Author |
Message |
   
Tom Reingold
Supporter Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13011 Registered: 1-2003

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 9:34 am: |
|
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031106A.shtml
|
   
mjh
Supporter Username: Mjh
Post Number: 398 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 10:53 am: |
|
Eloquent and heartbreaking. |
   
Robert Livingston
Citizen Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1773 Registered: 7-2004

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 10:55 am: |
|
It's a real shame Bush will never hear any of those words. |
   
Pippi
Supporter Username: Pippi
Post Number: 1939 Registered: 8-2003

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:16 am: |
|
It is very heartbreaking. I wonder what Bush's reaction would be if he were aware |
   
Robert Livingston
Citizen Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1774 Registered: 7-2004

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:20 am: |
|
I can picture Bush snickering. Rove calling him unpatriotic. And Cheney using his letter as toilet paper. |
   
bettyd
Citizen Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 146 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 1:43 pm: |
|
What a moving letter. Thank you for your service Joseph D and adhering to this country's noblest ideals. Maybe he should run for office. |
   
Duncan
Supporter Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5988 Registered: 12-2001

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Wow. I fear of the load of tripe that will be heaped on this poor man. |
   
Guy
Supporter Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1665 Registered: 8-2004

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 1:56 pm: |
|
"Until your administration, I believed it was inconceivable that the United States would ever initiate an aggressive and preemptive war against a country that posed no threat to us. Until your administration, I thought it was impossible for our nation to take hundreds of persons into custody without provable charges of any kind, and to "disappear" them into holes like Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram. Until your administration, in my wildest legal fantasy I could not imagine a US Attorney General seeking to justify torture or a President first stating his intent to veto an anti-torture law, and then adding a "signing statement" that he intends to ignore such law as he sees fit. I do not want these things done in my name" Factually incorrect |
   
tom
Citizen Username: Tom
Post Number: 4559 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:00 pm: |
|
in what way? |
   
Tommy O'Reingold
Supporter Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13028 Registered: 1-2003

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:01 pm: |
|
The author was speaking about his beliefs, i.e. the belief that an administration would not do those things. The beliefs are not factually incorrect or correct. Though if you're pointing out that previous administrations did comparable things, you'd have a point.
|
   
Guy
Supporter Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1666 Registered: 8-2004

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:09 pm: |
|
" posed no threat" no true " Gitmo " some prisoner actually like it there. " Attn Gen justify torture" never, only looked to define it. Anti Torture law AKA Al Qaida Bill of Rights should not preclude the president from doing what he needs to protect the country. Torture is not the policy of this admin. |
   
tom
Citizen Username: Tom
Post Number: 4561 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:10 pm: |
|
You'd have to go back over a 100 years to find a similar pre-emptive war, maybe even to the Mexican war during the Polk administration. The internment camps sixty yeasr ago during WWII were I suppose similar to Gitmo -- minus the torture. The signing statement is pretty incredible. You'd have to go back to Andy Jackson to find a president as arrogant -- and he was in fact censured for his behavior. One would have hoped that we'd outgrown these kinds of behavior. The fact that we haven't is disappointing. |
   
CageyD
Citizen Username: Cageyd
Post Number: 663 Registered: 6-2003
| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:14 pm: |
|
"Gitmo " some prisoner actually like it there. You know he's right. I heard Gitmo is becoming a tourist destination for Muslims and Arabs worldwide, They actually have a waiting list for cells - ah I mean - rooms - especially the rooms with a view of the chain link fences and guard dogs. You are a complete and total idiot Guy. |
   
Guy
Supporter Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1667 Registered: 8-2004

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Dave , please don't suspend Cagey for calling me an idiot. Some Gitmo Prisoners Don't Want to Go Home Mar 06 6:46 PM US/Eastern Email this story By BEN FOX Associated Press Writer SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico 67c21f9aaf09@news.ap.org Fearing militants or even their own governments, some prisoners at Guantanamo Bay from China, Saudi Arabia and other nations do not want to go home, according to transcripts of hearings at the U.S. prison in Cuba. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/06/D8G6CJV03.html |
   
Robert Livingston
Citizen Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1779 Registered: 7-2004

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:19 pm: |
|
Guy: That hardly means they "like it there." You're better than this, dude. |
   
tom
Citizen Username: Tom
Post Number: 4562 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:22 pm: |
|
"only looked to define it" -- define it so anything short of actually killing someone falls outside the definition. If we found pictures of the Republican Guard wiring up our servicement, stripping them, handcuffing them to pipes, freezing them, and generally subjecting them to the treatment we gave Iraqis, you wouldn't consider it torture, just business as usual for wartime? |
   
Robert Livingston
Citizen Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1780 Registered: 7-2004

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:26 pm: |
|
Bush sealed his fate as the "torture president" when he threatened to veto the anti-torture bill. Do you honestly believe Bush doesn't condone torture? I bet he's itching to get some naked Iraqi on a leash himself.
|
   
Guy
Supporter Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1668 Registered: 8-2004

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:27 pm: |
|
So, RL, should I have said prefer Gitmo to their own country? Same point. They are treated well.
|
   
Hoops
Citizen Username: Hoops
Post Number: 948 Registered: 10-2004

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:29 pm: |
|
Guy - you are better then that. can you answer toms point. if the shoe were on the other foot, would approve of say Iran treating our troops that way? and would you consider it humane? |
   
Guy
Supporter Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1669 Registered: 8-2004

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Of course I wouldn't approve of our soldiers being treated that way no more than I would approving of them being killed. Of the thousands of interrogations that have gone on the number of documented instances of mistreatment is small. |
   
tom
Citizen Username: Tom
Post Number: 4564 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:45 pm: |
|
Not good enough. We don't approve of our soldiers killed, but it doesn't promp outrage if they are killed in battle. And there are hundreds of photographs of instances of mistreatment, no small amount at all. Would you be outraged to see our troops treated the way we are treating detainees? |
   
Robert Livingston
Citizen Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1781 Registered: 7-2004

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Oh yeah, Guy, the prisoners love love love being stripped naked, hooded, and forced to make a pyramid. It's like spring break for them. Dude, I think you either need some more green beer or less. |
   
Guy
Supporter Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1670 Registered: 8-2004

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Which detainees tom. Republican Guard soldiers who possiblly follow the rules of engagement, terrorists who dress up like civilians to blow us up, or enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan. Robert, why are the Gitmo prisoners singing "I know that it's getting late but I don't wanna go home" |
   
Tommy O'Reingold
Supporter Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13030 Registered: 1-2003

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:53 pm: |
|
You're an apologist, Guy. Do you believe the president should have unbridled power to do what he needs to do? I don't. "A country of laws, not men" means we don't allow behavior based on how a trustworthy an individual appears to be. We distrust all positions of government, because they are all abused if unchecked. Principles also go beyond individuals. I glean principles from the constitution, not just procedure. Torture is not the policy of this admin It's not stated, but when it's practiced, there is something wrong. Claiming small numbers doesn't make it right. That's a defense of an indefensible practice, Guy. It's wrong, Guy, and you should say it's wrong. Instead, you say it's not that bad. My God!
|
   
Guy
Supporter Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1671 Registered: 8-2004

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Tom , this question was asked at the Gonzalez hearing to 3 anti Gonzalez scholars. They fumbled with the answer. You have heard it before. If a nuclear device is set to go off in New York, and we have a man who has info that can stop it, can we use torture. The answer cannot be that torture doesn't work. |
   
Smarty Jones
Citizen Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 469 Registered: 10-2005
| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Pre-emption- Has been used by every US president going back as far as I remember.... Clinton: Kosovo, Somalia (1,200 Somali's dead...but I guess they don't count anymore) Bush Sr.: Iraq the first Reagan: Grenada, Libya Carter: Strongly preempted communism...by boycotting the olympics Nixon/Ford/Kennedy/Johnson....You know the rest... I'm stunned at the short memories (or blindness), and the presumption that US preemptive use of violence is new is a truly naive statement. Who on earth can possibly think that what occurred in Iraq is in anyway new, or different than the last 75 years of Foreign Policy post-ceding WWII? When Foreign opponents rail against the US foreign policy, do you honestly think they are railing against Bush and Rove? No Way! They could care less who the current president is, they are railing against the last 8 decades of policy. Wether you agree with it or not is a different story...but the suggestion that this is a new invention of Bush Doctrine is false. It's US doctrine. The scale of the Iraq war has been greater than prior examples (with US casualties) which is why I imagine people feel like this is a first. Here's a picture of Belgrade burning, immediately after hundreds of US sorties (ordered by Clinton) leveled the city, and killed an estimated 500 civilians.
 |
   
Tommy O'Reingold
Supporter Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13035 Registered: 1-2003

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Huh? Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq (1991), Grenada, Libya, were all responses to actions that took place. None was a pre-emptive war. Boycotting the Olympics doesn't seem like pre-emptive war to me. No one got hurt. But yeah, I do have a problem with US foreign policy throughout the ages. Too violent.
|
   
Smarty Jones
Citizen Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 470 Registered: 10-2005
| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Tom, just because you may support these actions, does not meen they were not preemptive. To anybody who disagreed with the reasons for these invasions, they absolutely represent preemptive use of Force by the United States upon another Sovereign country. Can most people explain why we bombed the living hell out of Kosovo? Most americans don't even know who the good guys were in that conflict. Grenada...hmmmm...What was the reason there? Oh yeah, a Marxist Coup....not unlike why we de-throned Hussein.. (dictator)....Libya- Remind me again what precipitated the bombing of their soil? Whether or not you agree with the reasoning behind the invasion does not change the fact that every example listed, the United States sent troops (or missiles) onto another sovereign nations soil, sustained casualties, and killed numerous fighters/civilians. none of those examples were in defense of US Soil, US citizens (vague excuse in Grenada), or Genocide. |
   
Rastro
Citizen Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2627 Registered: 5-2004

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Guy, if a terrorist is holding your five year old daughter in front of him, and you have a gun, do you shoot him through your daughter? The world does not operate like an episode of "24". |
   
Tommy O'Reingold
Supporter Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13037 Registered: 1-2003

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Smarty, I didn't support those actions, either. So you see, I am consistent. But those actions were reaction, not pre-emption.
|
   
themp
Supporter Username: Themp
Post Number: 2679 Registered: 12-2001

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Not-so-Smarty doesn't know what pre-emptive means, or he doesn't know the context of Kosovo. Or (most likely) he has no regard for the truth. |
   
Duncan
Supporter Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5991 Registered: 12-2001

| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 5:01 pm: |
|
I am completely stunned, Guy, that you would say that prisoners who are afraid to return to their country for fear of reprisals "like" being in Gitmo. That is some majorly twisted thinking. Never mind the whole torture debate. That sort of thinking is what is corroding, slowly but surely, the reputation of the US and the strength of our democracy. Baghdad burning after Clinton air strikes...pre-emptive???
Quote:The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down. Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance. Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN. When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan. The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars. Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection. So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. "In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program." In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors. This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now.
and that is just one of your examples. What Bush did in Iraq is not the same as what Clinton did.
|
   
tom
Citizen Username: Tom
Post Number: 4566 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Grenada was sort of a spin on the Monroe Doctrine, we wouldn't allow a Marxist coup to succeed in our region. While I'm no Reagan fan, it was consistent with centuries of American foreign policy and a reaction to an actual physical action. We bombed Libya because they blew up an airliner over Scotland, and hundreds of Americans died. They also blew up a disco in Germany and killed U.S. soldiers. These were acts of war and we responded accordingly. Again, I'm no Reagan fan but he did exactly the right thing, right down to intercepting the flight carrying some of the actors. Overthrowing Milosovic was a NATO action in response to ten years of successive genocidal campaigns on the very doorstep of western Europe. It was quite plausible that it could spread to Macedonia, then Greece, Albania and so on, all along the various cross-border ethnic lines. It had to stop, and we did it. On the other hand, Saddam was contained. The no-fly zones and sanctions were working. |
   
The SLK Effect
Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1106 Registered: 10-2005
| Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 9:28 am: |
|
Uh Oh, one navy guy is pissed....better call back the troops...
|
   
Duncan
Supporter Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5997 Registered: 12-2001

| Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 9:58 am: |
|
SLK...one non-reservist got pissed and he started a war. What is your point?
|