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...