posted
Funny. It’s always interesting to see what you all will be critical of!
Dag – Yeah, I want someone much more conservative.
Morbo – Fix my attitude? Whatever.
Rakeesh – I didn’t say I was glad, just said see ya. It’s his freedom to leave and it’s always just talk anyway!
Rabbit – Did I say whatever yet?
Zuegma – Those people who did that have been punished too. And it might have been embarrassing, but it was hardly beheading.
Jebus – I would but they said you hadn’t retuned it to the rental shop yet.
I do like a lot of the people on that CNN list. I imagine that all will get filibustered. Don’t take this the way it’s going to sound, but I think you can cross off all the white guys. I think that leaves Brown, Garza, and Jones. There will be a fight no matter who he nominates, just because he’s President Bush!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Opposition becomes more credible and meaningful when expressed fairly and factually, doesn't it?
Posts: 216 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You have expressed unfaith in the community and in the intellects of those who make it up to change things for the better.
I would say that the "intellects of those who make up the community" of Hatrack are by far more trustworthy, for the most part, than the intellects of those that make up the community of our current government. I have sincere doubts about the way the country is currently being run. I am scared witless of some of the decisions being made, and I do see this country getting very, very far away from the much-touted ideals of freedom and democracy. Since when does imprisonment without trial, or torture, fall under those ideals?
I am not leaving the country, but I certainly understand the inclination. I am sick and tired of being unable to defend the actions of my country's government. We're supposed to be the good guys, for heaven's sake! Why are the good guys involved in things like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib? Why do so many people defend those actions?
I love the ideals upon which this country was founded; that's why I'm so concerned to see the government moving away from those ideals as fast as they possibly can.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Yes Jay! You've made it abundantly clear that you don't care about me or my concerns. I've got the point, you don't need to keep rubbing it in unless of course that what you think Jesus would do.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>I would say that the "intellects of those who make up the community" of Hatrack are by far more trustworthy, for the most part, than the intellects of those that make up the community of our current government.
I don't disagree, but I wasn't pointing at the politicians as the primary people who are responsible for changing the country.
I was talking about the common American citizenry.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do people continue to say that this country supports the actions of those who have been duly prosecuted and punished for their mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib? They were tried and punished! They were held responsible when their actions came to light. This country did the right thing and should not be condemned for the crimes of its citizenry.
Posts: 216 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott: Ok, fair enough...although I'm not sure how much faith I have in the intellects of the general population, either. I never did buy into that whole "the common man as an ideal" thing. It seems to me that the common American citizenry seems to have made a lot of pretty dumb decisions.
Now, granted, I'm a cynic, and growing more misanthropic every day, so I suppose my view of people as a whole ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Interesting... the sort of have it backwards. Especially with the rulings on eminent domain and protecting unborn babies. I love Moveon! They make it so easy!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do people continue to say that this country supports the actions of those who have been duly prosecuted and punished for their mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib?
Because there is plausible evidence that the abuse at Abu Ghraib was not simply due to the few bad apples that were prosecuted and is actually part of wide spread system of abuses from Gitmo to extra-ordinary rendition.
Because earlier this week Italy indicted several CIA agents for kidnapping an Muslim cleric and transporting him to Egypt to be tortured.
Because Gonzales wrote a memo to Bush before the abuse ever took place, define cases under which torture could be justified.
Because the reports of the tortures at Abu Ghraib were ignored by the Bush administration until the pictures made the front pages of papers around the world. (And yes, the report had been sitting on Cheney's desk for months before the newspapers got the story.
Because my friend who spent 21 years as an Arabic interrogator in the military, the last of those years in Abu Ghraib, has left the military and the country because of what is going on.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I'd like to see a judge that was completely pro-life (anti abortion and anti death penalty), pro free speech (whether it is anti government speech or prayer in school), and pro gun rights.
It annoys me when people equate "tough on crime" with the death penalty. I am all for being tough on crime, but you don't have to kill people to do it.
I don't think I'll ever see that mix though.
Oh, and after seeing Jay's latest post...it reminded me...the judge should not let the government use eminent domain for anything other than direct public use (ie: roads) and then only when it can't be avoided. None of this taking land and turning it over to another private citizen/business.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There will be a fight no matter who he nominates, just because he’s President Bush!
Strange impression. The senate has confirmed over 95% of Bush's court nominees without a fight. Under Clinton, over 30% of the nominees were blocked in committee.
Bush has been given a smoother ride on nominations than any president in the past 30 years.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's talk about upper courts and not the little courts and you'll see some different %'s. Smoother ride! Ha! It's the first time ever that the filibuster has been used on nominees. Give me a break. Let’s keep things in perspective and leave the spin at home.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not true, Jay, although, from what I can find, it is the first time a fillibuster has been used on a nominee with majority support.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
By The Associated Press The Associated Press Friday, July 1, 2005; 11:57 AM
-- President Bush's remarks Friday in the Rose Garden on the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions:
Good morning. A short time ago I had a warm conversation with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has decided to retire from the Supreme Court of the United States. America is proud of Justice O'Connor's distinguished service and I'm proud to know her. Today, she has the gratitude of her fellow citizens, and she and John and their family have our respect and good wishes.
Sandra Day O'Connor joined the nation's highest court in 1981 as the first woman ever appointed to that position. Throughout her tenure she has been a discerning and conscientious judge, and a public servant of complete integrity. Justice O'Connor's great intellect, wisdom and personal decency have won her the esteem of her colleagues and our country.
Under the Constitution, I am responsible for nominating a successor to Justice O'Connor. I take this responsibility seriously. I will be deliberate and thorough in this process. I have directed my staff, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to compile information and recommend for my review potential nominees who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.
As well, I will continue to consult, as will my advisers, with members of the United States Senate. The nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court Justice that Americans can be proud of. The nation also deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate, characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote. I will choose a nominee in a timely manner so that the hearing and the vote can be completed before the new Supreme Court term begins.
Today, however, is a day to honor the contributions of a fine citizen and a great patriot. Many years ago, Sandra Day O'Connor chose the path of public service, and she served with distinction as a legislator and a judge in Arizona before joining the Supreme Court. When President Ronald Reagan appointed Justice O'Connor 24 years ago, Americans had high expectations of her -- and she has surpassed those expectations in the performance of her duties.
This great lady, born in El Paso, Texas, rose above the obstacles of an earlier time and became one of the most admired Americans of our time. She leaves an outstanding record of service to the United States and our nation is deeply grateful.
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Smoother ride! Ha! It's the first time ever that the filibuster has been used on nominees. Give me a break. Let’s keep things in perspective and leave the spin at home.
This oft-repeated lie is really becoming tiresome. Filibusters have been attempted on nominees before.
People are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Let’s keep things in perspective and leave the spin at home.
Practice what you preach, bucko.
Bucko?! I should be offended! She called me a name!!! Name calling is not allowed! Somebody yell at her, I always get yelled at if I even imply a hint of a name call.
By the way, we here in WV are Mountaineers. The Bucks are up north east of us at Ohio State.
(trying to lighten the mood here…. Not sure it’ll work, but figure it’s worth a try)
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, probably there's a difference in how we are defining the word "torture". Certainly, this government and this president do not endorse or utilize the type of torture employed by our enemies. And the terrorists are not brought to trial by their respective governments.
Posts: 216 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really hope the Republican leadership has gotten over the idea of Orrin Hatch as a potential nominee. That was always a horrible idea.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Certainly, this government and this president do not endorse or utilize the type of torture employed by our enemies.
You need to read the indictments made in Italy this week. CIA agents have been charged with kidnapping a Cleric and transporting him to a prison where he had electric shock applied to his Genitiles among other tortures. He was held for over year. He contact his family and Italian authorities when he was released. Shortly there after he disappeared again. The evidence supporting these claims is substantial enough that the agents have been indicted.
The evidence is mounting that this government and the President do indeed support the type of torture employed by the most oppressive regimes. What's more, they steadfastly refuse to allow Red Cross and Amnesty International to investigate claims of torture at US facilities. When survivors of these facilities testify of abuses and the government refuses to allow anyone to inspect the facilities -- it sure looks like our government is guilty.
I would be happy to believe otherwise. If an unbiased third party is allowed to inspect Gitmo and our other prison camps and determines that they are inline with the international treaties prohibiting torture, I will be greatly releaved. Until then, it hardly seems that the Bush administration has any credibility on this issue.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's the first time ever that the filibuster has been used on nominees.
It should also be mentioned, that it has been a very long time since the house, senate, and presidency were all held by the same party. The country is more polarized than it has been in years and the Bush administration is so dismissive of the opinions of the oppostion that fillibuster is the only check and balance left in the government.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gitmo has been inspected on numerous occasions. I'm beginning to wonder if such a thing as an unbiased,, objective party exists.
Posts: 216 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So even with inspections of Gitmo, we're still hiding our torture of the enemy combattants? How can we solve this problem? Any volunteers to go live amongst the inmates for a month or two so we can get the true picture of their treatment?
Posts: 216 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gitmo has been inspected on numerous occasions.
By whom? As of last week, they were refusing UN commision on human rights access.
From USA Today
quote:U.N. human rights investigators, citing "persistent and credible" reports of torture at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, urged the United States on Thursday to allow them to check conditions there.
The failure of the United States to respond to requests since early 2002 is leading the experts to conclude Washington has something to hide at the Cuban base, said Manfred Nowak, a specialist on torture and a professor of human rights law in Vienna, Austria. However, he added: "We are not making a judgment if torture or treatment under degrading conditions has taken place."
posted
The Red Cross has not been allowed in and Amnesty International has not been allowed. To the best of my knowledge, no third party has been allowed to inspect Gitmo since 2002.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Short of allowing 3rd parties to reside on-site and conduct unannounced, surprise inspections, I don't think you can convince the world it's not happening. Edit: Which would seriously compromise the ability to gain intelligence and use it effectively when that information could be compromised at any time by inspectors who happened to be within earshot at the time.
And with reports of US agents kidnapping foreign nationals to be tortured to gain information, I'd be surprised if "Gitmo" was anything more than a colorful diversion to keep curious eyes away from more functional locations.
posted
There is a certain irony that we would have to allow 3rd parties the same unfettered, unchecked access we demanded Saddam's regime give to weapons inspectors before any claims of torture could be suitably dismissed.
posted
Oddly enough, just because "they" are doing worse things doesn't mean that "we" aren't doing bad things.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Congressional visits are not uncommon at Gitmo.
Not exactly a third party and congression visits are hardly equivalent to inspections.
No one ever tortures people in front of visitors. Human Rights inspectors are trained to look for signs of torture. They are typically given unsupervised access to the prison and are allowed to question detainees of their choosing. Visits do not constitute inspections. Visitors to the German concentration camps frequently reported no abuse.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because we're not as bad as the enemy doesn't we're any better. (edit: Megan beat me to it. )
Although, to be fair, I am less opposed to the concept of torture and "enthusiastic interrogations" than I am hiding behind the polite fiction that the US would never condone such human rights violations and never, ever contemplate using torture to gain information.
There is, however, the current dispute of exactly what constitutes "torture" and where the acceptable line of "enthusiastic questioning" ends and "torture" begins.
posted
As soon as a nominee is named, assuming it's not Gonzales, I'm going to wrench this thread back on track.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: It'll be at least a week. According to CNN, a nominee won't be named until after Bush returns from Europe on July 8.
My dark horse (very dark, as it's not happening) would be Stephen Carter. I'd be happy as I'm going to get with McConnell, though.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Interesting... the sort of have it backwards. Especially with the rulings on eminent domain and protecting unborn babies. I love Moveon! They make it so easy!
Exactly what was so wrong with that ad? I've seen ads from Christian groups that are a thousands times more fiery and vehement than that. It was a warning against more Shaivo like intrusions into the American family (ironic, considering Conservatives claim to be the defender of the American family).
It was pretty docile too, all things considered.
And I agree that you have it backwards Jay, Democrats won't automatically knock down a Bush nominee because his name is attached to it. Because he is the one choosing, it will almost definetely be someone ultra-conservative, and thus against the ideology of the Democratic party. If the situation were reversed, would you just let it go?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
