Ashcroft and Evans call it quits
 

Ashcroft and Evans resign, which is two out of three I'd like to see go.

Sweet

Add to the list of potential resignations: Powell and Rice. 'Real' president Cheney had the decision to torture prisoners in Guantanamo withheld from both Powell and Rice. Powell took it in stride. Rice was furious.

Powell is a most likely resignation. Rice is only a possibility.

Rumsfeld, maybe...? Maybemaybe?

Just watch Bush appoint Roy Moore...

Well, that's a load off my mind! :confused:

Say what? Was he being serious????? He's an even bigger goofball than I thought.

You're kidding, right?

You really think the Bush-appointed, Frist-approved replacement for Ashcroft is going to be any better?

Man, this is *exactly* what I was thinking. Given the way things have been going, I'm concerned that we'll end with someone who makes Ashcroft look like Jerry Garcia.

Well, let me ask this: what is the reason that these two people were essentially forced to resign? Bush owns the next four years and has no chance of re-election. Why change horses, now? What does it buy an administration that has nothing to lose?

Well, let me ask this: what is the reason that these two people were essentially forced to resign?

I don't think anyone was forced. I heard on some political talk show that not many people know this, but before an election every member of the White House staff turns in a letter of resignation, and they all expect that they might not be there next go-round. It's just policy.

I've heard Gonzales' name tossed around a lot as a possible replacement. He's an old Bush friend, and was the guy who wrote the legal memos saying that torture was OK and that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to the US as long as we called the "prisoners of war" "enemy combatants" instead. He's the policy guy behind Gitmo and Abu Ghraib abuses.

Someone help me out...what is the official difference between a "prisoner of war" and an "enemy combatant"?
I figured if a war is going on (we're warring against Iraq and the War on Terror is still going on seeing how , isn't it...or is it an offical War since terrorism isn't a country with a government and population?) and one side's fighters takes members of the other side's fighters prisoner, then they are 'prisoners of war'. I don't quite see how 'enemy combatant' differs from that. And if the one side's fighters take another side's fighters prisoner when there IS no war going on, then that's Kidnapping/Hostage Taking, depending on their intentions. Or is it all just a big complex workaround so that our leaders can do what they want...pardon...do what they feel is necessary to the people they capture and keep various treaties and conventions at bay? I'm apparently missing something here.

If you're arguing semantics,

prisoner of war = official soldier of the country
enemy combatant = guerrillas and civilians

But I agree that the distinction is moot.

The essential difference is that prisoners of war have right under international law. We simply invented a new term for them, so that, being not prisoners of war, we can do whatever the hell we want to them, and we don't have to go through shady dealings like keeping them off of the books...

Wow. He actually did it. He chose Gonzales. This is a guy who wrote memos describing the Geneva Conventions as "quaint." Unbelievable.

The Geneva Convention sets out a definition of exactly who is a prisoner of war. It's not a matter of inventing a new term; there really is a legal distinction. Whether these "enemy combatants" meet the Geneva Conventions requirements is a legal question. How the US should treat enemy combatants who do not meet the definition of prisoners of war is a moral, ethical, and (above all, alas) political question.

That may all be true. But the phrase "enemy combatant" didn't exist four years ago. It was invented by the Bush administration to get around international law. Sort of like saying "ethnic cleansing" when discussing genocide because to call it "genocide" would obligate the UN (and memebr nations) to intervene. If you call it "ethnic cleansing" you can stand on the sidelines and "tsk tsk" all you want without being obliged to act.

Just another step in the Bush tradition of telling the world to go fuck itself. Give it another year and see if he doesn't start making nuclear weapon bluster toward someone.

He believes that Armageddon is near, right...being a good God-fearing fella? Well, then, what's the problem with starting it? Proactive, that's the ticket!

Yeah, I know...overblowing things again, aren't I?

The problem is that we never declared war on anyone. Without a declaration of war, then how do you have prisoners of war? Since the war was invented (illegal), then a new term for prisoners of a non-existant war also had to be created. 'Enemy combatant' conveniently made torture possible without creating messy problems such as 'rule of law' and international treaty violations.

Now that the Supreme Court has weighed in, suddenly 100+ enemy combatants in Gitmo have been released. After all these years, there were no charges to hold them on. No problem. They were not held under arrest and they were not prisoners of war. They had no rights no matter how innocent they were. They were released only to avoid any arguements with the Supreme Court.

Do you think this same administration would have respect for your rights? A question that must be answered by first reviewing how they invent laws. Even torture is now legal according to a 'moral' President of the US. Remember, nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition either.

Yeah, and before the next 4 years are up, the Bill of Rights will probably be considered "quaint," as well. You ain't seen nothing yet! :eyebrow:

No, not really...that's the scary thing. :(

More! I read that Gonzales was also counsel for Enron. Yummmy!

The phrase "enemy combatant" has been around forever. A quick "google groups" reveals about 400 uses between 1984 and 2000. (and Google won't return more than 400 anyway). The Geneva conventions don't suddenly not apply because the persons involved are "enemy combatants" -- most prisoners of war ARE, or at least WERE before they were taken prisoner.

BTW, the Geneva conventions DO consider the problem of undeclared war; no declaration of war is necessary for them to have effect, "armed conflict" is sufficient.

If you're going to criticize the administration for one or another thing it has done, it pays to criticize it based on what it has actually done, not on some vague generalizations of what they have actually done. If you think they are violating the Geneva conventions, then say how those detained meet the Geneva conventions' criteria for prisoners of war. If you think they aren't violating the Geneva conventions but are torturing prisoners in violation of some other law or just common decency, then say so but don't bring the conventions into it.

Amazing, he could possibly be worse. The world never ceases to amaze me. I mean at least asscroft had morals, this guy is just a bucket of slime in human form. You know, someone should start distributing leaflets to the suicidal suggesting if they're gonna go down, why not take this piece of shit or Rove with them? They'd be honoured.

He was a corporate attorney. Of course he is. Actually, corporate attorneys are a step higher on the food chain than criminal defense attorneys, who technically are lakes of lime in human form.

Okay, humor aside: I don't yet know one damn thing about the guy, and am going to reserve commentary until I do.

Here is some of his legal advice[pdf]:

That is positively ghastly. Torquemada has arisen.

Uniforms, if you're caught fighting in the war zone without a uniform you're a spy and subject to unpleasantries......like death. ;)

Whereas if you're caught fighting in a war zone with a uniform, you're a soldier and only subject to justifiable inconveniences...like death :D

OK. I admit I never actually read the Geneva conventions. I can't quote provisions of it or tell you if torturing people caught in a guerrilla warfare situation is actually a violation of the conventions.

I find it amazing that with the current administration, we have people arguing on the internet about who exactly its OK to turture. Have we all gone insane? Torture is wrong. Period. The USA is not supposed to be one of the evil countries that tortures its prisoners.

Gonzales is a bad guy for writing legal memos that support torture. Is that specific enough for you?

You left out "took Halliburton money."

Have we all gone insane? Torture is wrong. Period. The USA is not supposed to be one of the evil countries that tortures its prisoners.

The Geneva Convetions never made any sense to me. Listen: you are killing people in a war. You are resorting to the very last resort you have by throwing lives towards a cause, just or not, to kill other human beings. You are taking the lives of other people. And someone wanted to apply rules to this? I am reminded of the revolutionary war in which the British were shocked to find the opposing forces fought by using the dastardly tactic of hiding behind trees -- someone finally got it in their head that standing in a line, while considered heroic and fair, was fucking stupid. Or during the civil war when someone got the bright idea in their head to attack at night and take advantage of surprise to kill the enemy to save their own lives. Of course, at the time, none of this was considered honorable to do in battle and objection to it ran high but, honestly, why have rules to something so atrocious, anyways? You can paralyze a person with a bullet by shooting them in the spine, but mustard gas mames too much to be legal? You're welcome to use a genade to blow someone's limbs off, but use of fragmenting rifle rounds is off-limits? You can send someone home to their family in bag(s) but you can't kick the hell out of them to get them to talk? We're free to place sanctions on a country and starve their people into submission, but we have to feed prisoners we take? We certainly wouldn't want anyone to suffer during battle, would we?

Its war, people. We have enough missiles warmed and ready to obliterate the entire planet and doom all of humanity to a slow, painful, toxic death. Applying rules to it doesn't make any sense.

Care to elaborate?

You make some sense about the absurdidty of the rules of waging war, but I would say that once you captured someone and removed them from the battlefield, you are now in a more calm environment, and can take the time to make a thoughtful decision about their fate. Their treatment at that point becomes indicitive of how evil you are.

Gonzales's legal opinions haven't had anything to do with how to wage war, they are about how to treat prisoners.

When we capture someone we give 'em a chaplain, medical help, and three squares until they gain a "freshman 20". I'm sure the occasional baddie is "water-boarded" or forced to be naked etc, omg how horrible for them, if it's thought they have critical information that could prevent their side from mounting more attacks to kill innocents.

When THEY capture someone they torture them and make a snuff video slowly sawing the person's head off so they can play the final cries of the captor over and over to show their potential recruits how fun it is.

One Italian captor prevented them from having a great snuff video. He pulled off his hood and said, "I will show you how an Italian dies." It totally ruined their film. The enemy is not supposed to die bravely.

But yeah, maybe we're the fuckin' bad guys. Never mind that the Convention really has to be used by both sides in order to be effective. Maybe we, the only ones who actually gave the matter two cents of consideration, the only ones who taught their children about it in schools, are the bad guys.

Curious -- did anyone else see The History Channel's documentary on how we treated Nazi Germany prisoners? These guys weren't just fed, they were fed extremely well, permitted to purchase goods, given jobs and paid, allowed to form bands, play soccer matches, and were housed in better conditions than any of our troops at home or abroad.

They were also treated better than our own citizens when we rounded up Japanese-Americans and threw them into containment camps.

Doesn't that show that we are more "civilized" than they are? War is war, but nobody deserves to be tortured the way those assholes in the beheading videos are torturing people. As the most powerful nation in the world, don't we somehow have an obligation to show the world that that's not the way human beings should act? It comes down to right and wrong, and we need to set an example and do the right thing in this case--we've done enough "wrong" by invading Iraq in the first place.....

If by 'calm' you meant 'quieter', I might agree. However, I'd imagine being captured by the people you're trying to kill, then taken away from your home and country and people, stuffed in a cell which can't be all that big couldn't be very calming to the prisoner. Sure, it might be quieter and slightly less life threatening, but you're alone and surrounded by strangers who hate you. That's a pretty stressful situation. From that point on, it'll then depend on the individual, whether or not they fall into cooperation and introspective reflection, outward cooperation while nursing a grudge and planning revenge or remain flat out rebellious.

After the Abu Ghraib abuses news story broke, there was an increase in the number of hostages taken by the insurgents in Iraq. Some of them made direct reference to the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Being the good guys and staying on the moral high road is not just to improve our image and make us feel good about ourselves. It saves lives too.

From lewrockwell.com, not always a source of unvarnished truth, but better regarded than World Net Daily.

quoted from the article

What they do is irrelevant. By your reasoning, they could say they're not so bad because at least they didn't flay their prisoners.

Well, the Nazis were white...

The only time the GC is used is for war crimes trials after the fact. Only have to worry if you might lose.

You've obviously never met my ex. :eyebrow:

We do have that obligation, but we don't have the obligation to commit suicide to defend the principle.

In the case of Abu Ghraib, I believe that is a war crime, and wrong in so many ways including militarily. I also think that the torture aspect is not the part that the top has to answer to. (They have to answer to a larger crime, in some senses, of not putting enough troops in place to make maintaining a prison a simple matter.) I also wonder whether war crimes may be inevitable, given that it's a horrible job having to be done in inhumane conditions by imperfect humans.

Perhaps I'm biased, too, in that I would kind of enjoy having a boyish woman point and laugh at my genitals while I stand there naked. If only we could cap it off with a drink and a laugh about it. "Hey, thumbs up, ha ha ha." I'm not so enthused about having to be in a pyramid with other naked guys but it would only take me about 2-3 years to reach the point where I could look back it and laugh a little. "I didn't like it, I'm just happy they put Salaam on the bottom row, he was putting on the pounds, you know?" I don't think it would even take therapy to get over that. "Hey they were just having a few yuks for the peeps back home, get in a few shots with the new digicam, you know? Nobody got wood - well except for Omar, but he's hardly got anything anyway, you know?"

That's because you don't live in a society where they would stone you to death if they found out you even saw Salaam's salami. :(

I heard a new story about Gonzales this morning on Imus from they guy that runs the Congressional Quarterly. Apparently, when Bush was the gubner of TX, he made a point of telling everyone that he, as a man of the people, would serve on jury duty whenever called upon to do so. Sure enough, he was selected for a case. Turned out (gulp) to be a drunk driving case.

So in the course of fulfilling his civic obligations, he was presented with a questionairre to complete. Well, one of the questions was "...have you ever been convicted of driving while intoxicated?" Uhhhhhh... drops pencil... Enter Gonzales who, through some fancy legal construction, made the case that [oversimplication of legal-schmegal] since Bush, as gubner, was able to grant paroles and pardons, Bush should not serve on a jury [/oversimplication]. It worked and Bush was exempted.

The questionairre was never filled out :eyebrow:

I don't either. It's not "committing suicide" to provide POWs with food, shelter and freedom from physical and mental abuse. No matter how horrible we think these prisoners are, we don't need to sink to their level.

You're forgetting that these men were MUSLIMS. It may be humorous to us, but according to their religion and morality, nudity in front of strange women isn't real cool. it wasn't just fun and games on behalf of the people who did this to them--they knew how humiliating this was to these men. At least now some of them are paying the price for what they did.

Uh-oh. More are leaving, this morning.

Colin Powell Resigns

I'd be sad that the only moderating force in the administration was leaving, but I don't think they listened to him anyway.

Maybe he'll write a "come clean" book. ;)

The word is that Bush was having Powell movement problems so he had his Colin removed. :D


OK, so I wont consider stand up as a second job...

For that you must die...

I think, more than any other cabinet member, Bush's policies impacted Colin.

There goes the last moderate, with only a modest amount of tongue in cheek, god help us all now.

Will Colin Blow? There's a big book deal waitin'.

I think Powell and the other guys are pretty smart getting out when they did. Four years from now we'll still be in Iraq, thousands more of our soldiers will have died there, and everyone involved will be looking pretty bad. At least they saved face by getting out early. Nobody listened to Powell anyway, so why should he bother staying in there?

I thought it was funny! :D Clever and disgusting at the same time, nice work :thumbsup:

Thank you. Thank you very much! :)