McCarthyism.
Because from what I have read on the issue - and I am not all that well versed in it but it seems that there is evidence of malfeasence on the part of the agent's husband. So is the government making insufficient accusations at the husband - or is there a possiblity of mulitple mistakes by multiple people - beyond just Carl Rove.
A few people don't make it mass pressure. This forum and the posters here represent what less then .001% of the AMerican population.Quote:
Mass pressure? Just watch the conservative attack dogs in this forum sometime. Gawain's even defending McCarthy, LOL.
Well I would disagree with you about not being blinded by political rhetoric - since your throwing terms like McCarthyism around without backing them up. Especially this little oneQuote:
I'm not blinded by political rhetoric. I try to actually weigh things and make a judgement rather than aligning with either sides own definitions. For that I've been told I lack principles...again by the conservatives who believe the world is black and white, and that gray is not a real option. Excuse me for not being an extremist.
Yep, Dubya has introduced the new McCarthyism and there are a lot of misguided folks swallowing it hook line and sinker
The Hague Conventions of 1907 cover the spefics that a waring party must do in regards to summary judgements for individuals who fall within that catergory.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Thanks I will look into that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg