Originally Posted By mele Sounds like an interesting book, barboy. I like Bugliosi. I never did read his OJ book but maybe someday.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney However, Congress signed a bill in 2006 which essentially pardoned this administration for anything illegal it did after 9/11/01.
Originally Posted By dshyates I don't believe the World Court or the UN cares about what congress signed.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How anyone can in one breath support this administration and then lecture on the importance of "fiscal responsibility" is beyond ludicrous at this point.> No one is supporting the fiscal responsibility of the Bush Administration. But as bad as they've been, the Republicans are still better than Democrats.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I showed the stats, in #277.> Your stats did not show that the Democrats only "tinkered" with the budget, while President Reagan greatly increased them. They can't show that, because it's not true.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But even then both you and Douglas remain staunch supporters even as far as excusing obvious War Crimes.> The only ones excusing obvious war crimes are the people who believe we should have left Saddam Hussein in power.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <However, Congress signed a bill in 2006 which essentially pardoned this administration for anything illegal it did after 9/11/01.> While that's not true, I doubt it matters, since I doubt that the administration is guilty of war crimes.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But as bad as they've been, the Republicans are still better than Democrats.<< Well, you keep saying that, Doug. But it doesn't explain why, during teh years they held the reigns, there wasn't any improvement in spending overall. To me that's evidence that politicians of every stripe pretty much spend like crazy, given the chance. You believe the Republicans are "better" because you generally agree with the things they like to spend all our money on. A staunch Democrat would feel the same way about their party. But from the outside of both parties looking in, it's a lot of bologna that either of them attempts to claim any sort of fiscal disciline. The "credit record" of both parties is the pits. One is "better" than the other? Big deal. A person drowning a little more slowly than the person drowning quickly is still in no position to offer swimming tips, much less make sweeping claims that they are swim champions. It was the idea that the GOP would be more disciplined, not rack up all this debt and deficit spending that made me become a Republican back in the late 90's. I believed it when they said they were serious about getting our financial house in order. And what happened? They botched it, and had no one else to blame. I should take some comfort that they're "still better than Democrats would be"? The results say it really isn't so.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But it doesn't explain why, during teh years they held the reigns, there wasn't any improvement in spending overall.> There was in the late 1990's, but then President Bush wanted to compromise with the Democrats, and 9/11 happened.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney Ever heard of the Military Commissions Act of 2006? <<"HR 6166 EH (and the Senate version which reads the same). In plain language, since the bills are deliberately obfuscatory in language; It does away with constitutional rights if the executive office decides that you are supporting terrorism in any way. That can include disagreeing with what the executive says. It suspends the right to a speedy trial, the right to trial by a jury of your peers, and if they say they think you may have had some involvement with torture, it legalizes torture and overrides the torture bill of 2005. Habeas Corpus is suspended, you do not have the right to face your accusers or to see the evidence against you, and in fact there need be no evidence. All this can be used against U.S. citizens if martial law is declared or in the absence of martial law. if you have been classed as aiding terrorism in any way. And that is the biggest danger in the bill, it gives the Executive Branch the apparent power to make you a "terrorist" with the wave of a hand and in the best tradition of totalitarianism, you just disappear. The Geneva Convention, which applies to captured enemy military is overridden ex post facto to cover war crimes already committed and any that may be. Though verbiage in the bills purports to demonstrate constitutionality, the bill is anti-constitutional and a good prelude to dictatorship.">> <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061009145725AAl8JJp" target="_blank">http://answers.yahoo.com/quest...5AAl8JJp</a> <a href="http://www.16beavergroup.org/journalisms/archives/002015.php" target="_blank">http://www.16beavergroup.org/j...2015.php</a> <<". Last week's congressional authorization of torture, referred to as the Military Commissions Act of 2006, basically reverses and erases any of those victories. ===================== 3. It uses a broad and sweeping definition of "unlawful enemy combatants." a. The term did not exist in any statutes. b. This category was used and exploited by the Bush Administration to undermine Geneva Conventions without allowing defendants to have any recourse to the Judicial Branch, or so was their hope. With the Supreme Court decision in Hamden, they were delivered a severe blow. c. Their hope failed and they have sought and received this act from Congress to continue what they have been doing while getting the authorization which the Hamden case insisted the President needed. Furthermore, they have sought to shield themselves through this act from any war crimes by making these laws retroactive.">>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Ever heard of the Military Commissions Act of 2006?> Yes, I read it the last time you brought this up. It doesn't say what your links claim it does. As I mentioned the last time, if it did, it would not have received bipartisan support.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney While some Democrats voted for this bill, I wouldn't exactly call it bipartisan support. <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml" target="_blank">http://clerk.house.gov/evs/200...l491.xml</a> 160 Democrat noes to 34 ayes. And the Republicans only had 7 noes.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh And it passed the Senate 65 to 34. If it said what you claim it said, it would have been filibustered, or defeated.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney This bill also had other things tied to it, like a fence along the Mexican border to prevent people from entering the U.S. illegally. Oh, and this bill was pushed through by the President and his administration right before Congress took it's break, in an election year. This is a great statement by a Senator. <a href="http://www.talkleft.com/durbinmilitarycomm.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.talkleft.com/durbin...comm.pdf</a> <<"Let's take one example. The bill would revise a law known as the War Crimes Act to give Bush administration officials and those who preceded them, back to 1997, amnesty, amnesty for authorizing illegal interrogation techniques. Think about this for a second. This administration wrote a memo. The author of that memo is a gentleman who is now before us as a potential nominee for the Federal court. In that memo it was recommended that we might use, as part of interrogation techniques, using dogs to threaten and intimidate prisoners. That was in the memo. Now, fast forward to Abu Ghraib and to those awful, horrific photographs we saw of the treatment of prisoners in that jail. You will recall, as I do, one of our soldiers holding on a leash a dog that was growling at one of the prisoners. That soldier is in jail today for using that dog and using that technique. The person who wrote the memo suggesting the use of dogs as an interrogation technique is not only facing no questioning, but the administration is proposing he be given a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land. Where is the justice, when soldiers who use these techniques, as wrong as they are, end up in prison, and those who write the memos suggesting these techniques not only are not held accountable, they are rewarded? And now we are presented with this bill, which says we will give amnesty to those who conceived of these interrogation techniques. Over 4 years ago, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales recommended to the President that the Geneva Convention should not apply to the war on terrorism. In a January 2002 memo to the President, Mr. Gonzales concluded the war on terrorism “renders obsolete†the Geneva Conventions. Think of that. The Geneva Conventions, international agreements that have guided America for more than a century, were obsolete, we were told by the White House Counsel at that time, Mr. Gonzales.">>
Originally Posted By DyGDisney <<"In his memo to President Bush, Mr. Gonzales specifically warned that administration officials could be prosecuted under the War Crimes Act if the President did not set aside the Geneva Conventions. He argued that a presidential determination that the Geneva Conventions do not apply would “substantially reduce the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act†and “would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution.â€>>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Well, gee, if Sen Durbin said it, it must be true. Afterall, he's never one to engage in hyperbole to score political points. Oh wait, he is. As I've said a few times, if the bill said what you claim it said, it would have been filibustered, or defeated.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney <<•HR 6166 EH ‘‘(g) GENEVA CONVENTIONS NOT ESTABLISHING SOURCE OF RIGHTS.—No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights. 8 ‘‘§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions ‘‘Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.">>
Originally Posted By DyGDisney <<"•HR 6166 EH (a) IN GENERAL.—No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories. (b) GENEVA CONVENTIONS DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘Geneva Conventions’’ means— (1) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114); (2) the Convention for the Amelioration of theCondition of the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);83 (3) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949(6 UST 3316); (4) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).">>
