Ashcroft and Evans call it quits

Kitsune · 11-09-2004, 05:41 PM

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

Undertoad · 11-09-2004, 05:42 PM

Sweet

tw · 11-09-2004, 05:45 PM

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.

Kitsune · 11-09-2004, 05:47 PM

Rumsfeld, maybe...? Maybemaybe?

Happy Monkey · 11-09-2004, 06:49 PM

Just watch Bush appoint Roy Moore...

Happy Monkey · 11-09-2004, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Ashcroft, in a five-page, handwritten letter to Bush, said, "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved."

Well, that's a load off my mind!

garnet · 11-09-2004, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Well, that's a load off my mind!

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

SteveDallas · 11-09-2004, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Sweet

You're kidding, right?

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

Elspode · 11-09-2004, 09:27 PM

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.

Kitsune · 11-09-2004, 10:03 PM

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?

Clodfobble · 11-10-2004, 06:33 AM

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.

glatt · 11-10-2004, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspode

I'm concerned that we'll end with someone who makes Ashcroft look like Jerry Garcia.

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.

Cyber Wolf · 11-10-2004, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt

"prisoners of war" "enemy combatants"

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.

Clodfobble · 11-10-2004, 11:52 AM

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.

alphageek31337 · 11-10-2004, 12:37 PM

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...

11-09-2004, 05:41 PM	#1
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	Ashcroft and Evans call it quits Ashcroft and Evans resign, which is two out of three I'd like to see go.

11-09-2004, 06:49 PM	#5
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Just watch Bush appoint Roy Moore... __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

11-09-2004, 09:27 PM	#9
Elspode When Do I Get Virtual Unreality? Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Raytown, Missouri Posts: 12,719	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. __________________ "To those of you who are wearing ties, I think my dad would appreciate it if you took them off." - Robert Moog

11-10-2004, 12:37 PM	#15
alphageek31337 Enemy Combatant/Evildoer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 263	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... __________________ The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. ---Friedrich Nietzsche

11-09-2004, 05:42 PM	#2
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Sweet

11-09-2004, 05:45 PM	#3
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	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.

11-09-2004, 05:47 PM	#4
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	Rumsfeld, maybe...? Maybemaybe?

11-09-2004, 10:03 PM	#10
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	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?

11-10-2004, 06:33 AM	#11
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	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.

11-10-2004, 11:52 AM	#14
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	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.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)