Originally Posted By Dabob2 KT, I was referring to the poll I saw: <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/211577/Alberto-Gonzales-Files-all-all-adults-a1022-g-akamai-net28957478" target="_blank">http://www.scribd.com/doc/2115 77/Alberto-Gonzales-Files-all-all-adults-a1022-g-akamai-net28957478</a> In this one 53% said he should resign, only about half as many (29%) said he should not, and only 18% were unsure.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The real story - how many were fired and when - is there for all to see.>> <Yes, and it's what I said, not what you said.> You were technically correct - he didn't fire them all instantly; but misleading - he fired all but a handful instantly, and those few only lasted a few months. In practical terms, it's closer to what I said than to what you implied. It's there for all to see. <<And when I AM wrong, I admit it.>> <No, you don't.> Wrong again, bucko. Better check that short-term memory loss again (from #45, posted, well, TODAY): "<<The most recent being Clinton and William Cohen.>> <Well no. The most recent was President Bush and Norman Mineta.> Right you are, I stand corrected."
Originally Posted By DAR Regarding the whole torture memo incident. I realize this isn't some movie or 24 when the threat can be gained by torturing some suspect. But I'm sure not going to bow my head in shame if we have to "turn it up a notch" on someone who might have information on any potential attacks.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Almost everybody at guantanamo has been there for about six years. They know nothing about "potential attacks". Many may be guilty of some crime, but we don't know, do we? Because we're imprisoning them without due process. Why? If the government is so convinced that these are dangerous characters, try them in a court of law. What are they waiting for?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You were technically correct - he didn't fire them all instantly; but misleading - he fired all but a handful instantly, and those few only lasted a few months.> US Attorneys serve four year terms, at the pleasure of the Presidency. If they serve a full term, and then are not appointed for another term, that is not a firing. A firing is when they are dismissed mid term. President Clinton fired all the US Attorneys soon after taking office - they did not finish their terms. President Bush did not do that, so your description was misleading, as well as inaccurate. <Wrong again, bucko.> Because you occasionally admit to being wrong does not make my statement incorrect.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Many may be guilty of some crime, but we don't know, do we? Because we're imprisoning them without due process.> They are unlawful combatants. They broke the Geneva conventions by failing to act as soldiers. In past times, we would have just shot them as spies, and so would most nations. We're holding them because we don't want to release them so they can go blow up women and children. If we brought them to trial, they would have right of discovery, and they could expose how we learned of them and their exploits.
Originally Posted By gadzuux So instead we're to just "trust" this administration and their claims? Can you see the problem with that? >> They broke the Geneva conventions by failing to act as soldiers. << Gee - maybe they're not soldiers - that would explain a lot. >> They are unlawful combatants. << A term and concept invented by the bush administration to strip human beings of basic universal rights. You don't know anything about these guys other than that we scooped them up and spirited them away. Yet you're willing to believe our government when it says they're "terrorists" without providing one scintilla of evidence. Why? >> In past times, we would have just shot them as spies, and so would most nations. << Spies? Like in 'espionage'? Do you have any evidence to support that claim? Of course you don't. The government probably doesn't either. Many of these people have little to no formal education and some are illiterate. Yet you think they're "spies". The truth is you don't care one whit for habeus corpus or due process or the rule of law. You only care that this administration doesn't get caught red-handed in it's wrongdoing. Where are your priorities, counselor? >> We're holding them because we don't want to release them so they can go blow up women and children. << Here's where your empty rhetoric gets really overheated. It shows just how specious your position is. You'll notice that I haven't called for their release, only a hearing of charges and a trial based on the merits of the case against them. You're an attorney and yet you're against that. I'd say you're due for some serious navel-gazing. >> If we brought them to trial, they would have right of discovery, and they could expose how we learned of them and their exploits. << So your alternative is to deny them due process and essentially hold them forever, effectively meaning that we the people of these united states assume omnipotent power over all the peoples of the world to arrest, apprehend, detain and torture at our whim, without cause, justification or accountability to anyone - including ourselves. Nice. You must be one of those "great americans" that republicans like to back-slap each other with.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So instead we're to just "trust" this administration and their claims?> No, you can trust the military and the people in the FBI and CIA who were there during the previous administration and will be there during the next. <Gee - maybe they're not soldiers - that would explain a lot.> Then they shouldn't be running around with weaponry trying to kill people. <Yet you're willing to believe our government when it says they're "terrorists" without providing one scintilla of evidence. Why?> One, I trust our military. I think the vast majority of them are decent and honest and trying their best to protect us. Second, they've got no reason to lie about this. <Do you have any evidence to support that claim?> Yes. It's been well documented that, during WWII, men who were found without paperwork or uniforms behind enemy lines were judged to be spied, and shot. <The truth is you don't care one whit for habeus corpus or due process or the rule of law. You only care that this administration doesn't get caught red-handed in it's wrongdoing.> That's not the truth and that's not my only care. <You're an attorney and yet you're against that.> I'm not an attorney and I'm for that. I think that anyone seized as an enemy combatant should be entilted to a military tribunal. Which, of course, they are getting.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You were technically correct - he didn't fire them all instantly; but misleading - he fired all but a handful instantly, and those few only lasted a few months.>> <US Attorneys serve four year terms, at the pleasure of the Presidency. If they serve a full term, and then are not appointed for another term, that is not a firing. A firing is when they are dismissed mid term. President Clinton fired all the US Attorneys soon after taking office - they did not finish their terms. > Nice try. Couldn't the same "did not reappoint" term be applied to Reagan and Clinton's actions, then? The source I linked to before (and another I just found) does not distinguish between "firing" and "dismissing" and "not reappointed," much as you'd like to parse it. They describe Reagan's actions thusly: "Dismissed all previously appointed attorneys en masse and replaced them upon assuming office." They describe Clinton's actions thusly: "Dismissed all previously appointed attorneys en masse and replaced them upon assuming office." (identical). <President Bush did not do that, so your description was misleading, as well as inaccurate.> Well, no. Here's what they said about Bush. "Did not dismiss all the attorneys en masse when he assumed office. Bush Allowed a few to continue in their positions for several months until he replaced with his own selections early in his administration. Bush dismissed eight U.S. attorneys on December 7, 2006, in the middle of their second terms, without citing reason." So you can play all the semantic games you want, but the practical effect is the same. Bush II fired/dismissed all but a handful at the top of his first term, and soon replaced that handful also. As I said. Notice that this source also uses the word "dismissed" for the mid-term action, thus using "dismissed" and "fired" to mean the same thing. <<Wrong again, bucko.>> <Because you occasionally admit to being wrong does not make my statement incorrect.> Considering that I asserted that I do admit to being wrong, and you issued a very blanket "No, you don't..." then yes - it does make your statement incorrect.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Again, under President Clinton, none of the US attorneys finished their terms. Under President Bush, they did. You can play semantic games to imply the situations where similar, but they weren't.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Are you really going to insist that a few months for a few attorneys makes the situations materially different? Wow. It's not me playing semantic games here.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Are you really going to insist that a few months for a few attorneys makes the situations materially different?> Yes. Because it is. And yes, it's you playing games.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, no. It's not materially different. It's a few attorneys lasting a few months, then being replaced. It's simply not materially different in any sort of practical terms.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer <<And when I AM wrong, I admit it.>> <No, you don't.> Wrong again, bucko. Better check that short-term memory loss again (from #45, posted, well, TODAY): "<<The most recent being Clinton and William Cohen.>> <Well no. The most recent was President Bush and Norman Mineta.> Right you are, I stand corrected." "Because you occasionally admit to being wrong does not make my statement incorrect. " Now there's a telling exchange. When Dabob2 gets something wrong, he says "I stand corrected", plain and simple, no whining. When DouglasDubh gets something wrong, he evades, parses, and still tries to insist he's not wrong. Very telling.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <When Dabob2 gets something wrong, he says "I stand corrected", plain and simple, no whining. When DouglasDubh gets something wrong, he evades, parses, and still tries to insist he's not wrong.> That's not what usually happens. Nor did that happen here.
Originally Posted By jonvn I don't know why he has to insist on distorting the truth. If he simply just put his opinions forward in an honest manner, he'd probably find a lot more support.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I put forth my opinions forward in an honest manner. It's others who distort the truth.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer Douglas, we've just seen evidence in the past 10-20 posts that shows that the opposite is true. Deny, deny, deny, and trying to claim that up is down isn't going to work for Larry Craig, and it's not going to work for you either. Like what's happening with Craig, it just makes you look worse, and kind of sad.
Originally Posted By jonvn Doug doesn't seem to get that when people consider what he says to be lies, he doesn't win an argument. If you have to continually resort to dishonesty, your case really isn't very strong. Maybe it works in a courtroom with a pack of moron jurors who were handpicked to not be able to think clearly, but it doesn't work here.
