|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 11th, 2006 03:58 PM | |
| mburbank |
I'd agree with that, and I also don't think W comes up with his own words (when they actually form sentences), but both of them are Clintonesque in the snese the R's accused clinton of. IE; They use words in a weaselly lawyerly fashion to say they didn't do something that when they are eventually caught doing they can claim the never said they didn't do it. |
| Jul 11th, 2006 03:48 PM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
I don't disagree with you, I think we just have a different definition of CLintonesque. I think there's an aspect of Michael Jackson smooth criminal to Clinton. He makes folks believe him, or not to trust him, but trust his policy. Bush isn't so smooth. |
| Jul 11th, 2006 03:26 PM | |
| mburbank |
So you DO or DON'T think that when the admin says 'Military supervision' they donb't mean any they have or place under CIA supervision they can do what they please with? Didn't Alberto Gonzales and W BOTH say say that when they said that you needed a court order for aall wiretapping, what they MEANT was all wiretapping powers speciffically refered to in the patriot act, and not other wiretapping powers they interpretted themsleves to have not mentioned in the patriot act? They are ALL about semantics, every time they open their mouths they are saying "It depends on what the meaning of is is." "I did not torture those people, the enemy combatants at Gitmo." MAYBE there are non Clintonesque politcians out there, but sure as hell not in this administration. They all hedge their bets in a smokescreen of legalese. "I'll fire anyone at the whitehouse involved in these leaks, by which I mean anyone found guilty of criminal activity in connection with these leaks." etc, etc, etc. How do you know they're lying? Their LIPS ARE MOVING! |
| Jul 11th, 2006 02:45 PM | |
| Preechr | As long as they're getting their fingernails pulled out, I really don't give a fuck. |
| Jul 11th, 2006 01:51 PM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
You're losing your mind. And they are NOT all Clintonesque. SEMANTICS! Blanco, it might be that those overseas detainees are under more than simply CIA supervision, that was just a guess. SEMANTICS! |
| Jul 11th, 2006 01:36 PM | |
| mburbank |
I agree. They are all Clintonesque. Actually, I completely agree with Eye Tai there. |
| Jul 11th, 2006 01:29 PM | |
| El Blanco |
You can't use the semantics copout when we are discussing statements from politicians, diplomats and lawyers. ITS ALL FUCKING SEMANTICS. These people make their livelyhoods by manipulating the English language. |
| Jul 11th, 2006 01:26 PM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
High five for semantics. Keep dippin' them in boiling water, boys! |
| Jul 11th, 2006 01:18 PM | |
| El Blanco | CIA isn't military. |
| Jul 11th, 2006 01:10 PM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
"The Bush administration said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in U.S. military custody everywhere are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions." Sounds like they'll get the same rights. My understanding is that prisoners held in other countries were still under CIA supervision, not sure though. |
| Jul 11th, 2006 12:42 PM | |
| mburbank |
And here's a thought; If the administration now claims Gitmo detrainees are entitoed to geneva protections, what about the five hundred some odd detainees we hold at Bahgram airforce base and the unkown number held at various 'black sites'? If the 'enemy combatants' there are not subject to geneva protections, why not, and on what legal grounds? |
| Jul 11th, 2006 10:27 AM | |
| mburbank |
A difficult question, but part of the package if one wishes to say we are at 'war' and the President should have 'war powers'. With war powers come war responsabilities. Saying that we'll comply with the Geneva convention, as problematic as that may be, at least sets a speciffic standard of treatment we will supposedly abide by. To me that's better than a secret standard, or no standard at all. |
| Jul 11th, 2006 10:06 AM | |
| El Blanco | Great, so which nation surrenders for us to turn them over to? |
| Jul 11th, 2006 09:54 AM | |
| mburbank |
Gitmo Detainees to get Geneva Convention Rights U.S. will give detainees Geneva rights By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in U.S. military custody everywhere are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions. ADVERTISEMENT White House spokesman Tony Snow said the policy, outlined in a new Defense Department memo, reflects the recent 5-3 Supreme Court decision blocking military tribunals set up by President Bush. That decision struck down the tribunals because they did not obey international law and had not been authorized by Congress. |
