Sad, But True!

[Colossus_500]

I wish Newt Gingrich would run for the Rep. nomination. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15D3ElV1Jzw

[Hugo Chavez]

I wish Newt Gingrich would run for the Rep. nomination. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15D3ElV1Jzw

meeeee tooooo!!!!  He wouldn't have a shot in hell...  Hillary could dump Bill and hook up with a bull dike and still win in a landslide.

[Dos Equis]

I wish Newt Gingrich would run for the Rep. nomination. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15D3ElV1Jzw

He makes some good points and he's certainly qualified, but I think Berserker is right that he would almost guarantee president Hillary. 

I think he forfeited his right to be president by screwing around on his wife during the Clinton impeachment. 

But I think your larger point is that the field of candidates is weak and unimpressive? 

[Straw Man]

Yeah - we really want a guy who says things like this running our country


At a dinner honouring the sanctity of the First Amendment this week, Newt Gingrich stood up and gave a talk about restricting freedom of speech.Gingrich stated:

"My Prediction to you is that either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology that we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us."

"I want to suggest to you right now that we should empanelling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it were not for the scale of this threat. This is a serious long term war and it will lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, it will lead to us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous."

“We should propose a Geneva Convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are, in fact, subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.”

[Colossus_500]

But I think your larger point is that the field of candidates is weak and unimpressive? 

Yes!  And I think that's across the board, no matter which party you are affiliated with.   

There just HAVE to be better representatives from these two parties than what we are given right now. 

meeeee tooooo!!!!  He wouldn't have a shot in hell...  Hillary could dump Bill and hook up with a bull dike and still win in a landslide.

Berserker, would this statement mean that you are admitting that Senator Clinton will not win the general election should she get the nod as the Democratic nominee for president? 

[Lord Humungous]

“We should propose a Geneva Convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are, in fact, subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.”

If Newt said this, ummm ya I just might vote for him

[Colossus_500]

“We should propose a Geneva Convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are, in fact, subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.”

If Newt said this, ummm ya I just might vote for him

You beat me to it, LH!  It makes alot of sense to me. 

[Dos Equis]

“We should propose a Geneva Convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are, in fact, subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.”

If Newt said this, ummm ya I just might vote for him

Does the Geneva Convention apply to terrorists? 

[Hugo Chavez]

Yes!  And I think that's across the board, no matter which party you are affiliated with.   

There just HAVE to be better representatives from these two parties than what we are given right now. 
Berserker, would this statement mean that you are admitting that Senator Clinton will not win the general election should she get the nod as the Democratic nominee for president? 

First, I don't want Hillary for President, but what I said only means what I said, I would be happy as hell to have Newt as the republican candidate as he would guarantee any dem candidate would win.  There's zero chance in hell Newt could win even if you cloned Rove a dozen times to do it   I absolutely do not want a republican in the whitehouse again.  Fucking end times WWIII corrupt mafistic group of psychos who don't give two shits about the people.  Yea, there's dems who are the same, that's for sure, but nowhere near as completely evil as the republican party have demonstrated themselves to be.  Bunch of goddamned demons...  At least there's a glimmer of hope that the dems can be forced to do good at some point...  I could hold no such hopes as remotely possible for the republican party.

[Hugo Chavez]

Does the Geneva Convention apply to terrorists? 

No, they are held to be "unlawful combatants" Not only does this designation apply to terrorists but to all combatants not in uniform...  This is the brainchild of Alberto Gonzales, who was inspired by the North Vietnamese who were the first to come up with this designation to go around the Geneva conventions to torture Americans.  Our policy toward that policy has since changed a bit since the Vietnam war

[Dos Equis]

No, they are held to be "unlawful combatants" Not only does this designation apply to terrorists but to all combatants not in uniform...  This is the brainchild of Alberto Gonzales, who was inspired by the North Vietnamese who were the first to come up with this designation to go around the Geneva conventions to torture Americans.  Our policy toward that policy has since changed a bit since the Vietnam war

Where do you get that definition?  You referring to the Military Commissions Act, which expressly does not apply to American citizens? 

[Hugo Chavez]

Where do you get that definition?  You referring to the Military Commissions Act, which expressly does not apply to American citizens? 

I only replied in context to the quote by LH and question by you, I did not know it was in the context of only American Citizens, but non the less, what I just said is true of how the use of "Unlawful Combatant" was used to go around the conventions and who was first to use it.  Also, I believe the designation may also be given to American Citizens too.  Unless I'm misunderstanding something.  The only desitinction that I believe there to be is the courts have granted citizens habeas corpus and non citizens are completely fucked.

[Dos Equis]

I only replied in context to the quote by LH and question by you, I did not know it was in the context of only American Citizens, but non the less, what I just said is true of how the use of "Unlawful Combatant" was used to go around the conventions and who was first to use it.  Also, I believe the designation may also be given to American Citizens too.  Unless I'm misunderstanding something.  The only desitinction that I believe there to be is the courts have granted citizens habeas corpus and non citizens are completely fucked.

Not sure if there was a need to go around the Geneva Convention if it didn't apply to terrorists in the first place.  I'm not sure it does, which is why I asked the question.   

Military Commissions Act does not apply to U.S. citizens. 

Habeas doesn't apply to unlawful alien enemy combatants.  So what.  I'm in favor of less, not more, rights for foreign terrorists. 

[Hugo Chavez]

Not sure if there was a need to go around the Geneva Convention if it didn't apply to terrorists in the first place.  I'm not sure it does, which is why I asked the question.   

Military Commissions Act does not apply to U.S. citizens. 

Habeas doesn't apply to unlawful alien enemy combatants.  So what.  I'm in favor of less, not more, rights for foreign terrorists. 

I suspect we're not on the same page to begin with because as I said I didn't know we were talking about citizens and I wasn't addressing it from that angle...  We should not be going around the conventions with clever legal definitions period.  So we can torture?  no, I'm against that.  Come on, we went to war with a country and rounded up the prisoners of that war and defined them as unlawful combantans so the conventions wouldn't apply... hello? not cool... 

[ieffinhatecardio]

I wish Newt Gingrich would run for the Rep. nomination. 

Sounds like someone wasn't of voting age when Mr. Gingrich was having his character issues last time around.

[Dos Equis]

I suspect we're not on the same page to begin with because as I said I didn't know we were talking about citizens and I wasn't addressing it from that angle...  We should not be going around the conventions with clever legal definitions period.  So we can torture?  no, I'm against that.  Come on, we went to war with a country and rounded up the prisoners of that war and defined them as unlawful combantans so the conventions wouldn't apply... hello? not cool... 

Define torture.     Is it making someone sleep in a cold cell with the lights on like we are alleged to have done, or the removal of body parts like Al Qaeda advocates?   

I think they came up with the MCA so they could detain foreign suspected terrorists without having to go through the normal court system.  I'm okay with that, but I don't favor holding people indefinitely without charges, including foreigners. 

[Hugo Chavez]

Define torture.     Is it making someone sleep in a cold cell with the lights on like we are alleged to have done, or the removal of body parts like Al Qaeda advocates?   

I think they came up with the MCA so they could detain foreign suspected terrorists without having to go through the normal court system.  I'm okay with that, but I don't favor holding people indefinitely without charges, including foreigners. 

We're not Al-Qaeda nor should we act like them so I don't give two shits what they advocate...  Don't for a second try to indicate it is a trustworthy way of obtaining information.  You know what torture is and is not so I won't sit here and play fucking stupid games with you...  You know full well the pain that can be inflicted without causing organ failure so the administration's definition is pathetic.

[Straw Man]

from an article in todays Washington Post written by Retired Gen. P.X. Kelley who served as commandant of the Marine Corps from 1983 to 1987 and Robert F. Turner who is co-founder of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law and a former chair of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security.

"To date in the war on terrorism, including the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and all U.S. military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq, America's losses total about 2 percent of the forces we lost in World War II and less than 7 percent of those killed in Vietnam. Yet we did not find it necessary to compromise our honor or abandon our commitment to the rule of law to defeat Nazi Germany or imperial Japan, or to resist communist aggression in Indochina. On the contrary, in Vietnam -- where we both proudly served twice -- America voluntarily extended the protections of the full Geneva Convention on prisoners of war to Viet Cong guerrillas who, like al-Qaeda, did not even arguably qualify for such protections"

The same article also cites The Supreme Court case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld  that all detainees captured in the war on terrorism are protected by Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions

The article which was published today and titled  "War Crimes and the White House
The Dishonor in a Tortured New 'Interpretation' of the Geneva Conventions" can be found here: 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881.html

[Dos Equis]

We're not Al-Qaeda nor should we act like them so I don't give two shits what they advocate...  Don't for a second try to indicate it is a trustworthy way of obtaining information.  You know what torture is and is not so I won't sit here and play fucking stupid games with you...  You know full well the pain that can be inflicted without causing organ failure so the administration's definition is pathetic.

Feel free to throw around words like torture and use them any way you deem fit.  Plenty of people do it. 

We don't act like Al Qaeda.  We don't torture.  Just ask all those fat detainees in Cuba. 

[youandme]

Where do you get that definition?  You referring to the Military Commissions Act, which expressly does not apply to American citizens? 

Chalmers Johnson also cites the same information, Gonzo set it up.

[Hugo Chavez]

from an article in todays Washington Post written by Retired Gen. P.X. Kelley who served as commandant of the Marine Corps from 1983 to 1987 and Robert F. Turner who is co-founder of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law and a former chair of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security.

"To date in the war on terrorism, including the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and all U.S. military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq, America's losses total about 2 percent of the forces we lost in World War II and less than 7 percent of those killed in Vietnam. Yet we did not find it necessary to compromise our honor or abandon our commitment to the rule of law to defeat Nazi Germany or imperial Japan, or to resist communist aggression in Indochina. On the contrary, in Vietnam -- where we both proudly served twice -- America voluntarily extended the protections of the full Geneva Convention on prisoners of war to Viet Cong guerrillas who, like al-Qaeda, did not even arguably qualify for such protections"

The same article also cites The Supreme Court case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld  that all detainees captured in the war on terrorism are protected by Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions

The article which was published today and titled  "War Crimes and the White House
The Dishonor in a Tortured New 'Interpretation' of the Geneva Conventions" can be found here: 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881.html

good post... I find it more likely that one would get more and better information through decent treatment (Christ Like???) than through torture.  During the first gulf war they surrendered in droves knowing that, do to our reputation, they would not be treated badly...  It's safe to say that now, with a new reputation of brutality... our enemies will fight to the death no matter how much they may no longer wish to do so... Brilliant... And contrary to Beach Bum's delusions, we have and do torture and in some cases to the death.

Recipe for disater: go into a country and round up as many adult males as you can and detain them for months, humilate and torture them and then set them loose.  If an occupying force took you or a member of your family and did this or just flat out killed them, how long would it take you to join whatever insurgency you could to drive out the occupying army?  Yea, no shit questions that make you go hmmmm....

[Colossus_500]

this prick delivered divorce papers to his former wife while battling cancer in the hospital.


great choice, another compassionate scumbag.

Wouldn't you agree that we'd be hard-pressed to find a candidate that satifies the moral foundation of all America? 

Plus, the older I get, the more I realize how much of a hypocrite I am.... though we might be at different levels of hypocriticism, you and I are no different than President Clinton, New Gingrich, or the like.

[youandme]

Feel free to throw around words like torture and use them any way you deem fit.  Plenty of people do it. 

We don't act like Al Qaeda.  We don't torture.  Just ask all those fat detainees in Cuba. 

Where did you see their food on? I saw a sample clip all I can say is damn! That is alot of good looking food, they even had a choice of two different choices per meal.
I think I read they get 3500-4k calories a day.

[Decker]

Wouldn't you agree that we'd be hard-pressed to find a candidate that satifies the moral foundation of all America? 

Plus, the older I get, the more I realize how much of a hypocrite I am.... though we might be at different levels of hypocriticism, you and I are no different than President Clinton, New Gingrich, or the like.

We all fall short of the good graces.  But you have to admit, Gingrich's serving his bedridden cancer-racked wife with divorce papers in the hospital is not your run-of-the-mill indiscretion.   

He abandoned his marriage when his wife needed him most...just so he could shack up with his mistress. 

As a political leader, he couldn't even hold the speakership at the height of the run to impeachment...he was mired in ethics scandals.  Small wonder.

[headhuntersix]

The rule of Law, yeah right..being holier then thou is great when u fight people who have a basis in Western morals, these scumbags don't. They don't understand anything but force. If we don't show strength and unity they will win this war. We can all sit around the fall-out craters with a warm fuzzy feeling, knowing that we had the moral high-ground, that was of course before they blew it up. Gimme a break.