Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Eddie Haskell....thank you very little.
Yup, you are about to get plucked, rooster.
Lemme see here. If I remember correctly, our appointed president had a vision; one of uniting, not dividing, one of 'compassionate' conservatism, one of 'restoring honor to the White House'.
Now y'all's vision is nothing more than a mirage in the Iraqi desert. Bush has divided our country as none since Nixon, divided the world unlike any president I can remember (unless they are all united against us, now ain't that great), shows compassion only to the rich while honoring corporate America as 'we the people' bask in the reality of a busted treasury and having entered a war that was on the drawing board far before Bush's appointment. Thank you 9/11.
But, of course, y'all's vision has made us so much safer. And if Bush is elected for the first time (or appointed for the second time), the whole world will have a clear understanding of 'our vision' and Lord help us all.
One last thing, zit. Since you pride us riding cowboy lone ranger style, fighting wars on multiple fronts around the world, I hope your vision as you have so succinctly expressed here ad nauseam incorporates the drafting of your soon to be 18 year old son as we will require lots of American bodies in military uniforms to sacrifice themselves for you rich chickenhawk windbags. Many young men and women don't need your rose colored glasses to see the vision (writing on the wall) of y'all and that a four year hitch means 5,6....??? years while y'all tee it up at the local country club.
And running off willy-nilly to war, any war, is definitely what right wingnuts do best
buying bridges in deserts and beachfront property in the evergaldes is more the style for liberals
ROFL...What my little brain does comprehend is, regardless of subject matter, your inability to impress, period. However, your ability to antagonize most everyone from all walks of life, on the main board and here, is truly impressive.
Keep up the good work.
Thomas' Take on the Law Rooted in 18th Century
The justice's historical perspective challenges many widely held beliefs about the Constitution.
By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Justice Clarence Thomas may be silent in the Supreme Court during public arguments, but he is not shy about making bold pronouncements in written opinions.
His latest challenge to conventional wisdom came this week in the Pledge of Allegiance case, when he opined that the Constitution protected a state's right to recognize an official church.
Almost everyone has assumed that the opposite is true.
It is not the first time Thomas has tried to turn the standard thinking on its head when it comes to understanding key parts of the U.S. Constitution. He has done so by focusing on the words and history of the document as it was written in 1787.
"He likes to say we should look at this afresh. Our law is muddled, and we should rethink it," Yale Law School professor Akhil Amar said admiringly of Thomas.
But the consequences of his "rethinking" could be far-reaching.
For example, Thomas has argued that the word "commerce" in the Constitution should be understood as it was in the 18th century: the movement of goods across state lines. Under this view, the states could not erect tariffs or other barriers to the free flow of goods.
In the 20th century, however, the Supreme Court adopted a much broader view of commerce, relying on that definition to uphold federal laws that set minimum wages, prohibited discrimination in the workplace, protected the environment or regulated the manufacture of products, including autos and drugs.
In a separate 1995 opinion, Thomas said that this broad view conflicted with the Constitution and should be reconsidered. If his colleagues ever agree, many of today's workplace laws would be struck down.
Soon after joining the court in 1991, Thomas wrote that the word "punishment" in the Constitution restricted only "judges, not jailers." The high court had adopted a broader view of the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" in the 1970s and protected prisoners from being subjected to needlessly cruel treatment.
When Thomas denounced this view as flatly mistaken, Justice Harry A. Blackmun pointed out that his opinion would permit the torture of inmates by prison guards.
Two years ago, Thomas condemned the doctrine supporting the separation of church and state, saying it grew out of "anti-Catholic bigotry" during the 19th century. Then, Protestants controlled the public schools, and immigrant Catholics set up their own schools to escape the Protestant influence, he said.
Beginning in the 1940s, a unanimous Supreme Court said that the 1st Amendment erected a "wall of separation between church and state," quoting Thomas Jefferson. Relying on that view, the court in the early 1960s struck down state-sponsored prayers and Bible readings in the public schools. Later, the justices voided state laws that funneled tax money into religious schools.
Many conservatives, including Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, say the court has gone too far. On Monday, he said the court should uphold the words "one nation, under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance because its daily recital in the schools was "a patriotic exercise, not a religious one."
In his separate opinion, Thomas said he would go much further and sweep aside 60 years of law by ruling that the 1st Amendment did not limit a state's power to "establish" an official religion.
"Quite simply, the Establishment Clause … protects state establishments from federal interference. [It] does not protect an individual right," he wrote.
He pointed to its words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Until the Civil War, the 1st Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights limited only the federal government. After the Civil War, however, the Constitution was amended and states were barred from infringing on "the privileges and immunities" of Americans, including their rights to due process of law and the equal protection of the law.
By the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court had ruled that the Constitution as a whole prohibited states and local governments from violating basic rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, by denying fair trials or by promoting an official religion.
The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called Thomas' view "breathtakingly radical."
"Mississippi could be officially Baptist, and Utah could be officially Mormon. If his viewpoint ever became the majority on the high court, it would tear our country apart along religious lines," he said.
Constitutional scholars in the area of religion credit Thomas with reviving a historical, if now outdated, view of the 1st Amendment.
"I thought his was the most interesting opinion in the pledge case. Thomas is right as a matter of history," says Richard W. Garnett, an associate professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School "But I think most people would see it as water under the bridge."
Others were less charitable. "This is a pretty astonishing view. No one [among past justices] has gone remotely this far, and I don't think he'll get a second vote for it," said University of Texas law professor Douglas Laycock.
"He is a hard-nosed originalist who looks back to 1791," when the Bill of Rights was ratified, Laycock said. "He acts as though the Civil War didn't happen, or it didn't matter."
The significance of the Reconstruction-era amendments often divides conservatives and liberals.
While conservatives emphasize that the Constitution of 1787 limited the national government and protected the rights of the states, liberals counter that the Reconstruction amendments fundamentally widened the scope of the Constitution by imposing limits on the states and protecting the rights of individual Americans.
Thomas will be 56 next week. Despite his 13 years on the high court, he remains its youngest member. He expects, he has said, to serve for several more decades.
It is not clear what impact, if any, will flow from his view of an "establishment of religion." He noted Monday that the 1st Amendment also protected the "free exercise of religion," and this would forbid states from requiring participation in religious services.
None of the other justices have adopted Thomas' 18th century view of "commerce" or "punishment." But Thomas' distinctive views are likely to figure in a pending struggle over police interrogations and the Miranda warnings.
Under the famous 1966 Miranda vs. Arizona ruling, the court said the Constitution's protection against self-incrimination required officers to warn suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have a lawyer.
Last year, however, Thomas set out a much narrower view of the 5th Amendment, which says a person shall not "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The word "witness" refers to a court trial, not a police station, Thomas said.
At the time, three others agreed with him: Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia. With only one more, the court could undercut the basis for the Miranda warnings, which restrict police questioning.
Shortly afterward, the court took up two new cases that test the reach of the Miranda warnings. Though the cases were argued in December, they are still awaiting decisions as the court enters the last two weeks of its term.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-thomas17jun17,1,3769212.story?coll=la-home-nati...
Bush Insists on Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection
By James Gerstenzang, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — One day after the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks reported it could find "no credible evidence" of cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda in targeting the United States, President Bush today held to his repeated declarations that the two were connected.
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," the president said.
The report by the bipartisan panel undercut one of the primary reasons Bush has given for launching the war against Iraq that drove Saddam Hussein from power 14 months ago. The findings appeared to be the most complete and authoritative dismissal of Bush's repeated assertion.
Speaking with reporters during a two-question encounter at the end of a Cabinet meeting, Bush said: "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda."
He cited a meeting that he said took place between Iraqi intelligence officers and Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda leader, in Sudan.
"There's numerous contacts between the two," the president said.
Indeed, the commission report said Bin Laden made overtures to Hussein in the mid-1990s while he was in Sudan and again after he went to Afghanistan in 1996. But, the report said, the contacts "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
In addition, two of Bin Laden's most senior associates, interrogated by U.S. authorities, "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq," the report said.
Bush reiterated his frequent declaration that the Iraqi leader "was a threat."
"He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people," a reference to the use of poison gas on large numbers of Kurds who had long opposed his rule.
In addition, Bush sought to link Hussein to the Bin Laden organization because both opposed the United States. "He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States, just like Al Qaeda," the president said. "Now, he was a threat because he had terrorist connections, not only Al Qaeda connections but other connections to terrorist organizations."
He listed Hussein's ties to Abu Nidal, a Palestinian militant, and Islamist militant Abu Musab Zarqawi.
Bush also offered a renewed endorsement of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. A Pentagon official said Wednesday that Rumsfeld, violating international law, ordered a suspected terrorist captured in Iraq to be held in secret. "I'm never disappointed with my secretary of Defense," the president said. "He's doing a fabulous job, and America's lucky to have him in the position he's in."
His comments disregarded reports by a senior aide that the president had expressed sharp complaint to Rumsfeld in the wake of the reports that captives at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad had been abused.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-061704bush_lat,1,334898.story?coll=la-home-headlin...
Hey ROFL, on the two boards I have seen you post I think it is safe to say you will never impress a bunch of anonymous people on a message board
Well, ed, sure am glad I am not one of 'those' liberals you have put on ignore and how you find the time to read all these posts and respond while ROFL...guess your laptop is on the F.
Anyhow, you better hope California, the economic engine to the U.S., is humming even though Bush has a snowballs chance in hell to win here. Now where do you think that leaves states like Ohio, Penn., Mich., etc??
But then again, you're into metals....what confidence you have in our president!!!
Call me a biased liberal but it seems rather difficult we will install democracy in Iraq when 2% of the population view us as liberators. Wrong place, wrong war.
The coalition's confidence rating in May stood at 11 percent, down from 47 percent in November, while coalition forces had just 10 percent support. Ninety-two percent of the Iraqis said they considered coalition troops occupiers, while just 2 percent called them liberators.
It has been debated for years, but the truth can now be told who Carly Simon was singing about. Thanks!!
i guarantee my wife is better looking than any woman you've dated or married...............in fact, i'm better looking than any woman you've dated
After reading several of your posts extolling Greenspan, I must ask: Isn't this the same guy you denigrated not long ago?? Oh wait, he must now be saying something you agree with.
well, it looks like the dems are doing all they can to get some soundbites regarding how the deficits are gonna cause the sky to fall
greenspan.........."looks blue to me"
Last straw??? Now THAT is funny!! Let's see: CPI rose .6% in May, lots of McJobs are being created, remove the smoke and mirrors and the $500 billion deficit is really closer to a trillion, Iraq is going great guns (ask zit or better yet, Mrs. Zit) and eddie haskel is long metals.
Yup, we sure are grasping.
I won't even waste my time ROFLMAOAY
Yeah zit, isn't it funny how the last straw the left was grasping at isn't being talked about? I guess they can now focus their (lack of) energy on important issues like how the U.S. government shot missles at the WTC on 9/11!
ROFLMAO
And you, zitboy, are a bonafide right-wing nut.
How come no comment on my post regarding the great things going on in Iraq??? No, you choose to nazi-like attack Kerry's wife all the while ignoring the Bush/Cheney house of cards foreign policy as the White House is sold to the highest bidder, errr, HAL. Get the log outta your eye, zit.
As for my taste in women, you can be assured they wouldn't spend 10 years of their life watching Oprah....now pipe down and join Mrs. Zit on the couch. You might learn something...lol.
Zit, you are a bitter, biased, hateful man.
what in the world does my taste in women have to do with your comment..........she's a dog, and you have no taste........let me guess, you must have used a lot of paper bags in your early days, or maybe you should have!
you're becoming a loopy dolt!
Zit, you are a bitter, biased, hateful man. Good thing you quit drinking.
gee, i know i have dreams every other night about teresa
Asked for three words to describe his 65-year-old wife, who is five years his senior, Kerry said: "Saucy, sexy, brilliant."
She responded: "I'm cheeky, I'm sexy, whatever. You know, I've got a lot of life inside."
yeah right!
Travesty of Justice
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 15, 2004
No question: John Ashcroft is the worst attorney general in history.
For this column, let's just focus on Mr. Ashcroft's role in the fight against terror. Before 9/11 he was aggressively uninterested in the terrorist threat. He didn't even mention counterterrorism in a May 2001 memo outlining strategic priorities for the Justice Department. When the 9/11 commission asked him why, he responded by blaming the Clinton administration, with a personal attack on one of the commission members thrown in for good measure.
We can't tell directly whether Mr. Ashcroft's post-9/11 policies are protecting the United States from terrorist attacks. But a number of pieces of evidence suggest otherwise.
First, there's the absence of any major successful prosecutions. The one set of convictions that seemed fairly significant — that of the "Detroit 3" — appears to be collapsing over accusations of prosecutorial misconduct. (The lead prosecutor has filed a whistle-blower suit against Mr. Ashcroft, accusing him of botching the case. The Justice Department, in turn, has opened investigations against the prosecutor. Payback? I report; you decide.)
Then there is the lack of any major captures. Somewhere, the anthrax terrorist is laughing. But the Justice Department, you'll be happy to know, is trying to determine whether it can file bioterrorism charges against a Buffalo art professor whose work includes harmless bacteria in petri dishes.
Perhaps most telling is the way Mr. Ashcroft responds to criticism of his performance. His first move is always to withhold the evidence. Then he tries to change the subject by making a dramatic announcement of a terrorist threat.
For an example of how Mr. Ashcroft shuts down public examination, consider the case of Sibel Edmonds, a former F.B.I. translator who says that the agency's language division is riddled with incompetence and corruption, and that the bureau missed critical terrorist warnings. In 2002 she gave closed-door Congressional testimony; Senator Charles Grassley described her as "very credible . . . because people within the F.B.I. have corroborated a lot of her story."
But the Justice Department has invoked the rarely used "state secrets privilege" to prevent Ms. Edmonds from providing evidence. And last month the department retroactively classified two-year-old testimony by F.B.I. officials, which was presumably what Mr. Grassley referred to.
For an example of changing the subject, consider the origins of the Jose Padilla case. There was no publicity when Mr. Padilla was arrested in May 2002. But on June 6, 2002, Coleen Rowley gave devastating Congressional testimony about failures at the F.B.I. (which reports to Mr. Ashcroft) before 9/11. Four days later, Mr. Ashcroft held a dramatic press conference and announced that Mr. Padilla was involved in a terrifying plot. Instead of featuring Ms. Rowley, news magazine covers ended up featuring the "dirty bomber" who Mr. Ashcroft said was plotting to kill thousands with deadly radiation.
Since then Mr. Padilla has been held as an "enemy combatant" with no legal rights. But Newsweek reports that "administration officials now concede that the principal claim they have been making about Padilla ever since his detention — that he was dispatched to the United States for the specific purpose of setting off a radiological `dirty bomb' — has turned out to be wrong and most likely can never be used in court."
But most important is the memo. Last week Mr. Ashcroft, apparently in contempt of Congress, refused to release a memo on torture his department prepared for the White House almost two years ago. Fortunately, his stonewalling didn't work: The Washington Post has acquired a copy of the memo and put it on its Web site.
Much of the memo is concerned with defining torture down: if the pain inflicted on a prisoner is less than the pain that accompanies "serious physical injury, such as organ failure," it's not torture. Anyway, the memo declares that the federal law against torture doesn't apply to interrogations of enemy combatants "pursuant to [the president's] commander-in-chief authority." In other words, the president is above the law.
The memo came out late Sunday. Mr. Ashcroft called a press conference yesterday — to announce an indictment against a man accused of plotting to blow up a shopping mall in Ohio. The timing was, I'm sure, purely coincidental.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/opinion/15KRUG.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2...
Well, zit, I sure ain't gonna feel sorry for Bush and, of course, his entire campaign doesn't hang on the economy and iraq.....yeah, right.
...........and the only one you need to feel sorry for is kerry, who's entire campaign hangs on the economy and iraq..........job creation, at the current pace, just may get to 3 million created in '04, and what's kerry now gonna say about iraq
And what's Kerry now gonna say about Iraq??? Shoot, what needs to be said unless one is wearing rose colored glasses, which in that case everything is going just great in Iraq. Right?? You have posted here many times how great things are progressing in Iraq and it is the liberal media's fault 'we the people' are not hearing the good news 'cause 'we hate the president like no other'.
I am sure you blew by teapea's earlier post so I have copied it below. Skip it again if this disagrees with your bias. The issue is not what Kerrry is gonna say about Iraq but what Bush is gonna do about this mess HE CREATED.
"It has begun and they will not stop"... 16 car bombs, so far this month...
by Dahr Jamail, Posted June 13, 2004
Several of us are sitting in the hotel room having lunch, watching the news trying to keep up with the violence daily engulfing Iraq. Let me give you a quick rundown from the last 24 hours.
Late last night fighting continued in Sadr City between the Mehdi Army and occupation forces... leaving at least five Iraqis dead, three of them civilians.
This morning the Republican Palace, where Bremer is headquartered, was blasted by a rocket.
Shortly after 9 this morning, a huge blast rocked Baghdad when a car bomb detonated near Camp Cuervo, a US Army Camp in the northern part of the capital. The explosion left 12 Iraqis dead, 4 of whom were policemen.
Another car bomb exploded this evening north of Baghdad in an attack on US troops-killing one soldier and wounding 2.
According to the Washington Post, there have been 16 car bombs this month thus far, and today is June 13th.
Assassinations of government officials continue unabated. Last night in Baquba, an attempt on Majeed Almani Mahal, a senior Iraqi Police official, left him wounded in a local hospital.
Also yesterday, the chief of the border police in Iraq, Major General Hussein Mustafa Abdul-Kareem was wounded when assassins attacked his convoy in Baghdad.
The attempts grew more lethal yesterday when the Iraqi deputy foreign minister, Bassam Kubba was shot dead while driving to work.
Today Kamal al-Jarah, an official from the Education Ministry, was assassinated near his home.
While we were watching all of this news, small, black helicopters of special operations forces and private security contractors buzzed like flies over central Baghdad and sirens blared randomly from the blazingly hot streets.
As footage of cars with broken glass and bullet holes in their frames flashed across the screen of the television, my friend’s translator, Hamid, an older man who has grown weary of the violence, said softly: “It has begun. These are only the start, and they will not stop. Even after June 30th.”
And the news of more assassinations continues to roll in. Last night Iyad Khorshid, a popular Kurdish cleric in Kirkuk, was killed in the city where tensions between the ethnic groups is rising each day.
All of this atop the ongoing killings of the intelligentsia in Baghdad, where over the last year of occupation there have been a monthly average of 10-15 assassination attempts on Iraqi professors, scientists and academics, about 5 of them successful each month.
Yet another example of this occurred today at Baghdad University, where a geography professor, Sabri al-Bayati, was executed in the streets.
Of course, foreign contractors can’t be left out of the slaughter. On this front, today we got the news that the brutally butchered body of a Lebanese construction worker was found yesterday near Fallujah. He had previously been kidnapped.
Nor can we forget about the journalists -- two Iraqis working for the US-controlled Al-Iraqia TV station were found dead near the border of Syria. Apparently they were killed yesterday.
Lakhdar Brahimi announced his resignation yesterday from his position of the UN envoy to Iraq due to what he described as great difficulties and frustration from his assignment.
Not long ago Brahimi said: “Bremer is the dictator of Iraq. He has the money. He has the signature. Nothing happens without his agreement in this country.”
Presenting what was apparently the US idea of a solution, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said of the military plans in Iraq after the “handover” on June 30th; “We will not be pulling out of the cities. We will not be relocating.”
http://blog.newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches/archives/000605.html#more
The funny thing is, zitboy has posted more than one article/opinion/dig at what foreign leaders support Kerry.
The real question is what foreign leaders want Bush elected this November.
In my opinion, I do know one terrorist hoping Bush is elected (for the first time): bin Laden, wanted dead or alive.
Tell me, zit, since you are big on advertising anything and everthing that gives you (Republicans) an edge, no matter how deceiving or lacking in substance....
....just what are u.s. rules???
not to mention that this is a u.s. led action, with u.s. rules
You are getting nuttier by the day, or should I say more desperate...
break international law, because it's obviously not worth the sand that they piss-wrote it in
Life is a matter of priorities...
Defense bill to top $1 trillion
Congress backs budget heavy on future weapons
Amen...
The political system in the US would be better if the president's term is for 6 years instead of 4, but not renewable.
Wow....I'm surprised even DR hasn't long ago pulled your coattail's and said 'grow up'...
ahh, it's good to see windbag showing what an empty life he leads. Isn't it time for another all-nighter?
ROFLMAO @ U
Full of hate, aren't you???
tpb...keep an eye on this one. Of all the Nixonian crap this group has pulled, watch this one.
Vice President Dick Cheney's political future was at stake yesterday in Washington, where a grand jury investigation was questioning administration officials about his office's role in leaking the name of a CIA operative for political motives.
Initially, Bush said he would get to the bottom of outing this agent............and then retained an attorney. It's bs and everyone knows it....well, everyone one without rose colored glasses.
The question is: Will 'we the people' realize how corrupt this administration is and how how far they will go to retain 'power' and pursue their agenda, prior to 11/2.
dang zit, for the first time, I agree...
so it's time for you to get your checkbook out
Guess what, zitty; When y'all is done...you too will be gettin' your checkbook out, moths and all.
the more you talk, the sillier you sound
Man, talk less and keep your eye on the ball...and since you have not paid attention for the last few months, watch Afghanistan and Iraq. Say no more... lest that silver spoon fall from you mouth.
it's obvious that you've not paid attention for the last few decades
that was a joke, right?....because you can't possibly be serious....yeah, zit, you could. Weak, weak, weak.
every democratic candidate, for the last number of decades, on every network that existed before fox came to be.......abc, nbc, cbs, and cnn
F6, speaking of theocracy-wanting reality-denying anti-Constitution ideologue... Zit, I bolded the last sentence for you....it would make a great ad!!
A day to remember
By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate
When in the future you find yourself wondering, "Whatever happened to the Constitution?," you will want to go back and look at June 8, 2004.
That was the day that the attorney general of the United States -- a.k.a. "the nation's top law enforcement officer" -- refused to provide the Senate Judiciary Committee with his department's memos concerning torture.
In order to justify torture, these memos declare that the president is bound by neither U.S. law nor international treaties. We have put ourselves on the same moral level as Saddam Hussein, the only difference being quantity.
Quite literally, the president may as well wear a crown -- forget that "no-man-is-above-the-law" jazz. We used to talk about "the imperial presidency" under Richard Nixon, but this is the real thing.
The Pentagon's legal staff concurred in this incredible conclusion. In a report printed by The Wall Street Journal, "Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department. …
"The report outlined U.S. laws and international treaties forbidding torture, and why those restrictions might be overcome by national security considerations or legal technicalities."
The report was compiled by a group appointed by Department of Defense General Counsel William J. Haynes II, who has since been nominated by Bush for the federal appellate bench.
"Air Force General Counsel Mary Walker headed the group, which comprised top civilian and uniformed lawyers from each military branch and consulted with the Justice Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies. It isn't known if President Bush has ever seen the report," the paper reported.
When members of the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Ashcroft about his department's input, he simply refused to provide the memos, without offering any legal rationale.
He said President Bush had "made no order that would require or direct the violation" of laws or treaties. His explanation was that the United States is at war.
"You know I condemn torture," he told Sen. Joe Biden. "I don't think it's productive, let alone justified."
But another memo written by former Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, now a federal appeals court judge in California, establishes a basis for the use of torture on senior al Qaeda operatives in custody of the CIA.
I am not one to leap to conclusions, but it seems quite clear how whatever perverted standards were allowed at Guantanamo Bay jumped across the water to the Abu Ghraib prison.
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, commander at Gitmo, was dispatched last August to Abu Ghraib to give advice about how to get information out of prisoners.
"Miller's recommendations prompted a shift in the interrogation and detention procedures there. Military intelligence officers were given greater authority in the prison, and military police guards were asked to help gather information about the detainees," according to The New York Times.
Among the legal memos that circulated within the administration in 2002, one is by White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez, famously declaring the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war "quaint." Another memo from the CIA asked for an explicit understanding that the administration's public pledge to abide by the spirit of that Geneva Convention did not apply to its operatives.
The only department consistently opposing these legal "arguments" was State.
In April 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent a memo to Gen. James T. Hill outlining 24 permitted interrogation techniques, four of which were considered so stressful as to require Rumsfeld's explicit approval before they were used.
It has been apparent for some time that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were not isolated instances -- torture from Afghanistan to Gitmo to Iraq has so far resulted in 25 deaths now under investigation.
As the late Jacabo Timmermann, the Argentine journalist who was tortured during "the dirty war," said, "When you are being tortured, it doesn't really matter to you if your torturers are authoritarian or totalitarian."
I doubt it helps any if they're supposed to be bringing democracy, either. And as Ashcroft said, it isn't productive.
The damage is incalculable.
America put out an annual report on human rights abuses? We're a laughingstock! I suggest a special commission headed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to dig out everyone responsible -- root and branch.
If the lawyers don't cooperate, perhaps we should try stripping them and dunking their heads under water until they think they're drowning, and see if that helps.
And I think it is time for citizens to take some responsibility as well.
Is this what we have come to? Is this what we want our government to do for us?
Oh, and by the way, to my fellow political commentators who keep repeating that Bush is having a wonderful week: Why don't you think about what you stand for?
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/molly_ivins/8907477.htm?ERIGHTS=8993847792377147....
F6, how come that gosh darn, Bush hating, liberal media is not reporting this!!??
It is the ever-expanding US bases and the increasing difficulties and dangers of their daily lives which make ordinary Iraqis dismiss declarations by President George Bush about transferring power to a sovereign Iraqi government as meaningless. As Mr Bush and Tony Blair were speaking this week about a new beginning for Iraq, the supply of electricity in the country has fallen from 12 hours a day to six hours. On Canal Street yesterday, close to the bombed-out UN headquarters, there was a two-mile long queue of cars waiting to buy petrol.
lol...now this is a 'fair and balanced' assessment that could only be found in the land of zit. Amazing the 'view' through rose colored glasses.
looks like your opinion needs to pay attention, as his press conference from the g8, showed exactly the opposite, especially when he toasted david gregory.......about time too!
with the new u.n. admittance abut iraq's wmd, the progress in irag, including the sudden turning a new leaf by al-sadr, and the jobs creation issue about to become a big plus for gwb, seems to me gwb is in good shape
zit, I am reposting teapee's article for your perusal...a good article for y'all hypocrites. My bold below as we watch freedom sprung democracy bloom in Iraq.
Hypocrisy: The US Government's Biggest Single Problem...
by Charley Reese
06/12/04 -- The biggest single problem the federal government has is its hypocrisy. It talks one way and acts another. It talks of spreading democracy while supporting dictators; it blathers about human rights while violating them; and it claims to promote the rule of law while scoffing at laws it considers inconvenient.
If the basis of our foreign policy is going to be American security and American economic gains, then we ought to say so and shut up about spreading democracy and promoting human rights. Instead, we steadily destroy our credibility in the world by talking one way and acting another.
We more or less invented war crimes by staging the show trials at Nuremberg, Germany, at the end of World War II. We happily hanged German and Japanese officials. Now, however, the world wants to establish a permanent international tribunal to try people for war crimes. Our reply is, "No way." Not only are we not supporting the international tribunal, but we are exacting agreements from individual countries to never offer up Americans to their jurisdiction. War crimes, applied to us, are "just politics."
This example is really funny. Who are our closest allies in the Islamic world? Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. There's not a democracy in the bunch. The insanity of the neoconservative scheme to impose democracy on the Middle East is obvious. If today there were truly free elections in every Middle Eastern country, every one of them would elect an anti-American government.
This is because of our greatest hypocrisy in the foreign field. We made the Iraqi people pay a horrific price in the name of enforcing United Nations resolutions. We killed tens of thousands of Iraqis with bombs and sanctions and destroyed their economy. In the boastful words of one of our generals, we bombed Iraq "back into the preindustrial age."
But when the United Nations refused to pass a resolution authorizing us to launch a new war against Iraq, we told the United Nations to go stick it in its ear. And more to the point, from the point of view in the Arab world, Israel is in violation of more than 60 U.N. resolutions, and that's counting only the ones we didn't veto. We have prevented the United Nations from imposing even the mildest sanctions on Israel to force it to comply with international law.
It was not OK for Iraq to occupy Kuwait, but it is OK, from our point of view, for Israel to occupy parts of Syria, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It was, for a long time, even OK for Israel to occupy a huge section of Egypt and a slice of Lebanon.
In the current war, we have not only abused Iraqi prisoners, but we handed over some suspected terrorists to countries we know will torture the dickens out of them. It is irrelevant to say that Saddam Hussein would have abused them worse than we did. Saddam never proclaimed himself a democrat and human-rights advocate. We do. No criminal defense lawyer would ever ask for mercy on the basis that his client only beat and raped the victim, but spared her life.
To put it plainly, our federal government does not live up to American ideals. Americans citizens, rather than acting like sheep, should vigorously insist that it do so. We must replace an unjust policy with a just policy and substitute sincerity for hypocrisy and propaganda.
That is the only way to make America secure. That is the only way to win the war against terrorists. Terrorists have never attacked us out of the blue for no rational reason. To paraphrase an old Bill Clinton slogan, "It's the foreign policy, stupid."
Complete control....as in, Bush/Cheney and both houses, trying to hide everything and answer to only themselves?? If you are looking for someone to agree with your nonsense, see eddie.
gee, when one spends their entire time and mind
Sounds like the Republicans fixation on all things Clinton for eight years...
gee, when one spends their entire time and mind
LOL...hey zit, where have you been???? The Republicans did the Clinton Chronicles....the 8 years he was in office!!
can you imagine the outrage if karl roves and karen hughes did this with "the clinton chronicles"?
And of course the Republicans loved Clinton like no other president in american history
because they hate gwb like no other president in american history
Well, I shor' feel good that we the free are providing 'just a little' help in Iraq. I look forward to the day democracy prevails, free elections are held and the majority rules...even if that happens to be the Shiites.
Freedom in Afghanistan has also turned out quite well; Reagan did a great job and Bush is continuing his legacy. Hey zit, come to think of it, that would make a great ad!!!
there is no guise to freedom, it is what it is, and it is an accomplishment to be fought for, not an entitlement that somehow just happens, as our country's history proves.......and it's not just for ourselves, it can be for others too, especially when all they might need is just a little help
First sentence of yours that has made sense in a long time!! Keep applying yourself, zit; like Reagan, I too am optimistic... that you may yet 'understand'. Good luck!
being an american, is no guarantee to understanding what being an american is
loves ya dubya, don't ya??
Hey Rooster, sure would hate to have a gay or lesbian couple destroy the 'sanctity' of marriage, wouldn't we??? Typical right wing hypocrite.
sanc·ti·ty [ sángktətee ] (plural sanc·ti·ties)
noun
1. sacredness: the condition of being considered sacred or holy, and therefore entitled to respect and reverence
2. holy thing: something considered holy or sacred ( formal )
It was the third marriage for both Limbaugh, 53, and his 44-year-old wife, who were wed May 27, 1994 at the Virginia home of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas officiated the ceremony.
I admire you and your ilks ability to couch everything under the guise of freedom....it makes things reeeeal simple for, what did you call them (us), oh yeah, stupid Americans. It sure is good we got ourselves a war president....gotta justify a defense budget that exceeds the next 6 or 7 countries combined.
As for cigars, Bush should contemplate invading a South American country....that's where the coke comes from, sniff, sniff.
Haven't met a war yet, zitboy, you didn't like...So is Cuba before or after Syria, Iran or Bush's favorite terrorist nest, the House of Saud???
would be one helluva way to get gwb's second term started, and it would be as easy as swatting a fly..........so why not take castro out, and free another people and their country
if you truly love freedom, then it's only natural to root for castro's ouster
By the way, sorry to hear your nuke program may be in trouble. The Good Lord knows we need more and better nukes.
Bush loses fight for nukes wish list
Key GOP lawmaker slashes weapons funds
Yes, I can, here goes: ED FERRARI
Can you say "loser"?
ROFLMAO @ U
Note what they do, not what they say
By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate
AUSTIN - As Lily Tomlin observed, "No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up." But as Con Ed used to say, dig we must. Courtesy of americanprogress.org, we find the following matches between word and deed:
Just before Memorial Day, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi said, "Our active military respond better to Republicans" because of "the tremendous support that President Bush has provided for our military and our veterans." The same day, the White House announced plans for massive cuts in veterans' health care for fiscal 2006.
Last January, Bush praised veterans during a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The same day, 164,000 veterans were told that the White House was "immediately cutting off their access to the VA health care system."
My favorite in this category was the short-lived plan to charge soldiers who were wounded in Iraq for their meals when they got to American military hospitals. The plan mercifully died a-borning after it hit the newspapers.
In October 2003, the president told troops, "I want to thank you for your willingness to heed the important call, and I want to thank your families." Two weeks later, the White House announced that it opposed a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's health insurance system, even though a recent General Accounting Office report estimated that one out of every five Guard members has no health insurance.
A month before the war started, the White House proposed cutting $1.5 billion from funding for military housing. The House Armed Services Committee had concluded that thousands of military families were living "in decrepit and dilapidated military housing."
Progressive lawmakers counterproposed an amendment to restore $1 billion in housing funds and pay for it by reducing new tax cuts that Bush was proposing for the 200,000 Americans who make more than $1 million a year. Instead of getting $88,000 in tax cuts, the poor millionaires would get only $83,000. The House, with White House backing, voted the proposal down. (All thanks to americanprogress.org.)
With the release of the 2006 budget, we're constantly finding instances of programs that Bush, the candidate, proudly claims to support, while he prepares to cut them drastically in order to pay for making his tax cuts permanent.
According to The Washington Post, the White House guidelines for the 2006 budget include a $1.7 billion cut for education, supposedly his signature program. That neatly wipes out last year's increase -- and, you may recall, the administration has never funded education at anything close to the figures in the original agreement with Sen. Ted Kennedy.
Teachers say the No Child Left Behind law should be called "No Dollars Left Behind to Pay for It." Head Start is to be cut by $177 million, and the successful nutrition program for women, infants and children is to be cut by $100 million.
Any time Bush goes out into the country and claims credit for, or praises the work being done by, some government program, it is an almost-certain kiss of death. Budget cuts follow.
Back to veterans. This year, the administration increased spending on veterans by $519 million. In 2006, it plans to cut that spending by $910 million.
Also on the list for substantial cuts are the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, and police assistance and crime prevention programs. When something like the West Nile virus gets out of control, can't you just envision the independent investigation committee that will have a look into that government failure?
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., points out that the House Interior Appropriations Committee had to cut $682 million from the White House budget proposal this year. The budget situation is now so dire that the latest Republican scheme is not to pass a budget at all this year (until after the election), lest people notice what is going on.
The White House's latest ploy is to claim that the 2006 guidelines it issued are just a mere wisp of a suggestion, nothing to be taken seriously. But the White House has already submitted legislation to impose spending caps that would continue the cuts every year thereafter until 2009.
Are there any grown-ups in this administration? Budgets are the guts of government. "Who benefits?" and "Who pays?" are the only serious questions. Except, of course, for the always timely "What will they do to us next?"