Law School Discussion

Poll

What political party do you belong to?

Democrat
Republican
Communist
Socalist
Independant/Other

What political party do most law students belong to?

Martin Prince, Jr.

  • ****
  • 148
  • Excelsior!
    • View Profile
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #150 on: May 30, 2008, 12:08:34 AM »
I don't know what you are referring to when you say we are bombing media outlets. About Guantanamo, if we are sending prisoners overseas for torture than it is wrong. Any form of torture is wrong. However, many people contend that their is no torture happening in Cuba. I believe that prinsoners of [sic] war are being treated far better in this war than in any other war in history.

I will say having debates like this is making me really looking forward to law school. Most of the debates I have online or at school eventually boils down to "YOUR A RETARD!!!1!"

Every single war the United States has fought, with the exception of the Spanish-American War and the Indian Wars (both 19th century imperialist wars of aggression, what an *odd* coincidence), has been free of systemic abuses of enemy combatants. Until this one. Believing that they are being treated "far better in this war than in any other war in history" requires willful ignorance of history and of current events. I can think of at least half a dozen off the top of my head that the US was involved in (and another half dozen we weren't).

I would like to parse this statement though: "However, many people contend that their is no torture happening in Cuba."

I don't think anyone would argue that they aren't being tortured *now*, in the present tense, especially at Guantanamo. I'm pretty sure most people when referring to this issue are talking about the systemic abuses which begin in CIA black sites (for high-value detainees) late 2001-2002 and then subsequently spread to general enemy combatant prisoner populations, first in Bagram in Afghanistan, then to the new prison in Guantanamo, and then to the large detention facilities in Iraq like Abu Ghraib.

My understanding is that these abuses were curtailed following the publicizing of Abu Ghraib, but not eliminated. Their use was finally banned in the Armed Services following the passage of the MCA in 2006, with a very glaring exception for intelligence services put in the bill. Part of the reason for the delay in prosecuting many of the men at Gitmo, by the way, has been because of the heroic work of JAG attorneys on both sides trying to stop the use of evidence derived from coerced confessions and other evidence that were the result of the aforementioned torture.

Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #151 on: May 30, 2008, 05:30:13 AM »
Lincoln was an abolitionist, he wanted to tear down the shackles of slavery and apply the Declaration of Independence to all men, extremely liberal at the time.  Lincoln opposed the Dred Scott Decision which would certainly not be original intent.  Lincoln had the support of Fredrick Douglass.  Lincoln refused to hunt and fish because he disliked killing animals and he refused to attend church.  The Republicans at the time ran no campaign in the south because the south wouldn't elect a liberal.  There are only two things in the history of Lincoln that I am aware of that would ever point to his being a conservative by todays standards.  He suspended Habeas Corpus, and was rumored to sleep with his guard.     He gave land to homesteaders and colleges.  He imposed tariffs and the first income tax.  He established the National bank to help regulate commerce.  He created the Department of Agriculture.  What makes you claim he was a conservative?  (BTW for clarification I am not saying all Conservatives are gay, just a frightening amount of elected Conservatives are... and not frightening in an "OMG they have the GAY!" way but in an "who are they trying to fool way"... not that there is anything wrong with that.)


Forgive the lateness of my reply... my internship has gotten really busy the last few days, but Lincoln is definately a conservative. Let me dissect each of your points.

1. "Lincoln was an abolitionist, he wanted to tear down the shackles of slavery and apply the Declaration of Independence to all men, extremely liberal at the time." This was not his desire until the war was underway. Again, check out historians like Jaffa. When he ran in 1860, he just wanted the Northwest Ordinance's restrictions banning slavery west of the Ohio River enforced. Yes, he saw slavery as an evil but he took conservative means to eradicate that evil. He did not advocate immediate abolition until the Confederate rebellion began. Prior to this, he wanted to act prudently and adhere to past decisions restricting slavery in the west, not a radical or revolutionary instant change. This is a conservative standpoint. As Lincoln himself said, What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried." That is precisely what he did in trying to get the radical south to adhere to already agreed to Northwest Ordinance restrictions. It was only once the war was underway that he took a more radical approach but again that was partly out of the fact he realized that the military conflict at hand was more important than acting prudently and partly (since the slaves were pretty much all in the rebelling states at the time) an adapted military strategy.  So, no, Lincoln was conservative in his approach to abolition and only became more revolutionary when the war effort called for it.


2. "Lincoln opposed the Dred Scott Decision which would certainly not be original intent."
Wrong. Dred Scott was nothing more than the court playing politics like they have since done in Lochner, Roe, Lawrence etc. In opposing the Dred Scott decision but acting within his constitutional boundaries, Lincoln followed a textual reading of the constitution because his acts were based on the textual limits of the judiciary. Essentially, he pointed to the constitution and noted that the court was overstepping its bounds. Nowhere in the text of the constitution itself does it say that Blacks can never be citizens. That was the culture at the time, which actually fits more in line with the views of a "living constitution" "better adapted to our modern time and place" that liberals advocate so thoroughly. Further, by acting within his constitutional boundaries in opposition to the decision instead of advocating quick radical change, he was even more conservative in his approach towards the issue.



3. "Lincoln had the support of Fredrick Douglass." Of course he did, but really this shows nothing more than what I have said in 1 because who else was Douglass going to support? those who did not believe the ordinance should be enforced? those advocating a more radical change but are unlikely to achieve it? Douglass was smart and realized Lincoln was the best shot at abolition and the later passed civil war amendments.

4. "Lincoln refused to hunt and fish because he disliked killing animals"

I don't hunt or fish either. If I remember correctly, it wasnt that he hated hunting as much as hed much prefer reading etc. Thats not a liberal or conservative thing. Indeed, hunting or fishing themselves have no political affiliation, particularly in Lincoln's day when almost everyone owned a gun anyways. Yes, conservatives generally hunt and fish more than liberals, just as liberals crochet and do yoga more than conservatives generally do. But these are not related to their ideologies so much as where they are from. Conservatives are generally concentrated in the South and West which have long histories of hunting and fishing and have large hunting and fishing cultures. It is entirely seperate from the ideology itself. Indeed, many conservatives including myself who live in areas other than the south and west (like me in taxachusetts) neither hunt nor fish.


Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #152 on: May 30, 2008, 05:30:53 AM »
5. "and he refused to attend church." Actually, thats not entirely true. While he did not have a specific church, during his presidency, he went to presbytarian masses every sunday. Also, he would often quote scripture and believed in many tenents of his faith including predestenationism. Indeed, as Lincoln said in his own words "That I am not a member of any Christian church is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular... I do not think I could myself be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, or scoffer at, religion." So Lincoln wasn't one of the athiestic modern liberals. Regardless though, I know a lot of athiest conservatives, you just never hear of them because of the Religious Right. Indeed, this is largely like the hunting and fishing comment except not as divided among regional lines.

6. "The Republicans at the time ran no campaign in the south because the south wouldn't elect a liberal." You are partially correct...they had no campaign because they knew it was useless. However, it wasn't useless because they were liberal. It was useless because they knew given the party was advocating adherence to the Northwest Ordinance and that would not go over well down south where the radicals who wanted to change it lived.

7. "He suspended Habeas Corpus"... yes this is the conservative position when necessary for the war effort. Unlike liberals who tend to hate the military for whatever reason, conservatives are more likely to take efforts to support military efforts when they are viewed necessary as protecting the country or its interests. With the prevalence of spies (even some confederates robbing banks in vermont) and the chaos of a civil war in general, it was necessary to suspend habeas corpus. Unlike whiny liberals who generally oppose such moves regardless of the circumstances, Lincoln saw it as necessary for national survival.


8. "and was rumored to sleep with his guard." Actually, there is a lot of debate over the validity of this claim. Even so, I think I read it was common (for whatever odd reason) for men to sleep in the same bed back then. Either way, being gay would be more likely to make him a liberal but there is not enough proof of the charges anyways. Besides, if this is the best you have, that is pathetic.

9. "He gave land to homesteaders and colleges." It was necessary for stabilization of the economy during the war. It is more than mere coincidence that the Homestead and Morril Acts were passed in 1863, right during the war. With the agricultural imputs from the south closed off, the north needed to grow its own and these acts were passed with that goal. More land was made available under the homestead act and agricultural colleges were set up under Morril so that the economy could be secure to wage the necessary war. This doesn't seem liberal at all to me, particularly the Homestead act since it is a conservative belief that the government should frequently stay out of the free market. Here, land was taken out of the government's hands and put in the free market for development. That sounds very conservative to me.... a liberal would prefer the government keep the land to use for special programs or whatever the leftist craze of the week is.   



10. "He imposed tariffs and the first income tax." Again, military and economic necessity. Further, particularly the income tax, he did not view them as a permanent fixture of life as liberals do but just necessary for the war effort and then would end when the conflict was resolved. Again, taking necessary steps during war time even if it means restricting a citizen's rights including the right to own property is a conservative position. 


11. "He established the National bank to help regulate commerce." See #10

12. "He created the Department of Agriculture." See #9



Also, For the most part, Lincoln was economically liberal (which in those days and in Europe now means they favored a free market). That is also a conservative position
 
More regulation of the economy always leads to increased prices which ultimately hurts the poor and minorities more than rich whites.
 
"Currently this economic crisis we are in is the direct result of less regulation." Actually, it is dumbasses taking out loans and mortgages they couldn't afford to pay back. It is not the market's fault some people are morons and we shouldn't have to bail them out for their own stupidity.

"Maybe you wouldn't elect your Rep to president." I would someday, but experience in the state house alone is nowhere near adequate for ANYONE even the Left's savior Obama to be president


"He has run a great campaign," --- doesn't mean hed be a great president; only means he can play politics like the rest of them

"Refused to wallow in the mud, and brought a respectable tone to his dealings with everyone." --- bull... what about all the snide comments about McCain because of his age? what about his claims that when Wright was brought to light it was all just some racist ploy when in reality it was him getting caught for being in a radical church that preaches hatred of the country. Those seem soooo respectable; then again, it is the liberal lifestyle to always blame everyone but yourself.

"He is brilliant and has shown great decision making in the past 20 years." Oh yes, associating yourself with Rezko, Wright, and Ayers is a bunch of great decisions

"More importantly, like Kennedy, Obama inspires people to do what is best for the country and act out of a common love of humanity not out of the greed of self interest." People are always going to be self-interested. They just are. Read Hobbes. Obama is nothing more than a power hungry greedy politican just like the Kennedys are and just like most other politicans are. He is nothing special.

Remedialone

  • ***
  • 98
  • Patriotism is the refuge of a scoundrel.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #153 on: May 30, 2008, 06:52:12 AM »

Forgive the lateness of my reply... my internship has gotten really busy the last few days, but Lincoln is definately a conservative. Let me dissect each of your points.

 This was not his desire until the war was underway. Again, check out historians like Jaffa. When he ran in 1860, he just wanted the Northwest Ordinance's restrictions banning slavery west of the Ohio River enforced. Yes, he saw slavery as an evil but he took conservative means to eradicate that evil. He did not advocate immediate abolition until the Confederate rebellion began. Prior to this, he wanted to act prudently and adhere to past decisions restricting slavery in the west, not a radical or revolutionary instant change. This is a conservative standpoint. As Lincoln himself said, What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried." That is precisely what he did in trying to get the radical south to adhere to already agreed to Northwest Ordinance restrictions. It was only once the war was underway that he took a more radical approach but again that was partly out of the fact he realized that the military conflict at hand was more important than acting prudently and partly (since the slaves were pretty much all in the rebelling states at the time) an adapted military strategy.  So, no, Lincoln was conservative in his approach to abolition and only became more revolutionary when the war effort called for it.


2. "Lincoln opposed the Dred Scott Decision which would certainly not be original intent."
Wrong. Dred Scott was nothing more than the court playing politics like they have since done in Lochner, Roe, Lawrence etc. In opposing the Dred Scott decision but acting within his constitutional boundaries, Lincoln followed a textual reading of the constitution because his acts were based on the textual limits of the judiciary. Essentially, he pointed to the constitution and noted that the court was overstepping its bounds. Nowhere in the text of the constitution itself does it say that Blacks can never be citizens. That was the culture at the time, which actually fits more in line with the views of a "living constitution" "better adapted to our modern time and place" that liberals advocate so thoroughly. Further, by acting within his constitutional boundaries in opposition to the decision instead of advocating quick radical change, he was even more conservative in his approach towards the issue.



3. "Lincoln had the support of Fredrick Douglass." Of course he did, but really this shows nothing more than what I have said in 1 because who else was Douglass going to support? those who did not believe the ordinance should be enforced? those advocating a more radical change but are unlikely to achieve it? Douglass was smart and realized Lincoln was the best shot at abolition and the later passed civil war amendments.

4. "Lincoln refused to hunt and fish because he disliked killing animals"

I don't hunt or fish either. If I remember correctly, it wasnt that he hated hunting as much as hed much prefer reading etc. Thats not a liberal or conservative thing. Indeed, hunting or fishing themselves have no political affiliation, particularly in Lincoln's day when almost everyone owned a gun anyways. Yes, conservatives generally hunt and fish more than liberals, just as liberals crochet and do yoga more than conservatives generally do. But these are not related to their ideologies so much as where they are from. Conservatives are generally concentrated in the South and West which have long histories of hunting and fishing and have large hunting and fishing cultures. It is entirely seperate from the ideology itself. Indeed, many conservatives including myself who live in areas other than the south and west (like me in taxachusetts) neither hunt nor fish.



The Dred Scott decision was a conservative interpretation of the constitutional 3/5 compromise.  It was based on their interpretation of Original Intent.

Lincoln (like Obama) tried to walk a fine line on his intentions.  He knew that if he were to run on a platform of abolishing slavery that he would lose the election.  Obama I am sure would love to implement Universal Healthcare (purely speculation on my part) but if he did the conservatives would be "OMG!  English Healthcare system doesn't work, everyone who goes to the hospital there dies immediately."  So he runs on the middle ground exactly as Lincoln does, had the South not started the Civil War I am sure he would have pushed for restricting states rights in determining the basis of their economy, but not gotten rid of slavery in its existing locations, similar to how Obama doesn't want to get rid of your right to overpay for healthcare, he simply wants to help others with a more affordable solution.

You bring up Jaffa over and over again.  Please note I specified unbiased.  I don't think Jaffa meets this criteria based on his association with the Claremont Institute.  If you want to read conservative positions on Lincoln please read The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo.  Not saying he is unbiased but at least you could maybe see what a real conservative believes.

The cultural points I brought up were to show you that he had much more in common with liberals of the day and today than he had with conservatives.

Who said Liberals are atheistic?  I am a Liberal, I don't attend church, because much like Lincoln, I am capable of reading the bible on my own.  I am very much a Christian.

The South hasn't changed all that much in it's attitudes towards Liberals.  What was the conservative position at the time on the Northwest Ordinance?  (Hint:  completely opposite of Lincoln's)

I am glad to know you believe that the Constitution does not need to always apply.  I am sure that was the Founder's Original Intent, what Invasion are we currently under that HC should be suspended?  Lincoln was the last president to use  it as it was intended. (Yes that includes my Personal favorite President FDR) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/invasion

The rumored to sleep with his guard was said in jest, it was a friendly barb, I would also like to point out that yes liberals are more open about homosexuality, Liberals even purposefully elect Gay politicians... they're fabulous, but the rumored part says just what it is, a rumor that cannot be proven, because if he was, it happened on the sly, just like it does currently in the Republican Party. http://www.badmouth.net/top-five-republican-gay-sex-scandals/On an entirely different note, one of my favorite jokes to come out because of the proliferation of the Republican, uhm, indiscretions "How many straight Republicans does it take to change a Lightbulb?"  "I would say both of them, but once the lights are out who knows what would happen."  In short, lighten up Francis.. it was a joke.

Landgrant and Homestead:  Welfare.  How does this differ from FDR creating the CCC?  WPA?  SS?  It was necessary to the economy, and more importantly it restored the faith in America.

So you are saying it is necessary to regulate businesses?  Is it maybe even in the constitution?  Who would have seen that coming. 

It is dumbasses making the loans as well as the people who took them.  One would assume that in these interactions one side would have a degree in finance and commerce and the other side are people who probably don't.  Who are the bigger dumbasses here?   People who were told "there is noway you can lose money on a house, so stop renting" or the people who lent money to people knowing the whole game was a house of cards?

Didn't the right elect George Bush with limited experience?  How about Eisenhower?  If Obama had served in the Senate for 40 years you would say that he has been in the Congress too long he no longer knows how to make decisions by himself.  This is a ludicrous argument and designed to distract from the issue.

Is this the comment you are referring to? "I donít think so," Obama said, when asked whether McCain's age should be a factor in the race.  "Senator McCain is healthy, he is campaigning actively all across the country, his doctors have given him a clean bill of health, I donít think it should be an issue in the campaign."

You and I will surely disagree on Wright, that is fine by me.  It is an extremely radical position to say that the Black community needs to take steps to pull itself up by its bootstraps and help fix the problems that afflict it... I can see why you would hate that kind of leadership.  In terms of his politically incorrect statements, let's see the entire sermon before getting our panties in a bunch.  In fact before judging the man lets look at his entire carreer and not just 90 seconds.  I don't judge John McCain because he was against MLK day.  I don't judge him because he said he would be in Iraq for 100 years.  I judge him on his career.  Maybe that is a radical departure from your train of thought.  Rezko was admittedly a poor decision.  I am sure he was unaware as he has stated.  It has yet to be shown that he did anything at all wrong in regards to him.   Ayers and Obama served on the board of a Charitable organization with Ayers, Ayers also gave Obama a campaign donation, now I know, Politicians shouldn't get donations, and certainly people shouldn't do work on charities, but can't we overlook this?

I have no problem with the lateness of your reply, I myself will be not posting here come Thursday evening because I am going down to the Great State of Texas to see my baby brother off to war (say a prayer for him if you see fit).  I am sure our conversations will continue well past that point.

Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #154 on: May 30, 2008, 09:23:21 AM »
I stand corrected... now since we are such a humanitarian nation why do we allow prisoners to be shipped overseas for torture?  Why do we bomb media outlets?  Are these just actions?
Noone is talking about us being a "humanitarian nation". Sure, we make mistakes and we stray.

But equivocating the genocide of ethnic and religious opposition groups and the systematic rape and mutilation of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent noncombatants to the few instances of waterboarding and sleep deprivation that the US has used here and overseas is not an intellectually or ethically teniable position.

See, American troops killed and tortured many Germans during WWII. We also had Japanese and Italian internment camps. We also used 2 atomic bombs - that doesn't mean that ridding the world of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito wasn't the right thing to do.

Here is the point, I will type slowly, we don't know the extent that the rape rooms were used in Saddams case, and we don't know how high up that this goes up in our case.  We do bomb media outlets intentionally killing innocent civilians, we do torture not just waterboarding and sleep deprivation, we have seen incidents of it, you claim it is isolated but as soon as we shut down one place (Abu Ghraib) we proceed to ship our prisoners off somewhere else to be tortured.  I am absolutely saying this is not collateral damage in a war it is a human rights violation and the leadership should be held accountable.  You claim Saddam used systematic rape, ethnic cleansing, and chemical weapons.  If that is the case hows come he was sent to death for signing 148 death warrants (mind you 4 less than GW)?

Actually, you are wrong.
Read this article if you have some time:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7A2CC36E-CEB1-4851-A122-510AECEFA356

Say what you want about how 'we don't know' if Saddam actively used rape room.  This entire article discusses his disgusting, twisted, mentally ill children.  He KNEW what they were doing.  Everyone did.  Your point is to make a moral equivalency argument and it fails.  Saddam had a direct relationship with his children, the one's who he knew used rape rooms and old school torture techniques.  Bush did NOT know all the soldiers at Abu Gharib prison. 

Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #155 on: May 30, 2008, 09:33:20 AM »
Quote
Saddam's torture chambers and gassing of the Kurds was a result of the civil war in Iraq, he shouldn't be held accountable for crimes committed during a war and we have no way of knowing whether or not he specified to torture the Iraqis or gas the kurds.

By your rationale most independent observers have said that the rape rooms were operated by Uday and not Saddam.  So it is ok then right?  Saddam shouldn't be held accountable for something we cannot connect him to.  In terms of being certain I am certain enough in my claims to say that the US government turned a blind eye to the atrocities and in some cases encouraged them.

Ok, you are confusing the difference between the head of state having knowledge about something and the government orchestrating it. If a General in Iraq set up rape rooms and purposefully hid it from the President, then I would still consider it the government's doing (albeit unknowingly). If A colonel rapes an Iraqi woman, that is a crime attributed to that individual.

Claiming that the US government turned a blind eye and encouraged some of these cases is unverifiable and inconsistant with the evidence that is available. It is simply your opinion and nothing else.

Tim according to Paul Bremer he informed Bush on January 16, 2004.  Bush acted on Abu Ghraib after 60 minutes aired in April

Well, once again a bush hating liberal mixes up the truth to paint bush with the 'evil' brush.
You've inspired me to rebut....
The army found out about the abuse at Abu Gharib on January 13th and launched a criminal investigation on January 14th.  One day later.
Bush was briefed by Rumsfeld and General Pace in February.
By March 20th, 6 soldiers were facing charges.  17 were suspended by February 26th.
Here's the AP's timeline.
http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/abughraib-timeline.htm
All I had to do was google, instead of either inventing truths or listening to George Soros....
The President's job is like a CEO's job.  Disciplining military personnel at a remote prison during war time isn't in his job desciption.  It IS the military's job to handle it at a lower level.  It was handled.  Why the anti-bush crowd wants to portray the President's job as a micromanaging robot who never makes mistake is beyond reasonable and shows that they merely wish to destroy Bush out of hatred instead of their stated desire of 'accountability'.
And I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you are increasingly hostile.  Is it that time of the month, or do you just get all riled up talking about things that you made up your mind about while listening to shouters?

Remedialone

  • ***
  • 98
  • Patriotism is the refuge of a scoundrel.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #156 on: May 30, 2008, 09:36:10 AM »
I stand corrected... now since we are such a humanitarian nation why do we allow prisoners to be shipped overseas for torture?  Why do we bomb media outlets?  Are these just actions?
Noone is talking about us being a "humanitarian nation". Sure, we make mistakes and we stray.

But equivocating the genocide of ethnic and religious opposition groups and the systematic rape and mutilation of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent noncombatants to the few instances of waterboarding and sleep deprivation that the US has used here and overseas is not an intellectually or ethically teniable position.

See, American troops killed and tortured many Germans during WWII. We also had Japanese and Italian internment camps. We also used 2 atomic bombs - that doesn't mean that ridding the world of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito wasn't the right thing to do.

Here is the point, I will type slowly, we don't know the extent that the rape rooms were used in Saddams case, and we don't know how high up that this goes up in our case.  We do bomb media outlets intentionally killing innocent civilians, we do torture not just waterboarding and sleep deprivation, we have seen incidents of it, you claim it is isolated but as soon as we shut down one place (Abu Ghraib) we proceed to ship our prisoners off somewhere else to be tortured.  I am absolutely saying this is not collateral damage in a war it is a human rights violation and the leadership should be held accountable.  You claim Saddam used systematic rape, ethnic cleansing, and chemical weapons.  If that is the case hows come he was sent to death for signing 148 death warrants (mind you 4 less than GW)?

Actually, you are wrong.
Read this article if you have some time:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7A2CC36E-CEB1-4851-A122-510AECEFA356

Say what you want about how 'we don't know' if Saddam actively used rape room.  This entire article discusses his disgusting, twisted, mentally ill children.  He KNEW what they were doing.  Everyone did.  Your point is to make a moral equivalency argument and it fails.  Saddam had a direct relationship with his children, the one's who he knew used rape rooms and old school torture techniques.  Bush did NOT know all the soldiers at Abu Gharib prison. 


His children?  now you are hanging your hat on what his kids did?

Remedialone

  • ***
  • 98
  • Patriotism is the refuge of a scoundrel.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #157 on: May 30, 2008, 09:40:47 AM »
Quote
Saddam's torture chambers and gassing of the Kurds was a result of the civil war in Iraq, he shouldn't be held accountable for crimes committed during a war and we have no way of knowing whether or not he specified to torture the Iraqis or gas the kurds.

By your rationale most independent observers have said that the rape rooms were operated by Uday and not Saddam.  So it is ok then right?  Saddam shouldn't be held accountable for something we cannot connect him to.  In terms of being certain I am certain enough in my claims to say that the US government turned a blind eye to the atrocities and in some cases encouraged them.

Ok, you are confusing the difference between the head of state having knowledge about something and the government orchestrating it. If a General in Iraq set up rape rooms and purposefully hid it from the President, then I would still consider it the government's doing (albeit unknowingly). If A colonel rapes an Iraqi woman, that is a crime attributed to that individual.

Claiming that the US government turned a blind eye and encouraged some of these cases is unverifiable and inconsistant with the evidence that is available. It is simply your opinion and nothing else.

Tim according to Paul Bremer he informed Bush on January 16, 2004.  Bush acted on Abu Ghraib after 60 minutes aired in April

Well, once again a bush hating liberal mixes up the truth to paint bush with the 'evil' brush.
You've inspired me to rebut....
The army found out about the abuse at Abu Gharib on January 13th and launched a criminal investigation on January 14th.  One day later.
Bush was briefed by Rumsfeld and General Pace in February.
By March 20th, 6 soldiers were facing charges.  17 were suspended by February 26th.
Here's the AP's timeline.
http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/abughraib-timeline.htm
All I had to do was google, instead of either inventing truths or listening to George Soros....
The President's job is like a CEO's job.  Disciplining military personnel at a remote prison during war time isn't in his job desciption.  It IS the military's job to handle it at a lower level.  It was handled.  Why the anti-bush crowd wants to portray the President's job as a micromanaging robot who never makes mistake is beyond reasonable and shows that they merely wish to destroy Bush out of hatred instead of their stated desire of 'accountability'.
And I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you are increasingly hostile.  Is it that time of the month, or do you just get all riled up talking about things that you made up your mind about while listening to shouters?

Absolutely I am hostile about this.  I admitted to being wrong on the dates.  I however am not wrong on us sending people off to be tortured.  It is well documented.  I believe I have been pretty open minded about this whole thing, I have acknowledged fault where it lies, accepted responsibility for my falsehoods.  I wish you would do the same, but I forget being a Republican in your mind means never admitting you are wrong and never backing down from something as inconvenient as the truth.  I have no problems with some of the Republicans on this board even though I disagree with them.  I light heartedly joke with them certainly, but overly hostile?  Never.  I certainly do not dismiss them merely because they are a conservative. 

Quick modification to my post.  You are telling me we should elect the guy who has demonstrated the best ability to lead a large organization?  Like a campaign?  Since McCain went bankrupt during his campaign is it safe to assume you are an Obama backer then? 

Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #158 on: May 30, 2008, 09:47:33 AM »
I stand corrected... now since we are such a humanitarian nation why do we allow prisoners to be shipped overseas for torture?  Why do we bomb media outlets?  Are these just actions?
Noone is talking about us being a "humanitarian nation". Sure, we make mistakes and we stray.

But equivocating the genocide of ethnic and religious opposition groups and the systematic rape and mutilation of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent noncombatants to the few instances of waterboarding and sleep deprivation that the US has used here and overseas is not an intellectually or ethically teniable position.

See, American troops killed and tortured many Germans during WWII. We also had Japanese and Italian internment camps. We also used 2 atomic bombs - that doesn't mean that ridding the world of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito wasn't the right thing to do.

Here is the point, I will type slowly, we don't know the extent that the rape rooms were used in Saddams case, and we don't know how high up that this goes up in our case.  We do bomb media outlets intentionally killing innocent civilians, we do torture not just waterboarding and sleep deprivation, we have seen incidents of it, you claim it is isolated but as soon as we shut down one place (Abu Ghraib) we proceed to ship our prisoners off somewhere else to be tortured.  I am absolutely saying this is not collateral damage in a war it is a human rights violation and the leadership should be held accountable.  You claim Saddam used systematic rape, ethnic cleansing, and chemical weapons.  If that is the case hows come he was sent to death for signing 148 death warrants (mind you 4 less than GW)?

Actually, you are wrong.
Read this article if you have some time:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7A2CC36E-CEB1-4851-A122-510AECEFA356

Say what you want about how 'we don't know' if Saddam actively used rape room.  This entire article discusses his disgusting, twisted, mentally ill children.  He KNEW what they were doing.  Everyone did.  Your point is to make a moral equivalency argument and it fails.  Saddam had a direct relationship with his children, the one's who he knew used rape rooms and old school torture techniques.  Bush did NOT know all the soldiers at Abu Gharib prison. 


His children?  now you are hanging your hat on what his kids did?

You seem to be hanging your hat on what military personnel running a prison did with Presidential ethics, so yeah.
And they weren't just his kids...  Qusay ran the elite republican guard.  That would be like Jenna Bush running the CIA while torturing citizens and having american women raped at her whim.  Would you excuse that behavior too, or does the name 'bush' turn your justice hat on?  I'm curious, if Jenna Bush was responsible for the rape and torture of american citizens while running the CIA, would you hold Bush responsible or would you say "it's his kid, not him."
You don't need to answer, because it's obvious.

Remedialone

  • ***
  • 98
  • Patriotism is the refuge of a scoundrel.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #159 on: May 30, 2008, 09:51:58 AM »
I stand corrected... now since we are such a humanitarian nation why do we allow prisoners to be shipped overseas for torture?  Why do we bomb media outlets?  Are these just actions?
Noone is talking about us being a "humanitarian nation". Sure, we make mistakes and we stray.

But equivocating the genocide of ethnic and religious opposition groups and the systematic rape and mutilation of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent noncombatants to the few instances of waterboarding and sleep deprivation that the US has used here and overseas is not an intellectually or ethically teniable position.

See, American troops killed and tortured many Germans during WWII. We also had Japanese and Italian internment camps. We also used 2 atomic bombs - that doesn't mean that ridding the world of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito wasn't the right thing to do.

Here is the point, I will type slowly, we don't know the extent that the rape rooms were used in Saddams case, and we don't know how high up that this goes up in our case.  We do bomb media outlets intentionally killing innocent civilians, we do torture not just waterboarding and sleep deprivation, we have seen incidents of it, you claim it is isolated but as soon as we shut down one place (Abu Ghraib) we proceed to ship our prisoners off somewhere else to be tortured.  I am absolutely saying this is not collateral damage in a war it is a human rights violation and the leadership should be held accountable.  You claim Saddam used systematic rape, ethnic cleansing, and chemical weapons.  If that is the case hows come he was sent to death for signing 148 death warrants (mind you 4 less than GW)?

Actually, you are wrong.
Read this article if you have some time:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7A2CC36E-CEB1-4851-A122-510AECEFA356

Say what you want about how 'we don't know' if Saddam actively used rape room.  This entire article discusses his disgusting, twisted, mentally ill children.  He KNEW what they were doing.  Everyone did.  Your point is to make a moral equivalency argument and it fails.  Saddam had a direct relationship with his children, the one's who he knew used rape rooms and old school torture techniques.  Bush did NOT know all the soldiers at Abu Gharib prison. 


His children?  now you are hanging your hat on what his kids did?

You seem to be hanging your hat on what military personnel running a prison did with Presidential ethics, so yeah.
And they weren't just his kids...  Qusay ran the elite republican guard.  That would be like Jenna Bush running the CIA while torturing citizens and having american women raped at her whim.  Would you excuse that behavior too, or does the name 'bush' turn your justice hat on?  I'm curious, if Jenna Bush was responsible for the rape and torture of american citizens while running the CIA, would you hold Bush responsible or would you say "it's his kid, not him."
You don't need to answer, because it's obvious.


Nope, the Bush daughters to me are unwitting victims in this, and I think Jenna is a closeted Obama booster.  I would say if Jenna was running a torture camp we should lock her up.  My point ONCE again was not that Saddam was a good guy, my point was that you are playing this "Bush didn't know game" when his policy of exporting TORTURE was well known.  He knew, he approved, and should be held to the same if not a HIGHER standard than Saddam.  He is after all our president.

Modification:  I would also like to point out once again, Abu Ghraib is not the only incidence of torture, we have made it a policy.  There are several incidences but we ship off our dirty work.