• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush picks Gonzales to replace Ashcroft

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,867
Reaction score
6,924
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Source: Yahoo News

[size=-1]President Bush named Alberto Gonzales, his chief counsel, to be attorney general Wednesday. He replaces John Ashcroft, who announced his resignation Tuesday.[/size]

[size=-1]Gonzales, 49, has been a Bush confidant since Bush was Texas governor and Gonzales his chief counsel. He would be the nation's first Hispanic chief law enforcement officer if confirmed by the Senate.[/size]

[size=-1]"Al will continue our administration's great progress in fighting crime, in strengthening the FBI, in improving our domestic efforts in the war on terror," Bush said at a news conference.[/size]

[size=-1]Gonzales embraced the president and said, " 'Just give me a chance to prove myself' - that is a common prayer for those in my community. Mr. President, thank you for that chance." (Related story: Gonzales' ideology shaped by background)
[/size]

[size=-1]The diversity that Bush has assembled or attempt to assemble to me is amazing.[/size]

[size=-1]What do you think? [/size]
[size=-1]Happy Ashcroft is gone? Glad to see a hispanic in this office?
[/size]
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,867
Reaction score
6,924
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Interesting. I just read the PDF linked from that page.

We conclude that certain acts may be cruel, inhumain, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisit intensity to fall within section 2340A's.
So far, what I get out of this is:
They are not allowed to produce pain or suffering during interrogation of the intensity as defined by Section 2340A. Aparently Section 2340A defines torture which they did not do according to this definition. I would like to look at Section 2340A before concluding.

As far as the armed forces torturing, several of them have been brought to justice already.
 

bfeverish

New member
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What they're saying is that the Geneva Conventions are obsolete. They're claiming that detainies at Guantanamo don't qualify for protection under the Geneva Convention because they're not from any particular country or government. They go on to conclude that it is also necessary in the "War On Terror" to disregard these laws in order to prevent actions.

Basically what I see this as boiling down to was simply certain members of this Administration pushing for a "gloves off" type of approach. Then through Gonzales's work made these acts legal. They found a loop-hole and jumped. Now this same man is the nations top lawyer.:confused:
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,867
Reaction score
6,924
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
This is what happens when we release them:

Asia News
A Taliban commander killed in southern Afghanistan Afghanistan last week had rejoined the hardline militia after his release from Guantanamo Bay earlier this year, according to an Afghan provincial governor.
They are there for a reason. Because they are POW's, we do not have to know the specific circumstances. But, as you can see they are staying within the military law and if they do not have a valid reason for keeping them - they are released so they can join the Taliban again.
 

bfeverish

New member
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
To justify why you'd break international law and treaties to me is moot. That's not what I'm getting into, what we're talking about is a lawyer that's slick enough to do such things actually becoming this nations top lawyer. In effect we're promoting lawlessness.


We'll get into the other discussion in other thread sometime.
 
Top Bottom