Gotta point out that your are apparently unable to muster the most basic critical thinking skills if you think Sheehan hugging Chavez hugging Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the "Unaligned" Conference in Cuba isn't an unequivicably expression of solidarity and support for terrorism. There comes a point where reality must sink in to penetrate even something as dense and impervious to fact as far-left ideology.
It wasn't Venezuela, Iran, or Cuba. Sheehan's article wasn't exactly glorifying Chavez, but explaining how he was elected, how the Bush administration swiftboats him for political and economic reasons, how they tried to overthrow him, and she explained some of the good things that Chavez does for the poor. She is just trying to introduce some perspective in the black and white world of America's intimidated media.
Originally posted by Spidergoat: Intimidated American media? I guess the media was simply strong willed when they reported on Clinton's BJ's. Perhaps they are not intimidated when they draw pictures of Bush in cowboy boots and giant ears. Castro, now theres a man who has freedom of press!!! Bastard Bush and his intimidation!!!!
First, since the geneva convention isn't applicable, the whining about it should be stopped, but of course won't be. Second, there should already exist policy regarding enemies of state. Follow that policy, that's it. I confess ignorance though, as to what it is and it seems whatever it is it might not have been followed, or maybe it was. I dunno what it was/is to spout off further about it. Lastly, I think "the moral high-ground" is a delusional notion. It could be said however, that it's in following the law - were the law to be followed.
No, he's trying to set standards so he can have the CIA do the questioning without violating the Geneva Convention. Of course I don't expect you to understand that, becuase it does make sense and therefore would make you admit it is a good idea. Clintons protection of roadless wildness was in violation of the Fair Access and Use acts. people were literally told they could not use land they owned by Clinton's utter stupidity. It is a government agency that is making sure Faith based agencies are obeying the laws and regulations of the land. not to mention giving the public access information that could help get the assistance they need. We still had a debt moron the budget was in surplus becuase agencies were underfunded and failing. No they just didn't sign an accord that didn't have teeth and is being violated by every other nation that signed it except Russia. However there is a question among the scientific community of how much impact human civilization actually has. I'm still not convinced Saddam didn't have something to do with 9/11. Of course neither that nor the WMD were the main reasons for the war in Iraq. That war was to stop a genocidal dictator who repeatedly violated a treaty he signed at the end of Desert Storm. You have no proof of this, of course Well we do not live in a socialist or communist state. The ones who failed during Katrina were the people in charge of the money to reinforce the dikes. If they had spent the money there and not on the collesium then there wouldn't be an issue here. And BTW Bush had the paper work ready three days in adavance and could not get the governer to sign it until much too late. Iran refuses to compromise, we have bent over backwards, to tell the truth I hope he decide to just press the red button. No a Democrat would be doing all the above while getting a blowjob from an intern.
They aren't simply questioning, they are killing people, and Bush could be prosecuted for war crimes. They are trying to rewrite the law to keep themselves out of jail. Don't tell me a democrat would ignore JAG and their own generals and even fire them if they raise an objection. Get a f&$*#! clue.
That's only your opinion, Spider, and you're welcome to hold it. But your opinion means almost nothing in international or national politics. And I disagree with your statement, but that's just my own opinion ...which means about the same as yours ........nothing! Baron Max
Please support this. I don't think you can. I think you're just outraged because what happened there, and in many other instances has been utterly disgusting. However, you apparently aren't thinking clearly. Why would bush be prosecuted because some sick fuck soldiers in the field got hard by killing innocents? They were not obeying orders by doing so. Do you really think Bush would approve of "the monster" dude? Seriously? "perenial strikes" to get their jollies on? Those sick fucks need to be prosecuted, not Bush. Perhaps you can demonstrate how the administration promoted this mal-treatment? Do you just presume since Bush is evil that he loves this stuff, and probably giggles at diliwani's death or something? You think bush is doing that? Which law? Is it related to your linked article? You seem to be so pissed you aren't making a clear point. You're obviously not thinking clearly. There are highly intelligent people on either side of the political fence. One's political affiliation has no bearing on who they would or wouldn't ignore. You're obviously in need of your own advice.
Nonsense, the Neo-Cons constantly try to get around the law. Which law? The Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. ...a NEWSWEEK investigation shows that, as a means of pre-empting a repeat of 9/11, Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods. It was an approach that they adopted to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners of war. In doing so, they overrode the objections of Secretary of State Colin Powell and America's top military lawyers—and they left underlings to sweat the details of what actually happened to prisoners in these lawless places. While no one deliberately authorized outright torture, these techniques entailed a systematic softening up of prisoners through isolation, privations, insults, threats and humiliation—methods that the Red Cross concluded were "tantamount to torture." Iraq abuse 'ordered from the top' Brig Gen Janis Karpinski told the BBC she was being made a "convenient scapegoat" for abuse ordered by others. ----- The Bush administration represents not civilization but barbarity.
The Geneva Conventions only covers the legitimate soldiers of nations! It does not and should not cover common criminals and terrorists who have no nation! The UCMJ is also for the same thing ...for the military, not for common criminals of the world. I believe that anyone can say most anything they want, but substantiating it with evidence is one of our most cherished rights ....and she has not done so and probably never will. Just plain sensationalist bullshit .....but with our freedom of expression being guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you're permitted to make that accusation-without-merit. Baron Max
