Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ashcroft Resigns

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gadsden
    replied
    Originally posted by murakami
    I love that song so much, that is going to be the hold music on our phone system for at least a week.
    GREAT idea! I can't wait to torture^H^H^H entertain folks holding for me at the office with that one!

    Leave a comment:


  • alklloyd
    replied
    Originally posted by skroo
    Here's hoping the doorknob hits him squarely on the ass.
    You got that right. We've got people flying jets into large buildings, yet this asshole seems to have enough free time on his hands to go after medical marijuana and death with dignity (from what i've read because you-know-who wouldn't like it). The hypocrites talk about "states rights"...but if it's something *they* don't like then it's another story.

    Al

    Leave a comment:


  • allentrace
    replied
    Originally posted by Xodia
    Thats an oversimplification. Thats like saying, "If I catch you running into my backyard, no matter what the circumstances, I can take you out where no one can possibly see or do anything and slowly torture you."
    Kind of different when there are millions of lives at stake. And my statement was not an oversimplification, If I said that all Afgahani's supported terrorism because they did nothing to stop the Taliban and that their silence proclaimed them guilty then THAT would be an oversimplification of a complicated situation. Those who were captured were not taken in daylight from their homes just for wanton American cruelty, they were wither taken in combat, at Taliban Training camps or in some way involved in the day to day regulation of the opium controlled and funded government.

    Originally posted by Xodia
    Yes, most of the people that were captured in Afghanistan were terrorists, but it is possible that some weren't. I'd rather not torture potentially innocent people LEGALLY.
    That is an ignorant statement, "prosecute innocent (potentionally) people legally."
    Yes the American Military may detain suspected criminals but that is because the military believe they had sufficient cause or evidence to do so. However our soldiers are not some evil force that detains and kills without regard.


    Originally posted by Xodia
    Besides, I think its pretty safe to assume that we'd torture some of the people anyway.
    No we also do not partake in political assassinations. There are reasons that American soldiers are held to a strict code of honor so that they are above these implications. Abu Graib was the exception to this, however the soldiers were prosecuted. And frankly I am tired of these unfounded bullshit rumors and cloak and dagger tales about American Injustices. Have a little pride in your soldiers, a couple of them who are relatives of mine so I take any insult to them as personal.

    Leave a comment:


  • murakami
    replied
    Originally posted by che
    At least Ashcroft still has his singing career..
    I love that song so much, that is going to be the hold music on our phone system for at least a week.

    Leave a comment:


  • LosT
    replied
    ...and people wonder why DefCON is called off each year...

    LosT

    Leave a comment:


  • Xodia
    replied
    Originally posted by allentrace
    And that is so terrible right? Torturing TERRORISTS that have sponsered or supported the death of American and other countries citizens. There is not a gray area here like Iraq, in Afghanistan there are undeniably terrorists in that country.
    Thats an oversimplification. Thats like saying, "If I catch you running into my backyard, no matter what the circumstances, I can take you out where no one can possibly see or do anything and slowly torture you." Yes, most of the people that were captured in Afghanistan were terrorists, but it is possible that some weren't. I'd rather not torture potentially innocent people LEGALLY.

    Besides, I think its pretty safe to assume that we'd torture some of the people anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • allentrace
    replied
    Originally posted by rot_link
    I discovered that Alberto Gonzales is the self same presidential advisor who urged the President to adopt the policy that "prisoners captured in Afghanistan were not protected by the Geneva Conventions and that torturing suspected terrorists might be permissible."
    And that is so terrible right? Torturing TERRORISTS that have sponsered or supported the death of American and other countries citizens. There is not a gray area here like Iraq, in Afghanistan there are undeniably terrorists in that country.

    Leave a comment:


  • astcell
    replied
    Rot_link -- Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!

    Leave a comment:


  • rot_link
    replied
    It may have been a step down from Ashcroft... With the news that Alberto Gonzales has been appointed to the position of Attorney General, I decided that I would look into the history of this individual and see what type of person we may end up getting for the position. (He has not been confirmed yet).
    Well, I discovered that Alberto Gonzales is the self same presidential advisor who urged the President to adopt the policy that "prisoners captured in Afghanistan were not protected by the Geneva Conventions and that torturing suspected terrorists might be permissible." http://www.kfdx.com/news/default.asp...ownews&id=6918
    http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3...0607&s=editors
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/

    I am now rather worried about what type of ramifications this might have for US citizens in general. Makes ya long for the good 'ol days of John Ashcroft.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gadsden
    replied
    CNN has just announced that Alberto Gonzales has been appointed.

    Leave a comment:


  • astcell
    replied
    Know who would make a good Attorney General? A Microsoft Lawyer.

    Leave a comment:


  • skroo
    replied
    Originally posted by che
    Famous last words, my friend...
    Yep. Unfortunately, all we can do is sit here and hope that his successor is an improvement - we're not going to get to vote on who that replacement is.

    So far, the last two attorney generals we have had were total fuckups. Hopefully, we will get one that will be decent and will not be a zelot.
    I'm really hoping that his successor will *not* be Larry Thompson. The sole reason I say this is that I have serious concerns over Thompson being Mini-Ashcroft -after all, the two have been friends for years, so hopefully he hasn't been prepping a direct replacement.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gadsden
    replied
    Originally posted by skroo
    Having said that, I'm having a hard time seeing how the next one could be much worse.
    Famous last words, my friend...
    So far, the last two attorney generals we have had were total fuckups. Hopefully, we will get one that will be decent and will not be a zelot.

    At least Ashcroft still has his singing career..

    Leave a comment:


  • skroo
    replied
    Originally posted by allentrace
    Good generalization.
    I dunno... In one sense, he has a good point: better the devil we know vs. the one we don't. Problem is, either way we may end up with the devil, and the next one may not necessarily be any better.

    Having said that, I'm having a hard time seeing how the next one could be much worse.

    Leave a comment:


  • allentrace
    replied
    Originally posted by rot_link
    It will be interesting indeed to see what direction the Justice Department takes once new leadership is appointed. I do hope that regardless of whoever is appointed, it is a step *up* from Ashcroft...I'm sure there are plenty of people wanting the job that are worse than John ever thought about being.
    Good generalization.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X