Thomas
You and Jo Boykin both need a vacation and relax and realize that the other side are not the second coming of the devil and want to destroy our society.

Tom:

I am clearly not a "fan" of Kennedy, Durbin, Dean, Biden, or [either] Clinton ... but it is interesting that while this administation now talks about "freedom" (a marked revision from earlier WMD rhetoric, by the way), they are actually eroding American rights, involving the federal gov. in liberal (clearly not traditionally conservative) ways, and they are helping their business buddies, the Wall Street CEO types, plunder our resources.

I disagree the mainstream media is giving aid and comfort to our enemies - in fact they are only reporting a fraction of the news (and too much time on BS), and on a relative scale the reporting is balanced. The unbalanced ones are FOX and Hannity & crew, I can give you a couple examples if you want.

Support to our enemies comes from proving, in the GITMO case, that the brainwashing given to fundementalist youth - American as infidels - is true: only infidels would have you masterbate in public.

I do FULLY agree we need to support our servicemen and women are in harm's way - and we also need to do the same when they return, but to blindly support a the governing people, is in fact the unpatriotic act.

ps: Are your sons and daughters on the front line?

The day that the last dissenting voice in this country is silenced is the day liberty will die. It's on the intensve care unit at the moment. Let us not pull the plug, eh?

I support Kennedy, Durbin, Dean, Hillary, and all the rest of the far left loonies to speak all they want. Let's not forget Micheal Moore and George Soros too. However Eric, there is a difference in meaningful dissent and becoming totally unglued in their seething hatred for Bush and not giving a damn about the troops in the process.

These guys are futher demonstrating how the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the far left and is alienating many mainstream Democrats in the process. Zell Miller warned them and they won't listen. Until they do, they will keep losing elections.

It's interesting that 25 years ago, the South had 20 Democratic senators, 6 Repubs, now there are 22 Repubs, 4 Democrats.

Dan, where would you draw the line between "meaningful dissent" and "seething hatred"?

One poster in the recent past (I apologize that I don't remember who) suggested contacting your representatives in the government, and refraining from public demonstrations. That would give an outlet for the dissent without negatively affecting troop morale or empowering the enemy.

Personally, I'm uncomfortable about not having a constitutional right available to exercise, though in all reality I doubt I'd take advantage of it anyway.

I wonder what others think.

Dough, Meaningful dissent is speaking out against the war, writing letters, blogging, etc. Yvonne is the epitome of this (where you been Yvonne?) as she does it respectfully and with compelling ideas.

Dick Durbin on the other hand is an example of coming unglued in his seething hatred for Bush by saying the terrorists at Gitmo are being treated similar to how Hitler, Stalin, & Pol Pot treated prisoners.

Got it?

Thank you. I'm on the long uphill climb to become informed about issues. I appreciate the dialog these blogs and forums provide.

Here's is a response I sent to the 'letters to editor' page this morning. I'll repeat it here:

Thomas Moore's letter this morning (6/22/2005)calling dissent (during a time of war) "treason" and an "embarrassment" needs some historical perspective, such as this quote from a former president who knew better:

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Excerpt from: "Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918

To deny our most fundamental rights at any time (to free speech, etc.) is to undermine the very reason and purpose for our existence as a nation.

Dan and to all others interested
I may ramble here so either skip me or be patient

I dont know about you but I have grown tired of letters like this where dems are talibans
to "Bush hates america"(from another blog). I did a rare thing and surfed various political web sites. I left depressed at how extremely warped some people see the other side whether it was liberal or a conservative web site. And this letter is an example from the right but there have been some from the left posted here as well. And if these sites represent the true state of our country then I am happy to be in germany and please keep those ideals there. They, bó´¨ sides, are pathetic.

A german wrote in the lead up to the war stating that the germans didnt stop forgetting what america did for them but the america they grew up loving and respecting disappeared. Anda after surfing through these sites I wondered also what has happened to my country when we see the other side with such hate and through some evil lens.

But if there is truely a middle out there then where is the voice.

Some have ask how to handle this. My challenge,using this post as an example, is not to get drawn into a devisive back and forth attack but ingnore what this letter is trying to do and instead focus on a theme and focus our time and attention on how to do something constructive.

The example being here is what would be acceptable opposition to a war,not just this one, as Dan has already started.

Now I am finish with my rambling so those who closed their eyes can now open them again.

Hayes,
Thanks for the wake-up call!

I can be divisive myself, as I have some very strong opinions about this president, what he and the majority party are doing to the country and working people, and where we as a nation are headed. Oftentimes the end result are small attacks directed at those who follow Bush.

As far as I am concerned, there is no unacceptable way to voice opposition, short of criminal activity. Dick Durbin did what he thought was right, and I applaud him for what he said. It is time we look at OUR actions to make sure we are toeing the line with regard to our morals, and international law.

My belief is that as Americans, we have the right to speak as we damn well please. Anyone who suggests that anyone else's voice be silenced in order to not 'demoralize' the troops (many of whom are demoralized by Bush's actions leading to war) might want to read up on the rise of the Nazis. Yes, there are startling parallels that have made me want to be more vigilant in preserving our democracy.

The moment we give up parts of our freedom, the moment we disregard parts of our constitution, the moment we usurp the rights of our citizens in the name of security is the moment that those who would do us harm win. They may not win the battle, but they got what they aimed to do: and that is force us to change our way of living, our way of governing, and our way of expressing ourselves politically.

We are Americans, and (should) have the freedom to speak in any way we wish, but if one speaks from and emotional, uninformed platform, it's also our right to ignore them, or to ask that they uphold a higher level of discourse.

Jim & Dan
If I may use you both here as an example.

First in general I am not saying anyone should not express their opinions and if strong then show it but phrases like american talibans is over the top.

But to my point:
To me you both raise valid points;Jim that the people have the right to express themselves even in war but Dan has made a good point in that this does embolden the enemy to keep fighting thus prolonging the war and killing more american soldiers.

Dan raises the point of sending letters to your congressman or to the newspaper. I assume Jim you would accept this part, tell me if I am wrong.

BUT question is: can we voice our opinion or more important show our opposition in a more visual way that lets the president know we are unhappy with the war BUT at the same time not do it in way that leaves any impression we dont support our troops and can be interpeted by the enemy in a way they think they can wait us out?

There has to be away we can protest the war in a manner that sends a message to the president we are not happy with this so find a better solution while at the same time in a way also telling the insurgents you should not interpet this as a sign of weakness on our part.

Rockefeller:

"The unbalanced ones are FOX and Hannity & crew, I can give you a couple examples if you want."

Can you please give me some of those examples?

Also why is it that you are entitled to your opinion and your non-support for the war, but we, those of us that are in support for this war, are not given the same right? Because obviously according to you if my daughter (who is too young to be in the military) isn’t on the front lines then I am not entitled to support this war or have an opinion. How very patriotic and American of you.

Jim,

I wish you would have been made to walk the Bataan march, suffered in a Vietnam POW camp, a Nazi camp, maybe been shipped to a Soviet Gulag. Then that way maybe you would understand what real torture is. You applaud a man who took the memories of millions of people who were really tortured and if lucky not killed and compared that to what? Being in a cold room? Why don’t you ask the families Nicholas Berg, Daniel Perl, or four contract workers if they would have preferred to have been made to watch a puppet show in the cold ac with their heads attached to their bodies or be tortured?

Funny thing is you go on and on about freedom of speech, our Constitution and being an American in one breath and then in the next you talk of toeing “international law”. So which is it? Are we our own country, governed by the laws of our Constitution, or are we under the laws of the UN?

Ps Incase you were educated in a public school, the United States of America is not a democracy, it is a Republic. Hence why we “pledge allegiance to the flag … and to the Republic”

It's funny that the liberals think free speech is only for them, evidenced by how they attempt to censor and stifle shut down the letter writer's freedom of speech.
Hayes, Jim, etc., you are hypocrites. You show us what liberals are really like: They want to deny anyone with a different opinion (conservative) the freedom to exercise it.
Bush won, get over it.

I think there is a major difference in expressing your OWN opinion and attacking other's opinions. I think if people stuck to the former, perhaps we'd feel there was a middle ground somewhere.

Truth, if I believed your opion was preposterous and illogical would you consider that an attack?

Mikey
I do hope you are still on this blog.
Jim says in his blog every american has the right to express himself any damn way he pleases

I take from this he is saying you have the right to say what damn well pleases you

Second I am a moderate republican who is not happy with Bush so much for your liberal attack and
my reference to the original letter was not to say she didnt have the right to say what she wants but I was writing to some of the regulars here to please IGNORE the comments and move on to a higher level
But Mikey I have 100 dollars I will transfer into your account today if you can show anywhere where I said a person doesnt have the right to express his opinion. Please show me!!

Trish
I learned very nicely in my PUBLIC education that we are Republic based on democratic principles and if you read enough of these blogs you will quickly learn that most of the people not only needed not to be told that but they could do one heck of a job describing what those principles are and where they come from whether they are dems or repubs so sorry to burst you bubble but you didnt inform any one here something they didnt already know.

Hugh,

I would not consider that to be an attack. But if you called me an idiot for believing it, I would.

Trish, "Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights)." Just thought you might be interested.

Dan, I love you too and agree we need to temper our attacks. Since you were around for the startup of this forum, I know you remember the mistakes I made (and sometimes still do) with my first few posts. I thought I could say anything I pleased and attack anyone I wanted. After all, this was an open forum.

Well, I have learned I have a lot to learn. Some of the more civil disagreements present a wealth of information, if you read without preconceived agendas. And usually, when emotion is removed (or tempered) you find people receptive to what you have to say. They still disagree most of the time but common ground is agreeing to disagree.

Truth, I couldn't agree with you more. I think most of the regular posters and some of those newer to this forum do try to have civil discourse. I respect and appreciate that.

Hayes, I get you. As adults we should be able to disagree without ripping someone's arm out of the socket and verbally beating them over the head with it.

Bush has stated he thinks it would jeapordize national security to divulge an end to our invasion of Iraq. This leaves people frustrated with having no end in sight. Frustration, without relief, brings anger. We are an angry nation, as you have pointed out.

We are angry about the deaths of over 1700 US soldiers. (Tears come to my eyes when I think of those children coming home in body bags.) We are angry about the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on this war when so many Americans are without jobs, health insurance and basic necessities. We are angry about rising taxes and government wastes, ie, some welfare freebies and pork projects. We are angry about illegals overtaking our country and the government rewarding them by giving away the store.

With all this anger and no one else to direct it at, is it any wonder we attack strangers in this forum? We can't go up to whoever we think is responsible for all this corruption and punch their lights out. What a relief and purging that would be! I'm not condoning, I'm attempting to understand.

I guess what I'm trying to say in my usual long-winded way, is folks, we're all in the same boat. And how productive is it to keep rowing in opposite directions? I'm NOT saying we can't disagree about the direction we're taking. What I am saying is "let's talk about it before we put our oars in the water".

Thanks Yvonne for your usual thoughtful post.

Trish,
I still applaud Durbin's comments. I think that his assessment of what is going on in Gitmo is correct, based upon the relevant document. I'm sorry if that offends you, or if there is something about this that bothers you. We are not above acting like this, though I know we sometimes think our crap doesn't stink.

Just because we are Americans that does not give us the right to do anything we damn well please around the world. Yes, we as individuals have freedoms that we can exercize, at least for the present. But the Nation as a whole ought to act in accordance with International Law. You have so much disdain with the UN, may I ask why?
Is it because the security council saw that the intelligence was a charade? Is it because the UN prefers peace over war? Or are you going to use the Oil-for-Food scandal as a war to denigrate the entire institution?

I feel sorrow for those men who died for Bush's lies. I feel sorrow for the familes, the wives, husbands, sons and daughters. My only consolation is that hopefully the lies will eventually create criminal proceedings against the man who caused those deaths.

Trish said:

"I wish you would have been made to walk the Bataan march, suffered in a Vietnam POW camp, a Nazi camp, maybe been shipped to a Soviet Gulag. Then that way maybe you would understand what real torture is."

Did you see the cartoon in the paper this morning? The motto on a US embassy reads "Our torture is not as bad as their torture." Is that the nature of America's moral high ground these days? We're not exactly winning over the hearts of many people with that sort of advertisement, are we? I think we need a better PR firm.

Jim: "My belief is that as Americans, we have the right to speak as we damn well please. Anyone who suggests that anyone else's voice be silenced in order to not 'demoralize' the troops (many of whom are demoralized by Bush's actions leading to war) might want to read up on the rise of the Nazis."

Here we go with the Nazi stuff again. Just because I think Durbin is an irresponsible slimebag doesn't mean that I'm going to think like a Nazi Jim. So it's ok with you Jim for a U.S. Senator to make public statements comparing the actions to our military to Nazis, gulags, and Pol Pot? It's ok to give goodies like that to terrorists and embolden them further?

Free speech has limitations Jim, you don't yell fire in a theatre and you don't give terrorists ammunition from a U.S. Senator to go kill more people.

As for Gitmo, you want torture, Trish's post was on the mark.

Jim

Yeah it does bother me that you would cheapen the legacy of millions of innocent victims who died millions in the Killing Fields, in the Gas Chambers etc. etc. Not one person has died at Gitmo and you still want to say it is the same thing. And ya?ll wonder why the Democratic Party is losing power. Go figure. Please show me the mass graves in Cuba, show me the limbs that have been removed, show me the starving prisoners with ribs showing, show me the prisoners who have had their tongues ripped out, and please show me the severed heads of terrorist? It is a sad day when one feels that sawing off a head with a dull knife while the victims screams in agony is the same thing as a guy you is made to sit in a cold room.

I?m sorry to say but we as a nation do not have to act in accordance with International Law. We have a Constitution, the United States Constitution and no where in that does it say we are to give our soverity away and allow an ?International Body? to rule us. I do find it ironic however that those on the left love shouting about their "First Amendment rights, their right to privacy, and their rights to freedom of religion but there also the first ones ready to throw out the United States Constitution and all those freedoms and let the UN take care of them. Why don't you ask that tribe in Africa what what happens when they give up their weapons to the UN.

Why do I disdain the UN? How much space do I have? What about Rwanda? What did the UN do for them? Pedophilia Scandal? How many scandals will it take before you see the UN for what it is? They saw the intelligence was a charade? Hmm if the Security Council knew that Iraq had no WMD, why were there Inspectors in Iraq? What were they looking for the food from the food for oil program?

My only consolation is that if our government is ever is taken over be it by Islamic terrorists, communist, Nazi's etc. its people like you who are always the first to end up in those killing fields, maybe then you might re-think your position on torture.
Just for curiosity sake, do you know the number of ?jumpers? (those people who didn?t want to burn to death in the World Trade Center) on that day Sept. 11th?

My dear Jim,

I fear I will never understand the sheer hatred you have for GWB as well as the other "Liberals". Maybe one day you will offer up the same compassion and patience for him as you have for the terrorists and other thugs around the world.

Eric,

You just don't get it do you? Mind telling me since when is playing rap music, not letting prisoners sleep, sitting in a cold and/or hot room torture?

Before you answer consider this, I do not remember hearing a peep when these same techniques were used on the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX ok'd by Clinton approved my Reno.

Hayes,
I’ll be honest I am not sure if you are being sarcastic when you responded about your public education, but if you weren’t it only proves why our kids continue to get dumber and dumber. I wasn’t quite sure what you were getting at so if I have it wrong, I am sorry that your wrote it so bad that I got it wrong (hey the Dubin way of apologizing is pretty good) So in response: I didn’t have a bubble to burst, nor was I trying to inform anyone on anything. I was responding to Jim and his quest to preserving our “democracy”. I should have known he wasn’t talking about the United States. My bad.

Trish, please continue to visit & post the N&R blogs. We think alike and I am often alone in countering the likes of Jim. People like him just don't get it. I need you!!

Dan,

I will try to post around here however I am not sure how long I will be able to. It gets kind of depressing when I read what some of my fellow citizens think. Although it does explain why Guilford County is run my Skip Alston.

I am thinking Dan it will be just the two of us as most conservatives don't read the N & R. Haha

Trish and Dan
I have not seen the cartoon Eric refers to but if correct then the message is something to think about. I want compare what is happening at gitmo to the concentration camps or the gulags because for you cant.

But when we send a message that we seem to accept what happens at gitmo because "our torture is not as bad as the others" well sorry I see something wrong in that as well.

Trish
I will bite on some of your statements.
1.International law: I would never argue we should give our governing powers to any international organization BUT can you give me one international law that you so fully distrust AND feels does not represent the standards of our laws or is beneath us. I am not completely familiar with all laws but most are on some level similar to our laws at least on the basis of the laws. The only well known difference is the use of the death penalty

2.UN
What did the UN do for Rwanda? The same thing the US did NOTHING

Why were the inspectors in Iraq? To see what if any weapons Sadaam had in order to prevent war or not?

3. How many scandals will it take before you see Bush for what he is

4. Our government is threatened more from within than it is from any outside power

Dan
I would now like to get back to a civil discussion here. The heat here has made me a little grumpy.
I want to throw something at you.
You mentioned about yelling fire in a theater and by law I THINK, ie dont know, that a person can be arrested for it. Now I heard several years ago a professor on free speech even applied this "fire" mentallity to a president taking his country to war based on lies in essence yelling "fire". I dont believe Bush is a war criminal or should be impeached but is it possible Bush yelled "fire"?

Oh and Jim:

Jim said: "Just because we are Americans that does not give us the right to do anything we damn well please around the world." Really so tell me where was the outrage when Roosevelt declared war on Hilter (remember it was Japan who attacked us), where was the outrage when Clinton went into Bosina (without your precious UN's approval)? Where are the calls to bring our guys home from Bosina? Remember Clinton promised they would only be there for 6 months and as far as I know we are still there. Yet not one word is said about that. Why is that do you suppose?

Oh and Jim less you forgot, American has done more for the world than any country and we continue to do even when our hands are bitten off as we are feeding people. Care to show me where Stalin, Pol Pot or Hitler did good deeds for the world? Remember we are just like them after all.

Trish
I just read your response to me. My sarcasm was directed at your statement "In case you were educated in a public school". I know this was directed at Jim but this comes across in two ways.
First you must have had a private education and in your opinion any one with a public education well lets be nice here doesnt meet your academic standards.

My education was from a public school and I consider myself intelligent

and to your comment that if I wasnt being sarcastic "that it proves why are kids are getting dumber and dumber"

You know Trish I have been doing this for about a month and I have read many things I laughed at but I will say this is the first time I thought
"I wished you would say that to my face"

You may think yourself to be some intellectual giant but I am waiting to be impressed.

And sadly to write this again but I am a conservative just not a Bush fan.

Hayes, the cartoon is like 95% of the ones the N&R prints, anti-Bush.

As for my "fire" statement, perhaps that is not a good example. I believe it is illegal to yell fire in a theatre just like it's illegal to yell bomb on an airliner.

Let's just say that everyone has the right to voice their opinion, but there are consequences. I have the right to call some 250 lb Harley biker a big ugly loaf in a bar, but my 160 lb frame may suffer consequences!!

My point is that Durbin has the right to say on the floor of Congress that we treat Gitmo prisoners similar to Nazis death camps, gulags, and Pol Pots killing fields, but there are consequences to stupid statements like that. I'll name a few:

1)Durbin has had so much negative publicity that he felt necessary to issue his lame apology. As Trish states, this is such an insult to those who died in all 3 of these Hololcausts.

2)Middle of the road Democrats are leaving the party because of constant statements like this. Got my hair cut this am and my barber is a lifelong Democrat. He told me he voted for Bush last Nov., the Democratic party no longer represents his values, and as a former marine, he was disgusted by Durbin's statements. (See my first post, 4th on the list)

3) Terrorists can use statements from a U.S. Senator to further fuel jihad.

As for your question about Bush yelling fire. I hear too much about the only reason we went to war was WMDs, which is not the case. Saddam started all this in the early 90's by invading Kuwait. We tried to work with him for over a decade with UN resolutions, sanctions, inspections, etc. He ignored the resolutions including 1441 which passed unanimously.

He did have WMDs and used them on his own people including the Kurds. Yeah the intelligence was wrong, but French, British, and UN intelligence agreed. Where they are now I have no idea, probably in Syria. Meanwhile your compatriots in Germany were profiting from the Oil for Food Program, as were the Frenchies and the Russians. He was given an ultimatum and ignored it.

I will catch hell for this, but I believe Bush truly thought Iraq was a threat based upon the available intelligence and acted accordingly. Maybe it was post 9/11 jitters, I'm not sure. I don't believe, as most of the Libs do, that Bush just thought this whole thing up to revenge his daddy or plunder Iraq's oil.

I do think the administration did not prepare correctly for the post war situation which continues today.

Hayes in regard to your comments about torture, I will not repeat myself, read what I wrote to Eric. How in the heck can it be torture? Those prisoners treated better then our own soldiers, heck they are treated better by us then by their own countries. How is that torture? These are not nice guys, they were taken from the battle fields trying to kill American soldiers and you think it is torture to play loud music so they we can get information out of them? What don’t you understand? They want to kill you, no ifs ands or buts about it.

In answer to your questions:

1. International law: Ok what about the ICC? If America joins the ICC that means any American citizen can be tried in that court. And in the process out goes your Constitutional rights (no taking the 5th, no having an attorney provided, no Miranda rights, no innocent until proven guilty). How does that sound to you? Or what about the UN’s policy (and I’m at work at the moment but I will find the link for you) of wanting to disarm all citizens. You might agree with losing the Second Amendment; however history has proven what can happen when the people are disarmed (remember the Jews and Hitler’s policy to disarm?) But you know the whole point is this: THE UNITED STATES IS A SOVERIGN GOVERNMENT, we have a Constitution, a form of government, a rule of law. Mind telling me why we should give that up?
2.UN: (What did the UN do for Rwanda? The same thing the US did NOTHING.) But is it not the UN’s job? I thought that was part of their charter? Where is it in our charter saying it is the United States job? Also are you saying you wouldn’t mind us going into another country without the UN’s approval?
Why were the inspectors in Iraq? (To see what if any weapons Sadaam had in order to prevent war or not?) Wait a minute you said that the UN knew there was no WMD’s so what was there to see if they already knew?
3. How many scandals will it take before you see Bush for what he is.
Give me the scandals. But I will be honest, after Bill Clinton and all his it will take a lot. After all after eight years of hearing, “it’s no big deal, it’s only sex, it’s only travelgate, it was only a lie, it was only whitewater, it was only going into Kosovo, it was only a couple of bombs into an empty tent, we couldn’t take Bin Laden because we didn’t have anything to charge him on”, etc. etc. etc.
4. Our government is threatened more from within than it is from any outside power. I agree. It is people like you, the ACLU, activist judges, Durbin, Dean and the democrat leadership that is more of a threat to this country. Heck you are the one talking about handling over our government to international law and the UN.

" How many scandals will it take before you see Bush for what he is"

What "scandals"? These press orgasms are manufactured by the Democrat opposition. NOTHING has stuck, it's all smoke and mirrors in cooperation with their elitist buddies in the mainstream media in an attempt to malign the Bush Presidency.

Hayes said: "First you must have had a private education and in your opinion any one with a public education well lets be nice here doesnt meet your academic standards."

You are wrong. I was educated actually in Guildford County, (however before the schools merged) and I also have 2 children in the Guildford Country system. Public education is a joke. I experienced it and now I see it in what my kids are being taught. I never said nor did I imply that I am an intellectual giant, nor did I say you were dumb, smart or otherwise. However it is a proven fact that our kids coming out of the public education system are less smart then other generations that went before them.

Dan:

"It's interesting that 25 years ago, the South had 20 Democratic senators, 6 Repubs, now there are 22 Repubs, 4 Democrats."

Wasn't that caused by them durn liberals speaking out against SEGREGATION ?? - that's what many "more smarter" than me say - but R's and D's I sure.

Trish: I need to take my college daughter to the movies now - I'll give you those examples later tonight!

Trish
Go back and show me where I wrote we should turn our powers over to the UN? Where?Have never said we should give it up. Never in my life.

The interntional court: I find it strange we have no problem turning other people over to these courts to be tried and have no problem taking people before the courts. That doesnt mean I am saying we should join just find it strange.

Never said the UN knew there were no weapons I saidn they were there to see what and(missing the last time) if any he had.

You have no idea of my politics maybe you should first know before accusing me of being a threat.

Dan
Dont know much about Durbin, I have not really followed that but if these are his comments then they were out of bounds. But there are to many such statements coming from both sides.
But as far as statements from senators being used to recruit; I agree but wouldnt a statement from Delay be the one they use? Just a question!

Remember many people profited from the food for oil deal even some americans if I heard correctly,
which means I may be wrong on that.

Trish
Let me apologize. Maybe I have been edgy today.I think alot of comments went off in the wrong direction. We got off on the wrong foot.
I guess I am saying tomorrow is a new day so I hope a new start.

Hey James, check your facts. I said in the last 25 years. I don't think segregation ended in 1980. In fact southern DEMOCRATS were opposed to desegregation in the 60's and Abe Lincoln, the first Republican president, opposed slavery.

Have a good time at the movies.

Trish, as long as you are angry, I've done my job.

You CONservatives keep talking about the "hate" on the left. You know, I cannot once remember ever hearing anything remotely resembling niceties from your Idol, Flush DoperLimbaugh. I cannot once think of a time when your talk hosts say anything nice about anyone besides those like them: White, Self-Righteous pompous asses. So, I suppose it is no surprise that you spew such hatred toward We of the left.

You did it during Clinton, and you think we are just going to lay down and take it. Well, I for one am not going to. You can spout your lies, fling your crap all you want, but saying things over and over, like your president, doesn't make things true.

You hate AMerica. You hate Freedom. You think it is ok to go around the Middle East colonizing and forcing other cultures to become "Free countries." Sounds alot like the country we declared independence from to me.

If what we have is so good, they will steal it. We wont have to kill them to make them take it.

But, you can't see that. You're blinded by the rhetoric and don't see through the well spoken lies and deceptions.

May God have mercy on you.

Thomas Moore,

To blanket all liberals as unpatriotic only tells of your ignorance.

You sir are a disgrace to this country, and a dumba$$!

Hayes, Brian, Marshall, Yvonne and the rest: Remember how we will disagree on issues, but try not to name call or say broad uninformed statements and label an entire group as this that or the other? Can you guys agree with me that statements from Jim that all conservatives hate America & freedom are a bit over the top?

Jim, I hope you will settle down and enjoy the blogging like the rest of us without stupid statements like that.

You go tom!

Dan,
Think about it. How many times has it happened that those of your political persuasion essentially utter the same thing...yet we hear nothing from you. Now that it has been leveled at your fellow conservatives, you cry foul.

Do I need to point out the hypocrisy?

Hayes,

I apologize you are correct, I got your comments mixed up with Jim, sorry about that. I am not sure about us turning people over to the ICC. The only one I know of is the Serbia leader (I will not even attempt to spell his name). For the most part we return them to their country because we know they will be tortured there. As far as criminals here, well we try them ourselves.

“Never said the UN knew there were no weapons I saidn they were there to see what and(missing the last time) if any he had.”
No you didn’t but Jim did it was why I asked the question of what they were doing there.

"You have no idea of my politics maybe you should first know before accusing me of being a threat."
Well it just seems to me that people who feel that we are torturing terrorist are more worried about the terrorist and their feelings (along with what the world thinks)then about what those terrorist would like to do to us.

Jim you stated: "Trish, as long as you are angry, I've done my job."
You know Jim it is pretty sad that you feel it is your job to make people angry. But hey to each his own, if that is what gets you off, who am I to argue. I do get angry with idiot people, can’t seem to help myself. I try real hard and for the most part I can debate without the anger or the name calling. (Oh and yeah I did call you an idiot but you know call a spade a spade it is what you are) I can go so far as to say that I even tolerate other views other then my own and every once in a while I might even see the others’ side point of view. But to have someone believe that sitting in the cold AC is the same as being starved to death, put in a gas chamber or having ones head cut off is the same thing, to me that is just nothing but stupidity, plain and simple. You should be ashamed of yourself that you are demeaning what millions of people suffered though. I just wish that you would be dropped off in North Korea and left then you could get a birds eye view of what torture really is. Then maybe you would see how really stupid your comments are. The worse part is, the only reason you uttered those remarks is your blind hatred of Bush, otherwise I’m sure that you would have spoken up about the “torture” those Branch Davidians received at the hand of the Clinton justice system. Right?

Last statement to you Jim as I am out of town tomorrow and going away for the weekend as well.

Please don't label an entire group of people you don't know (conservatives in this example)as hating America and freedom, as I love my country and my freedom and thank God for them every day.
Broad generalizations like that are useless and you diminish your credibility.

If your goal is to make people like Trish and me angry and personally attack them, that is not the purpose of this blog. I am not an angry person. Please refer to the editor's note at the beginning, attack ideas not people. Those of us who regularly post here understand those rules. We comment on ideas and understand there are a variety of them we don't agree with. I respect that and hope you will too. All the best to you.

Dan,
I am a regular poster here. I have been posting since this began. I don't comment on everything, and some days I don't even read at all. Most of the time I just watch as the same people say the same things about us Liberals. There have been so many broad sweeping comments on this board directed at Liberals, I figured you all Conservatives were fair game. But, I forget, this is Bush's America.

You, Dan, are not on my list of the accused. I appreciate your posts, and though I have become quite vitriolic, I shall soon return to the rock from whence I came.

But, I shall return, should the rhetoric of Liberal-haters become too broad and sweeping. I am one liberal that eats meat, cuts down trees, spits on the sidewalk, and will go toe to toe with any conservative any day of the week.

And Trish, hunny, I am far from being an idiot. I may not be agreeable, and may even be downright mean at times, but I am no idiot.

Trish: I promised a couple examples of the unbalanced in FOX and Hannity reporting.

Note that these are subtile, but real and pervasive.

FOX: the other day, I think it was the energy Bill, FOX is doing a lead-in to a sound bite from the President, and they stated: "Today the President told the Democrats to stop stalling and pass his energy bill."

Then the President's sound bite is played "I need congress to stop stalling and pass my energy bill.".

FOX clearly spun it as the Dem's holding things up, when that is not what the President said. FOX turned it into a clearly partisan matter, for no reason other than blatant smear.

.... subtile, but real and pervasive, and they do it every day.

Last summer, time magazine reported on "A Day with the Bush Family" (something like that) as they were getting deep into the election cycle. The Bush twins came home, said Hi to Mom and Dad, and turned on CNN. Within seconds the twins were directed to get their news from FOX exxclusivly - change that channel now, CNN is officially off limits. Just an interesting aside.

OK - Hannity:

It's the Social Security debate, and Sean is all over it - spending 1/2 an hour talking about how 4% is all the president is asking for, and it's not that much, afterall, we can afford to absorb whatever risk there may be, why are people so resistant, because it's only 4%.

Well Hello, Sean - what planet are you from - its 4% of the paycheck, but its 33% of the part that goes to the Social Security fund - only 8 tines more than the measly 4% you were touting.

Subtile, real, and pervasive - they do it every day and millions of Americans are too something to get a "fair and balanced" opinion. (A joke on the previous post).

I can't listen to these guys any more, because all they are is 1/4 truth. What they say is true - but it's far from the whole truth, and they delibrately skip the important 3/4's. I find myself screaming at the radio because of these deliberate oversights, clearly meant to deceive.

PS - What they say is true, except for Ditto head saying Drug Abusers should be pretty much put away for life because they are the slime of America - I guess Rush was only kidding all the years he preached that. I'd better stop now before I get my dander up.

Dan
I have a problem with all comments like that regardless of who says it or from which side of the politics they come from.

Trish
First I will try to be more civil here.

My problem about Gitmo and the other prisons are this:
1.We are suppose to represent a standard for the world to follow. To condone or to look away even for the smallest offences brings our credibility into question. And credibility is the key to leadership and we are loosing it.
If your teaching your child smoking is bad and should never do it the message gets lost if that child sees you smoking whether you smoke a pack an hour or ONE a day. The effect is the same.

2.Since many at Gitmo were held but committed no crime and later released suggest there could be more. Have you asked yourself how many have been held there vs how many there are today? From those no longer there how many of them were even convicted? My impression is that many held there for a long period of time were innocent. Since they have not been given they day in court we still dont know how many there now are actually criminals or terrorists. I personally am troubled that our country holds people in legal limbo to find out that some of these people were there under false reasons. So my concern is as much for those who should NOT be there.And even you cant say 100% assurance that all still there are terrorists or criminals.

Basically put the people on trial if they are guilty give them the fitting penalty if nothing is there release them.

3. Our image around the world: I find this interesting as you are not the first to say what the world thinks of us umimportant.

We want to spread our form of democracy around the world, we want to world to follow us, we want help from other nations in fighting those we see as evil, we want these countries to see us as good and that everything we do or say is in the best interest of the world
We want all of this BUT the opinion of these countries and people of us is unimportant.

Sort of like the US telling the world jump when we say,give us your money and troops to use at our choosing,stand behind us without questioning what we are doing and the only opinion we want to hear from you is one that tells us how great we are and any that is negative well just keep your ungrateful mouth shut as what you think is unimportant.

If this was the expectations of one of your friends: How high would you jump?

To me there is a reality missing here. If the US is going to be world leader and expect the countries and people to follow then what they think of us has to be of extreme importance. Plus what the people think of us and more important why should have a great influence on how we run our foreign policy. OUr acitons creates reactions and we better understand what reactions we are creating.

Dan, In all fairness to Jim he, and several others who disagreed with Trish, was subjected to some pretty broad strokes by her. And she did come at him with an attitude: "I wish you would have been made to walk the Bataan march, suffered in a Vietnam POW camp, a Nazi camp, maybe been shipped to a Soviet Gulag. Then that way maybe you would understand what real torture is." "Ps Incase you were educated in a public school, the United States of America is not a democracy, it is a Republic" "My only consolation is that if our government is ever is taken over be it by Islamic terrorists, communist, Nazi's etc. its people like you who are always the first to end up in those killing fields, maybe then you might re-think your position on torture."

Talk about over the top! Not an attack but just pointing out the obvious.

Tom painted with broad strokes also with his "The unpatriotic rhetoric of the "liberal" left and their willing cohorts,...". He went on to accuse liberals of treason. Now I know we don't have any control over what a letter writer has printed but we can stop with all the anger and resentment directed at one another.

Dough said it best with "We are Americans, and (should) have the freedom to speak in any way we wish, but if one speaks from an emotional, uninformed platform, it's also our right to ignore them, or to ask that they uphold a higher level of discourse."

While I nor any of the rest of you know what is happening or has happened in Gitmo (for sure), I think it is somewhere between torture and irritation. My rationale is the fact that of the provable deaths of detainees (108) while in US custody in Iraq and Afganistan, some have died from internal injuries, head injuries and other abuses. This has been confirmed by autopsy.

I could not find one US soldier death attributed to torture while being held captive by Iraqis. That's not to say there aren't any; I just could not find documentation in my search. If it is so widespread, why couldn't I find proof?

Here's some news for the letter writter, from "Pakistan's most widely circulated English language newspaper":

http://www.dawn.com/2005/06/23/int2.htm

"The CIA believes the Iraq situation poses an international threat and may produce better-trained terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war, a US Counter-terrorism official said on Wednesday.

"A classified report from the US spy agency says Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of deadly skills, from car bombings and assassinations to tightly coordinated conventional attacks on police and military targets, the official said.

"Once Iraq returns to normality, militants are likely to disperse as highly organized battle-hardened combatants capable of operating throughout the Arab-speaking world and in other regions, including Europe."

Trish says:

"Mind telling me since when is playing rap music, not letting prisoners sleep, sitting in a cold and/or hot room torture?"

Oh, is that all that Americans have done to the detainees? Or is that all that the military admits to? After the "non-torture" methods documented at Abu Ghraib (and the deaths and injuries too), I would think that allowing the military to self-police would be seen as a less than ideal concept.

But I assure you, I do get it, Trish. So long as we never hear the Army admit that what they do is torture, everything they might do behind the closed doors, outside our borders is just fine with you.

I have one reminder about history for you. Until the Death Camps were liberated by the Allies in 1944, virtually no one in Germany was aware of what the SS was going in their name to the prisoners there. Do you really think our Army, holding in their "care" hundreds of enemies that they are trained to hate and kill, can be trusted to act in a civilized manner? Even when they're told that these prisoners are not covered by any international or national law? I'm sure your trust is quite comforting to the guys holding the switch to the genital electrodes.

Dang Mr. Rockefeller, you are quoting a Pakistani newspaper now to support your case and add 'validity' to your arguments? Why don't you go pull some crap off of Al-Jazeera as well so we can get the FULL picture from them as well....

Geez!!!

And the "liberals" have the audacity to attack Fox news for not being "fair and balanced" yet they tote out the Arab newspapers and expect they will be objective.....HA! HA! HA! This has to be one of the more ridiculous things I have ever seen.

Yvonne, good post. First time I think I have ever said that to you when I have completely disagreed with everything you said.

Eric,

Yes I would trust those men to hold detainees. As a matter of fact, I would trust any of those men and women with my life.

Jim,

You said:

"White, Self-Righteous pompous asses."

And you call me a racist?

Jim,

To be labeled a "ignorant dumb a$$" by someone with your intellect, is a rare honor. After reading your amusing analysis, I must admit I was somewhat puzzled.

Frankly, I thought that it was clear who I was talking about, I even mentioned their names.

In any event, your statement "to blanket all liberals as unpatriotic....." needs some clarification.

Since you feel that not all "Liberals" are un-patriotic, I gave seven examples of those that I feel are un-patriotic, give me seven examples of what you call "patriotic Liberals," who do not denigrate the soldiers in our armed forces, or, have publicly denounced the anti-American rhetoric of Dick Durbin.

Perhaps then, we can discuss our differences of opinions, without the juvenile name calling.

If in the event, you do not want to participate in this exercise, or cannot name 7 liberals that are patriots, our fellow bloggers can decide who
can support and back up their statements with facts, and who the real "dumb a$$" is.

My last question may be a little more difficult
for you, please give what ever brain cells you still possess enough time to reason this out:
if, as you "libs" like to say, "it is our right to dissent and to question," since you feel that I am a "disgrace" because I question the patriotism
of Dick Durbin and his cohorts, it would then be logical to conclude, when you question the motives and veracity of President Bush and his actions, you would be a "disgrace" also, do you agree?

TM

P.S. My son and I have been honored and privileged, to serve and protect this great country; What sir, have you done to serve your country?

AMERICA, LOVE IT, OR LEAVE!

"AMERICA, LOVE IT, OR LEAVE!"

You and many others see this as a patriotric sentiment. I see it as dangerous. It says to me that your concept of "love" is unquestioning acceptance. This flies in the face of Thomas Jefferson's statement "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

Tater would trust American soldiers unquestioningly. Which is the best way I can see to attract and harbor monsters of the sort Germany created in the 30's and 40's. History is of no use if lessons aren't learned.

I love my country, and I want to keep it from becoming the next byword for "evil." I won't leave, and I won't stop asking that we hold our military to the high standard a great nation needs.

Damn right I would trust any of the soldiers in our country. My father was a Drill Seargent in the Army so when you insult soldiers by comparing them to the "monsters of the sort Germany created in the 30's and 40's" you not only are you not only comparing ALL soldiers to them but my father. THAT....pisses me off.....

How dare you compare our soldiers to the SS and others of the same type. Dissent can be a wonderful thing but you, sir, have crossed that line.

SO....here is a big "HOO AH!" for all the military folks out there and a heart felt "thank you". Please disregard all of the comments by idiots such as this as they are blatently abusing the freedoms you helped provide through your service.

Tater, if you'll take a moment and re-read my post, you will see that I did NOT compare any American soldier to anyone else.

I said that giving soldiers unquestioning support and no oversight will invite and create monsters. It's happened over and over in history. Even recently, we've seen this sort of thing happen, in the Boy Scouts, in the Catholic Church. What makes you think the Army is immune to having terrors in the ranks?

I only ask that you respond to what I say, not what you wish I had said. I think that's a reasonable request.

Tom
Your challenge to name 7 liberals who are patriotic. That can be easy depending on how you Tom define unpatriotic. If questioning or criticising Bush and the war is or standard for who is unpatriotic then the answer is easy. There isnt a single democrat but then you can add into this the nearly 60% of the rest of the country as well and a few republcans to boot. But since I dont hold to this narrow formula to name seven is also easy. Close your eyes and choose any democrat serving in the House and Senate and then you have seven names. The dems may question the war but their patriotism should not come into question. Lets remember Kerry bled for this country Bush didnt.

But Tom if we hold to your formula we need only to go back to the attacks and criticism of Clinton when he put troops in harm way by the republicans to come the conclusion that the many on the right knows how it feels to be unpatriotic.
So maybe you should welcome these american haters into the unpatriotic club.

Yvonne

Broad stokes? No what I said was to Jim, who doesn’t seem to know what torture is. Basically when him and the people like him think that for one minute that the US military is involved with torture and compares it to millions who have died (not a couple, not a hundred not even a thousand but MILLIONS of people) yeah I will say it again, I so wish he could have walked the Baatan march and tell me about torture. The public school remark, come on everyone knows our public school system is a joke. They do not teach history nor American government, hence the reason I said that. However where are the broad stokes you talked about? Oh and the attitude, yeah I have an attitude with someone who degrades what millions of people went though. My grandfather was in WWII, I have seen the pictures first hand of what torture is. Broad stokes indeed, here Jim is painting our entire military with the broad stoke of “torturers” where is your out cry?

Over the top? So you don’t think it is over the top that Jim calls our military personal torturers? That is not over the top?
Yvonne said: "My rationale is the fact that of the provable deaths of detainees (108) while in US custody in Iraq and Afganistan, some have died from internal injuries, head injuries and other abuses. This has been confirmed by autopsy."

All of those deaths of detainees in Iraq and Afghan, those soldiers have been brought up on murder charges. So why if the US approves of this type of behavior, why the soldiers are being charged with murder?
Yvonne said "I could not find one US soldier death attributed to torture while being held captive by Iraqis. That's not to say there aren't any; I just could not find documentation in my search. If it is so widespread, why couldn't I find proof?"
How many US soldiers have been captured by the Iraqis? Well there was Jessica Lynch and those soldiers who were with and the 2 pilots. The only other soldier is still missing. No Red Cross visits, no visits from Amnesty for him. We have no idea where he is or if he is alive. So you don’t think our guys were tortured? What about that one pilot who was captured (Ron?) lost 25 lbs in two weeks or less? I guess no orange glaze chicken for our guys. But you said our guys haven't died by torture (neither as any detainee at Gitmo as a side note) Oh and why do you just ask about soldiers, doesn’t Nicholas Berg matter? I guess you didn’t see the “documentation” of the Nicholas Berg video. Of course our press wouldn’t play all of it, (and they don’t repeat it like they did the prison photos) so let me describe it for you in case you missed: Berg is kneeling and these “insurgents” are standing behind him (with hoods on by the way) and they are chanting, they grab him and take a dull knife and as they are sawing back and forth back and forth, Berg is screaming in agony until there is a gurgle sound. Then they lift his head up so the camera can see it is no longer attached to his body, end tape. I guess Berg doesn't count because he is not a soldier. But torture nonetheless wouldn't you agree? Can it an attitude, call it an attack but until you see Americans doing that, don’t tell me about torture.

Gee whiz, Trish... are you saying that the guys who murdered Berg were regular Iraqi army soldiers? I grant to you that so far, our soldiers have behaved better (for the most part) toward our captives than the terrorists. Whether that's an accomplishment to trumpet to the world, I don't really know.

But why is it so horrible to ask that the detention centers have some truly indenpendant observation? What do we have to hide, if all we're doing is feeding these people noodles jefferson and glazed turkey? You and many others are so sure that we're treating these people so well, why is it such a problem that others ask for a little check-up?

You afraid of what might be found?

Eric said: ?Oh, is that all that Americans have done to the detainees? Or is that all that the military admits to??

Again I ask you, how many detainees have died at Gitmo? And were you aware that at Gitmo ?"400 separate media visits to Guantanamo Bay by more than 1,000 journalists... 180 congressional representatives... continuous access to the International Committee of the Red Cross, whose representatives meet privately with the detainees". Also every death/practices in Afghan/Abu Ghraid/Gitmo are investigated and if found to be true brought up on charges. Can you say the same for Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot?

Eric said ?So long as we never hear the Army admit that what they do is torture, everything they might do behind the closed doors, outside our borders is just fine with you.?

Yes until you can show me the torture, show me the US military?s mass graves? Where are they? If we are as bad as Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot, shouldn?t those bodies be piling up by now?

Eric said: ? virtually no one in Germany was aware of what the SS was going in their name to the prisoners there. Do you really think our Army, holding in their "care" hundreds of enemies that they are trained to hate and kill, can be trusted to act in a civilized manner? Even when they're told that these prisoners are not covered by any international or national law??

Yes I trust them before I would trust you. I know some of these men and women, thank you very much. You really think that no one knew what the Nazi?s were doing? With all those Nazi soldiers, not a one of them would tell family? Then how come the Jews knew what was happening?

Trish said "Dang Mr. Rockefeller, you are quoting a Pakistani newspaper now to support your case and add 'validity' to your arguments?"

I for one am glad that people are looking to sources other than the corporate owned and controlled mainstream media for information. It gives us a context to see our actions' effects in the international community.

Hayes' points about our position in the world in his post about Gitmo above are well taken. I for one would like to know how our actions affect the world, as opposed to the "bull in a china shop" syndrome or having our foreign policy operate with blinders.

Eric said: "But why is it so horrible to ask that the detention centers have some truly indenpendant observation?"

"400 separate media visits to Guantanamo Bay by more than 1,000 journalists... 180 congressional representatives... continuous access to the International Committee of the Red Cross, whose representatives meet privately with the detainees". This that enough independant observation for you?

Eric said: "are you saying that the guys who murdered Berg were regular Iraqi army soldiers?"

Are you saying it is not torture? I am defining torture. In my opinion torture is not being made to listen to loud music or refused sleep. This is what I consider torture.

Trish said "Dang Mr. Rockefeller, you are quoting a Pakistani newspaper now to support your case and add 'validity' to your arguments?"

Actually Dough, I did not say that. That was another poster

Dang, you're right. It was Tater. My bad.

Trish
For me personally you are hammering this comparison with Gitmo to the nazis and stalin a little to much. There are many here who have an issue with what is happening at Gitmo but who do not believe you can compare the two;gitmo with concentration camps.

I, for one at least, dont support the suggestion by anyone who makes this comparison for many of the reasons you have suggested. If my probelm was about how many prisoners have died then I would have no issue but there are some things that fly in the face of what I think this country stands for, as I wrote earlier.

And before any goes on about this being another liberal attack Sen. Grahm(R) from SC has now started to question what is happening at Gitmo. I guess by the standards of many here that makes him an unpatriotic bleeding liberal. But you may want to inform him of the liberal part and this may come as a shock to his voters.

And on a more general bases, this is not directed at you Trish.

Criticising Bush doesnt make you a half crazed liberal. I had issues with Cinton but that didnt make me a right wing conservative so sorry but me being critical of Bush doesnt make me half crazed liberal. I find it sad that being a conservative or a liberal has become a four letter word to the other side here. Criticising a black doesnt make me a racist,criticising a woman doesnt make me a sexist. Nor are my opinions uneducated or of a lesser quality.

I keep using "me" or "I" here but I would include many others here yvonne for example

Further this is true for any attack coming from the other direction. I for one lost sight of focusing on the arguements Trish was making and got pulled into a personal war, it shouldnt have happened.

The last point of my rambling is this cant be fun for anyone with this back and forth attacks from both sides. I know I am losing interest fast.

Trish:

"[I]s that enough independant observation for you?"

Let's see... all media visits are guided by the military, yes? Do you know if they are unfiltered? How thorough are congressional visits? I know that the ICRC has pretty good access... but they only report to the US government. Sounds to me like the fox is still guarding the henhouse.

Regarding the Nazi atrocities, I'll say this... the general public in Germany was deeply surprised to learn what came out at Nuremburg. Media access was highly controlled by the party, and anyone who stepped out of party line to say anything negative was in danger of disappearing. Will I have to disappear in the night before you decide there might be something to be concerned about? If so, it will be too late.

So why do you insist that you know all the members of the military because you know a "few good men"? I know a few good priests. Does that mean I should assume that no priest would ever harm a choir boy? I know several very good Boy Scout leaders. So should I then unquestioningly assume that no Boy Scout leader would ever harm a child?

Your attitude is dangerous. I only say that we should not give unquestioning trust to the military, that internal investigations are not adequate.

I am not saying that I would assume the worst of any soldier... only that I recognize the possibility that we have some monsters in our uniforms. A few may have been caught, by exposure in the media, but more wrists have been slapped than anything else. I think there are a lot more foxes out there, maybe some rabid wolves.

Hayes,

Your mention of John Kerry as a "Patriot" because he "bled" and Bush didn't is the typical liberal
"spin."

Kerry did in fact bleed, how much, no one knows for sure, however, Kerry then went before Congress
and accused his fellow soldiers of various atrocities. Many believe, myself included, that he betrayed his fellow soldiers, and was considered a traitor along with Jane Fonda. That was one of the many reasons why Kerry lost the election in 2004. George Bush on the other hand was not wounded during his service, and did not go before Congress and betray his fellow soldiers or his country.

There is a precedent for this case involving
"Patriotism."

Benedict Arnold was a General who served with distinction, during the Revolutionary War.
However, he is remembered as a "Traitor", when he
gave the British information about West Point.

When you say Benedict Arnold - Traitor

When you say John Kerry - Traitor

Hayes,

That was very well said; however I have to take issue with “you are hammering this comparison with Gitmo to the Nazis and Stalin a little to much”. See that was what I was debating, arguing whatever word. This is what Jim stated. That is what I have been talking about actually; I’m not sure what everyone else has been discussing. This point, proving to Jim that Gitmo is not like the Nazis. So although for you I’m hammering it to much then I will say yes I am. Because unlike you Jim believes this, so are you saying I should drop it and let Jim state that our military personnel are as bad as those listed?

Yes I am working on my response to your earlier post; however I am at work so it just takes me a bit longer.

Also, I know that it seems if I attack and even ramble on, but I am not very good at this responding thing. In other words the way I type something does not come across the same way as it was meant (i.e. an attack on someone education when I was joking about the state of our public schools). If that makes sense.

Trish, Jim did not go on the attack until after YOU went on a vengence aganist him. I had hope he would continue on the higher ground and not respond in your angry way. He, however, succumbed and started slinging BS also. This does not make either of you right.

I think Gitmo is not a torture chamber. I think wrong-doings are going on or have gone on there. It is no stretch of the imagination to think if there were soldiers in Afgan and Iraq who abused and killed detainees, there would also be ones at Gitmo with the same mindset (even if they didn't actually kill anyone). After all, they are trained by the military in the same manner as the ones at abu grahab.

The problem is those who actually ordered these tactics have not been charged. English et al are the scapegoats for the higher ups. They have been offered up as the sacrifical lamb, imo.

There are evil people everywhere, even in the military. There are good people everywhere, even in the military. But are the evil ones the ones you want to represent you and the US? I only want answers to questions raised. As a moral American, you should want answers also.

I will be happy to discuss any issue with you but I'm not going to be drawn into your hysteria. You are certainly smart enough to make your point in a calm, rational manner. Try it. You will find most everyone who posts here receptive to your points when they are delivered without the knives.

Eric

But aren't you assuming the worst of all soldiers? You say a few have been caught, but only by exposure from the media? Even before CBS ran their ?story? on the prison scandal, the military was already investigating it, way before CBS even had a sniff of it. Same for the deaths in Afghan. In one breath you say ?I would not assume the worst of any soldier? but in the next you say the military must be bad and can?t be trusted, they don?t investigate abuse until CBS airs it and the punishment isn?t enough for you. So these soldiers who abused prisoners their years in prison aren?t good enough for you and you want harsher treatment yet for terrorist you want? Them to be freed?

And I?m sorry to say the only person?s attitude that is dangerous is yours. It?s the people that have forgotten 9/11. Forgotten seeing over 200 people jump from the towers, forgotten an airplanes filled with innocent people crashing into buildings and fields.

Let me ask you and everyone else (hayes, Yvonne, Jim etc.) Let?s say we get intelligence that a terrorist in the US has a nuke. We capture the guy he admits it, says it is timed to go off in a matter of days or hours whatever. So what type of technique would you guys approve of to get the information of where it is? Or are you going to wait until the guy has a trial in a court of law? Or just let millions of people die? Just curious as to how ya?ll see it.

As a side note, I am not going to get into what the German people knew or didn?t know but I have to say you are starting to sound like all those Klansmen who later say, ?well I just thought it was like a fraternity we didn?t do any of that bad stuff?. Just go back and look at some of the propaganda that was used against the Jews, look at them being moved into slums and you say the German people had no idea. But for some reason they had the idea not to speak out against the party because something might happen? Makes no sense.

Jason, two things strick me about your post.

One is the comparison of John Kerry with Jane Fonda. As I recall, JK returned from honored combat to express an opinion about the gov't policy towards Vietnam, which I see as very different from the buddying-up Jane did with the North Vietnamese.

Second is the assertion, which appears regularly, that expressing an opinion different than that of the gov't is treasonous. On that I will respectfully disagree.

Jason, also,

Bush didn't bleed during his service because he was largely absent for his service, at least insofar as there isn't much record that has been discovered about his attendence as I recall.

Trish
I would never suggest you withhold your opinion especially in defense of your views. My point was only that there are some who disagree with Gitmo but who would not support the statement of Durbin and going after them with the nazi arguement was the hammer I was refering to.

I am not bothered by anyones opinion so long as it isnt personal,an in general comment here.

Jason
Any soldier who leaves his blood on any battle field has earned the right to come out against that war if he so chooses. Kerry didnt give away any information to the enemy so sorry he is no traitor.

And oh really Bush wasnt wounded and didnt go before congress to betray his fellow soldiers.

Sorry but wouldnt the fact he never set foot in the jungles of vietnam have something to do with not being wounded and Bush didnt need to go before congress because he never saw combat.He ran away. What would you call Bush today if he did that now in the Iraqi war. A heroe??

Dough, that was me that spoke about using a Arab newspaper as a source and I stand by my previous comments. I personally do not worry too much about what they think about us over there because they are never going to change their minds with Saudi Arabia teaching their kids in school that Jews and Zionist are evil, Hamas running the Palistinian leadership, etc. Their reporting has, nor will it ever be, balanced as long as certain "figures" are in place so no need to worry about what their papers say. It's the same ol' mantra of "America is evil!" and "We need a jihad to fight back the Zionist!"

Eric, I did re-read your post a few times before I responded and I can't help but think I am right. You seem to have a natural disdain for the military and your comments lead me to draw that conclusion. For example:

"I have one reminder about history for you. Until the Death Camps were liberated by the Allies in 1944, virtually no one in Germany was aware of what the SS was going in their name to the prisoners there. Do you really think our Army, holding in their "care" hundreds of enemies that they are trained to hate and kill, can be trusted to act in a civilized manner? Even when they're told that these prisoners are not covered by any international or national law? I'm sure your trust is quite comforting to the guys holding the switch to the genital electrodes."

"Gee whiz, Trish... are you saying that the guys who murdered Berg were regular Iraqi army soldiers? I grant to you that so far, our soldiers have behaved better (for the most part) toward our captives than the terrorists. Whether that's an accomplishment to trumpet to the world, I don't really know.

But why is it so horrible to ask that the detention centers have some truly indenpendant observation? What do we have to hide, if all we're doing is feeding these people noodles jefferson and glazed turkey? You and many others are so sure that we're treating these people so well, why is it such a problem that others ask for a little check-up?You afraid of what might be found?? "

"I am not saying that I would assume the worst of any soldier... only that I recognize the possibility that we have some monsters in our uniforms. A few may have been caught, by exposure in the media, but more wrists have been slapped than anything else. I think there are a lot more foxes out there, maybe some rabid wolves."

Who has genital electrodes on who? Can't say that I am aware of that and if we do I doubt we have been shocking people in the nads. That's just arrogant and ignorant to assume we are doing such things when you have no proof. (If you are referring to the Lyndie England pics remember she has now been put in jail along with her other friends who decided to take matters into their own hands) Besides, the dag gum things weren't even "live" and if I remember correctly she was only holding a leash. Need I remind who actually DID use those little bad boys when he was in power? OH YEAH, that same person DID torture our troops along with the Brits. Get your facts straight....

Soldiers are trained to follow orders; therefore, when they are told to hold a prisoner they will do exactly that or be dismissed from their post (or branch of service) if they don't follow those orders. I take serious offense, along with several other people on this board, with you even referencing our forces and Nazis in the same sentence. Do you honestly think our government is CENSORING the media and not allowing them to report what they find like the the Nazis in 1944? Do you really think they Pentagon/White House wanted the Abu Graib stuff to come out? How about the deaths of prisoners in Afghanistan? COME ON! Nobody is censoring the public/media; however, at times I wish the media would use SOME restraint and think about how their "reports" are going to effect the lives of Americans at home and abroad not to mention the soldiers. (Ex. Newsweek) Comparing 2005 to 1944 is perpostorous so please spare us from your ramblings about how "the times are so similiar to 1944." Ludicrous........

The comment you made to Trish that says, "Gee whiz, Trish... are you saying that the guys who murdered Berg were regular Iraqi army soldiers?" was pretty amusing since you recognize that they are not soldiers yet you think they deserve the same rights and treatment. These are the same people who saw heads off of people, line them up in a row and shoot them a head, dump bodies in rivers and dumps, and then slither off into the night dressed as a normal citizen. They don't wear uniforms, follow the Geneva Conventions, nor do they give two !@#$'s about any of us so why are you so friggin' concerned about them having to listen to Mariah Carey all night in an Air Conditioned room. In case you haven't noticed, we RELEASED most of the Iraqi soldiers that were in lower ranks and even gave them food, drink, and shelter while we had them. Heck they were even surrendering to us in the thousands during the first Gulf War AND this one!!!! These murderers that saw off peoples heads and then act like normal citizens in the day have NO rights, in my opinion, as they are nothing more then cold-blooded killers. If I had my way we would find a tall tree and a short rope every time we found one masked and carrying a gun....but that's just me. We don't need the friggin' Amnesty Internation to come through Gitmo every week and criticize us for not handling a Quran with two hands (full gloved....I FORGOT) while they never ONCE speak out about how they are treating our CITIZENS AND WORKERS! The hypocrisy in some of these organizations astounds me and I can't for the life of me see why you think an "international body" will look out for us better then our own people.

If you feel so strongly about the friggin' terrorist and their treatment, go over to Mosul, Iraq and express your opinons. I am sure the mob that comes to kidnap your butt will take the time to listen to you before they string you up and start chanting "Allah Akbar". Maybe then you will see WHY we are treating these terrorists the way we are.

P.S. Sorry for the ramblings but I can't help but counter some of these ridiculous comments. I am not a blind follower of the Bush administration and I question authority quite frequently; however, I try to do it in a respectful way. I have several 'beefs' with the CAFTA legislation, Social Security, the deficit, etc. so don't think I am following along with everything the Reps. are doing.

I am officially done with this topic for a while. If you see any typos/grammar errors ignore them because I was in a rush.

"In one breath you say "I would not assume the worst of any soldier" but in the next you say the military must be bad and can't be trusted"

I assume this is from Trish instead of myself. You are misrepresenting what I said. That sort of thing is getting pretty tiresome. The basic message I am saying is that it is highly possible for people in the military to do very bad things in their zeal, and they must be monitored.

I know several folks who have served, and I wish to give all honest soldiers all the support that I can. But I have studied history and I know that our military is not immune to the corrupting influence of power, any more than any other nation you care to name -- so we can take Germany out of the mix if that helps you at all.

Why do you accuse me of forgetting the unforgettable? I was 1000 miles from my home, stranded by the attacks. I haven't forgotten 9/11, but I see no reason why that day should give our military men a free pass above the law. It certainly seems to be what you are implying by bringing it up in this conversation.

Regarding intelligence on a nuke... given our recent history of intelligence successes, I won't bother to guess regarding the hypothetical question. The situation is too far removed from what we are discussing right now, IMO.

"Eric, I did re-read your post a few times before I responded and I can't help but think I am right. You seem to have a natural disdain for the military and your comments lead me to draw that conclusion."

I have a distrust of people who have such power as the military and who are not under the restraint of any laws. You accuse me of saying things I plainly did not say, and you refuse to even attempt to understand what I do say. We've not come very far from the days of the Red Scare, have we?

Tater:

"If you feel so strongly about the friggin' terrorist and their treatment, go over to Mosul, Iraq and express your opinons. I am sure the mob that comes to kidnap your butt will take the time to listen to you before they string you up and start chanting "Allah Akbar". Maybe then you will see WHY we are treating these terrorists the way we are."

I guess you're right. I'll never say anything against any soldier ever. Thinking that any of them might do something wrong is treason. I'll join the True American Lovers side and attack anyone who dares to suggest that anything done in a war by our incorruptable and perfect soldiers might be morally questionable. So what if we generate nothing but hate for us in the Middle East? We'll solve that problem soon enough. Right?

I just noticed that I typed Eric's name instead of mine. Sorry about that Eric, I thought I was typing your name in the comments. Didn't mean to so don't want you think I'm posting using your name. The above post is mine.

Very good post Tater.

Hayes said: "My point was only that there are some who disagree with Gitmo but who would not support the statement of Durbin".

Hayes, that I can understand and respect that point of view (even though I don't agree with it). However I personally (don't know about anyone else) was responding to Jim, who unlike you did say he agreed with Durbin and even applauded him. That is what I have been discussing (except for the run offs from that). That is what I don't understand nor can I respect when someone compares our soliders to men who murdered and tortured millions of people. Do you see how ridiculous that is?

Yeah you are right Yvonne I did you on after Jim with a vengeance. Why? Because he basically took what millions of people died for and demeaned it. Have you never told someone ?I wish you could walk in their shoes?? I wasn?t angry, I was flabbergasted that one could actually think it is ok to demean the suffering of others, not only agree but applaud it as well. So in my opinion it is not hysteria nor is it delivered with knives by telling someone to take a walk in another shoes.

But I do want to give everyone here a quiz on Abu Ghraib since everyone seems to use that as a club against our military.
Ready and no cheating by looking up answers:

1. The famous "60 Minutes" photos from Abu Ghraib were
a. Taken over a period of several months
b. All from one night
c. All from one week
-------------------
2. Who were the victims in those photos, and why were they singled out for abuse?
a. Iraqi cab drivers / mistakenly identified as terrorists
b. Suspected Al-Qaeda Terrorists / Intel officers acting under orders from the Pentagon had carefully instructed the guards at Abu Ghraib in the effectiveness of humiliation in getting terrorists to "sing", and actively encouraged it's use.
c. "Insurgents" / High Command needed info quickly to stem the rising tide of violence during Ramadan
d. Ordinary criminals in prison for their crimes, of no intelligence value/they were brought to the high security area for fighting among themselves at another area of the prison.
-------------------
3. Throughout Fall 2003 SSg Ivan Frederick, a guard at Abu Ghraib, was continuously emailing his concerns about conditions home to his family, but higher ups ignored them.
True or False
-------------------
4. The highest ranking of the accused torturers at Abu Ghraib were Reservists, not Active Duty. What were their civilian occupations?
a. Republican precinct Chairmen
b. WalMart Stockboys
c. Postal workers
d. Prison guards
-------------------
5. Lyndie England was an administrative worker at the prison. Why was she present for the torture session?
a. Not enough "real guards" due to poor planning
b. She was celebrating her Birthday with her boyfriend, and had violated orders to be there
c. The naked pyramid was scientifically proven more effective if a female was present
d. Direct orders of Donald Rumsfeld
-------------------
6. The Army suppressed the story of Abu Ghraib until the 60 Minutes broadcast.
True or False
-------------------
7. The Army investigation began
a. After 60 Minutes aired the photos when General Taguba was sent to find out what happened
b. Shortly after the event when a fellow guard learned of the photos and reported the abuse to higher ups at Abu Ghraib
c. When Frederick alerted his family to what he was being forced to do
d. When photos began showing up on weblogs operated by the guards
-------------------
8. How were the pictures made public?
a. Discovered after months-long investigations by reporter Seymour Hersh and 60 Minutes producer Mary Mapes
b. Handed to Hersh by Gary Myers, his old pal from the My-Lai court martial who was coincidentally representing SSG Ivan Frederick, the highest ranking individual charged with torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, immediately after the preliminary hearing in which they were released to the defense
c. Handed to a representative of 60 Minutes by relatives of SSG Frederick
d. Discovered posted on weblogs operated by the guards
-------------------
9. General Taguba in Senate testimony blamed events on
a. Poorly supervised individuals acting on their own
b. Unnamed Pentagon bureaucrats
c. The military culture
d. Individuals carrying out what they believed to be legal orders
-------------------
10. SSG Frederick:
a. Was given a slap on the hand
b. Was found guilty by court martial despite the valiant efforts of his top-notch defense team to identify the "real criminals"
c. Pleaded guilty at start of court martial

OK, I'll admit to having only the vaguest factual knowledge of the events *hanging my head*.

I'm very interested in knowing the answers, though.

Does anyone have a similar test regarding Gitmo? I think I'll only have the vaguest knowledge of that too. I'd like to blame the media, but in all honesty, I haven't done my homework or research.

Trish
Like I said I dont support anyones comment that compares Gitmo to past death camps. I think most of the soldiers uphold our standards in the treatment of the prisoners and comparing them to a gulag demeans them and that is not right. There are some who probably take joy in crossing the line but you cant label the whole group because of a few.But saying that I still dont buy into the "its only a few apples" arguement. My issues with gitmo lay elsewhere.

I think we two had a better day today. We still disagree on some points, but didnt attack and maybe even realized we have some common ground.

Hayes finally had time to respond:

1. Every report of abuse is investigated. Those that are found to be true are charged with crimes. Is that condoning or looking away?
2. Actually they have been given their “day in court”. They have had military tribunes. And have you thought about the ones we released who were killed or recaptured trying to kill Americans? You are correct I can not say that, but I trust the military to determine who is a terrorist and who is a criminal. I would rather have the military then some leftist appointed judge. But just as I cant say 100% all are terrorist, you cant say with 100% that some arent terrorist correct? So where does that leave us? You trust our court system and I dont. What do you suggest? Should we hire them an attorney and give them their day in court? Close Gitmo and move them here? What is your plan?
Where do you want them on trial at? Here in the US? Afghan? Iraq? The ICC? Where are they going to be tried at? Who is going to represent them? How much or how many witness do we need to get? What kind of evidence do you want? Is shooting at an American soldier enough proof or not?
3. It is funny you say that, because this is exactly what other countries do to the US. “Show us the money and go away while we bash you”. (As a side note, there was even a poll that was taken in the Middle East and that is what they said, I can find it if you like) It was so wonderful to read a headline line about Americans donating billions to tsunami relief and then seeing a picture of one of those victims wearing a “you go Bin Laden” shirt. Or to see them burning the American flag. Personally I don’t care about other countries anymore. I am sick and tired of sending our tax dollars in foreign aid and the only thing we get in return is our hand bitten off and if we are lucky that is all. Heck I just read we are going to be shipping 50,000 tons of food to North Korea, think they are going to like us now? Giving 15 billion to Africa, think they are going to say thanks? Or are we going to be accused of inventing AIDS and putting it in the condoms so Africans die (yes a leader of an African nation accused us of doing this) We are practically protecting the Kingdom along with Egypt and giving them foreign aid funds, do they love us? We are practically raising Mexico’s poor and going bankrupt in the process and what do we get in return? Think Mexico is helping us guard that border? Do we get any thanks from President Fox or does he bash us and say we aren’t doing enough for his poor? I could go on and on but now at least you have an idea of why I could give two hoots about what other countries think. It makes no matter what we do, they will say hate us because we are successful.

Well, they will hate us. I don't know about it being for our success, though. I've read that some of it could be due to some of our foreign policies.

Trish, please don't leave me hanging! What are the answers???

I should be more specific. The policies I was referring to were regarding the Middle East, not foreign aid.

Dan: "In fact southern DEMOCRATS were opposed to desegregation in the 60's ..."

The Great Society and the Civil Rights Movement were accomplished - right or wrong - while a Democrat was in office, and therefore many think that caused a swing to the Republican party. Why do you think "the south changed parties"?

Dan: Abe Lincoln, the first Republican president, did opposed slavery. He also warned:

"Corporations have been enthroned .. An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endevour to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people .. until wealth is aggrated in a few hoand ... and the republic is destroyed."

I'm proud to be a Lincoln Republican.

Trish, I can agree with your last post re giving away the store, so to speak. As many of the regular posters know I have long been a supporter of charity begins at home. Also you are right about not being able to "buy" loyalty, alligence or friendship.

I also completely agree with your assessment of Dick Derbin's statement. It is an insult to compare Gitmo to the Nazi camps. Even Saddam's mass graves and torture chambers cannot be compared to the concentration camps because of the the sheer number of people tortured and killed by Hitler's insanity.

I draw the line, though, at completely disregarding the charges of mistreatment at Gitmo. Where there is smoke, there usually is fire, even if it's only a small one. As I posted earlier, I am old enough (almost 60) to realize there are evil people in all walks of life. Those are the ones I want weeded out of the military because they are the ones giving ALL of us Americans a bad rep.

I apologize for coming down on you so hard. I just knew you were sharp and I wanted that to be the focus of your posts. Your intellect, not your anger. Thanks for proving you could rise to the challange.

I really don't understand this arguing about torture and being "bad as Nazis."

Some of our finest legal minds told us that we have every right to torture the enemy we catch. I don't care how we caught them, they're ours to do what we want with. There's no possible way we could be compared to the Nazis. The nazis killed inocent people. We'll only kill our enemies that deserve to die. Slowly as possible, too.

The real enemies here are the terrorists, and anyone who would keep us from getting our revenge on them. That includes any American who say we shouldn't torture them.

Yeah, that means the Democrays who would tell us we need to follow any international law. They're traitors and ought to be outlawed.

The other enemies we ought to put awat are the creeps that took those photos in that prison and sent them where they shouldn't have. Some of our best soldiers are in prison now because some brat didn't have the guts to follow orders.

Man you guys have been busy today, sorry I missed all the fun, been out making a living. Too tired to post much else, keep it up!!!

Yvonne:
"I draw the line, though, at completely disregarding the charges of mistreatment at Gitmo. Where there is smoke, there usually is fire, even if it's only a small one. As I posted earlier, I am old enough (almost 60) to realize there are evil people in all walks of life. Those are the ones I want weeded out of the military because they are the ones giving ALL of us Americans a bad rep."

I respect your opinion and can agree to disagree. I agree with you there are evil people in this world, I however put my faith in our soldiers rather then in detainees. Those bad seeds are found out and they are punished. There are also bad seeds, however there are thousands of others that are not and those I have faith in, they report these misdeeds and the chain of command investigates and proscutes those.

"I apologize for coming down on you so hard. I just knew you were sharp and I wanted that to be the focus of your posts. Your intellect, not your anger. Thanks for proving you could rise to the challange."

No apologizes needed. Thank you for the kind words. I myself should have come across better. All I can say is I am new at this and sometimes the way something comes across is not the way I meant it (if that makes any sense!). Also, I always mean for my post to be shorter, not books but I do have a tenadence to ramble!

just wanted to be #100

Trish

First let me say I AM #101 yea baby!!

To go back to point 3 about giving aide to other countries the issues you raise are extremely valid but unfortunately the best way to answer your question is face to face. There are to many points to cover. In general I agree on some points like Mexico but would say the hatred in the middle east is in part our doing which means we can change that but it again this is more for face to face.

About Gitmo:I am sorry I dont share your opinion of our judges. First you dont want them in front of a liberal judge but they could end up in front of a conservative judge as well. I dont share your disdain for liberals in general and especially with the judges. Whether the judge is liberal or conservative I trust most of them in that they do there best to uphold the intent of the law. And if the verdict is questioned then you have options. Is the system perfect? NO but I trust it.

Being a liberal should not be seen as something evil or bad just like being labeled Christian Right just not be taken as something bad. I personally think both sides offer something to our society but we to often look at them through extreme lens when reality most are closer to the middle and actually closer in opinions as some may want to admit.

Where would I trial them: I would choose to do it in a military court. I dont remember the reasons at the moment but when it came out how the people would be tried the conditions I didnt like.

So if the military court is open and they have all the same rights accorded under our laws then they should be brought there. My point is do it and not hold them indefinetly.

I cant say how many released returned to fight again probably some BUT how many of those did so because they were held unjustly at Gitmo? Also noone can say.

Trish, what sort of bad seeds are you talking about? i mean, besdes the guys tht shoot their own, there haven't been any. Except the squealers that don't have the guts t do what's needed.

Our boys are there for one thing: kill bad guys. I don't care how they do it, just s o long as they do it. The ones they capture don't deserve any good treatment. I read last night that they're getting doctors treating them. That needs to stop. If those head-choppers get caight, they should be tortured and left to die. There's nothing wrong with that, and nothing illegal about it either.

Hayes:
"would say the hatred in the middle east is in part our doing which means we can change that but it again this is more for face to face."

You are correct it is our doing, our doing for supporting Israel, however even if we let the Arabs erase Israel from the map and kill all the Jews they would just find something else to hate us for. But you are right that is for another day to debate.

"Whether the judge is liberal or conservative I trust most of them in that they do there best to uphold the intent of the law. And if the verdict is questioned then you have options. Is the system perfect? NO but I trust it."

It is so funny that you should say that especially the day after the Supreme Court ruled thatlocal governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development. I guess what is yours is now the governments. They took the Fifth Amendment from our Constitution through it out and wrote their own version. The Fifth Amendment states: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Public use" is not the same as "private use, but public benefit." And these are the people you trust, we have judges making law. Why bother with electing officials why just let the judges continue to dictate to us and make law? But that is for another topic, just an example of who and what system you are trusting.

Also if the verdict is wrong and a judge decides that the arresting soldier forgot to stop whatever he was doing (trying to stay alive) and read Miranda rights and lets the terrorist walk, what then? And let us not forget that if a verdict is found not guilty what options do we as the public have? Need I say OJ?

"I would choose to do it in a military court."

This is what they are getting now. Every detainee gets a military tribune.

"So if the military court is open and they have all the same rights accorded under our laws then they should be brought there."

First off if the military court is going to be open, why not just have a regular trial with juror and all? Secondly if it is open that means that our intelligence is also open. Say we pick up detainee E because citizen A told us some intel, we ship him to have his trial. Do you think citizen A will have their head for long? But just the word of a citizen isn’t enough so we also have to say, yeah we found all the plans on him. Does that give our enemies time to change? It all boils down to if we trial these guys in open court, then what we know so do our enemies and that is dangerous for all of us.

Trish
And morning to you to; you must get up early to do this.

First point about the middle east. I am not saying it,ie the hate, is of our complete doing and israel is a big part of that but we are not completely innocent. But I think we could turn things around,over a long time. In todays paper they had interviews with some muslem students who have visited our country and left with a great new positive attitude about americans. Most of the hate or dislike is directed at our policies not us. Again this doesnt mean we need to overhaul our policies to make the world like us but we need to understand where that hate is directed. I dont know if you know of the Pew Institute and its surveys but in the most recent it found that 79% of the muslems in Indonesia held a more positive view of america due to its help with the tsunami. Maybe an example of a glimmer of hope that images can be changed. This help was nothing new for us but sadly it seems EVERYWHERE we live in a "what have you done for me lately" world.

The Supreme Court: I would have to read up on this and the details behind the decision before making judgement but if you are accurate then on the face of it I would also have a problem with it.
But the Supreme Court is to interpet the law as to if the law they are looking at is within the boundries of our constitution. I know you know this so my point is what you described sounded more like they interpeted whatever law they were looking at and felt it fell within these standards.

This is where we differ: They didnt create the law they only ruled on a law written and passed by a state or our national government.So they are not making law that particular law that law came from our elected officials.

Again I dont support or agree with every decision but I trust the system because it is a system that can correct itself.

Military tribunal: Like I said when they first mentioned how the tribunal were to be runned there were many things that I didnt like. Sadly I cant give you the reasons now and maybe changes have been made that i would find acceptable. I think one point had to do with evidence. That the military could bring charges against them but would not be allowed to see the evidence behind these charges thus making it hard for any lawyer to properly defend the person. And lets be honest our military as good as it is has been badly wrong at times. This is what I meant by OPEN. Not so much we have a media circus but the defendants have to them all prope possibilities. I want those responsible to pay for what they did but I want the GUILTY ones not someone who happened to be in the wrong place.

Dough, here are the answers since the silences from everyone who knows so much about Abu Ghabia and what happened there is deafening.

Answers
1: B. The photos were from November 8, 2003.

Those who thought otherwise are experiencing the "success" of Seymour Hersh's early efforts. In a theme later adopted and repeated worldwide, Seymour Hersh (and others) insisted frequently that there were thousands of photos available: "This is a generation that sends stuff on CDs, sends it around. some kid right now is negotiating with some European magazine. -- You know, I can't say that for sure, but it's there. -- It's out there. And the Army knows it." As of this writing no additional pictures have surfaced.

2. D. Criminals brought to the cell block for fighting. They were not being interrogated for information, in fact they were being tortured as punishment and for "fun". At England's hearing, a government lawyer read numerous statements from England's previous sworn statements into the record. The statements are of England admitting to stepping on prisoners' toes, taking photos, posing for photos and posing prisoners for photos, and saying she participated for fun, not due to orders. Additional testimony corroborated this admission.

Another Hershism: He tried desperately to depict the Abu Ghraib torture victims as innocents swept off the streets as a result of confessions gained in earlier torture sessions: "I'll tell you how they get there. You bust the guy that doesn't have anything to do. You humiliate him. You break him down. You interrogate him. He gives up the name of you want to know who is an insurgent, who is Al Qaeda? He gives up any name he knows."

3. False. Frederick began emailing his family about the situation at Abu Ghraib after he was arrested for his part in the torture. Those who thought otherwise may have been mislead by Seymour Hersh's original New Yorker piece on the event, in which Seymour told the story without using chronological order.

4. D. Although several early stories tried to paint them as untrained individuals thrust into a job they weren't prepared to do, Ivan Frederick (38 at the time) and Charles Graner (36 at the time) were prison guards.

Key quotes:

Frederick (original 60 Minutes story linked above): Frederick told us he will plead not guilty, claiming the way the Army was running the prison led to the abuse of prisoners.

?We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things...like rules and regulations,? says Frederick. ?And it just wasn't happening."

...He?s a corrections officer at a Virginia prison, whose warden described Frederick to us as ?one of the best.?

Graner (link above): But public records indicate that Graner had troubles at work as a correctional officer in the state prison system in Greene County -- a history of disciplinary actions that culminated in his firing in 2000. He was later reinstated by an arbitrator.

A reporter who served with Graner previously: He said he was shocked to hear that Graner has been accused of mistreating prisoners, in part because of the training they and other guards received years ago. "It was drilled into our minds well before we left the continental U.S. what we were allowed to do, and not allowed to do, relative to the treatment of prisoners."

More Hersh: "Let me just say this. I believe the services have a -- look, the kids did bad things. But the notion that it's all just these kids [doing these things]... The officers are "in loco parentis" with these children. We send our children to war. And we have officers like that general, whose job is to be mother and father to these kids, to keep them out of trouble. The idea of watching these pictures, it's not only a failure of the kids, it's a failure of everybody in the command structure."

5. B. England was celebrating her 21st birthday with her boyfriend, Graner. Numerous early media versions of the story would quote her family members questioning why she was being used as a guard when that wasn't her job. (At the time it was a "not enough soldiers to do the job" story) England was in fact violating orders by being in the cell block. Later she would claim that her superiors had instructed her to pose and told her exactly what to do. If that's true, it was Frederick or Graner giving the "orders", but she never named names, or, if she did, it didn't "make the papers".

6. False. The story first appeared in CNN in January, with a follow up in March, to include mentions of the photographic evidence. Without the sensational photos the story didn't get much attention.

7. B. The Army began investigating as soon as a fellow guard reported the photos he had seen.

8. C. The known correct answer is "C" - Members of Frederick's family handed the photos to a 60 Minutes representative. The NY Times offers this quote from his uncle: "The Army had the opportunity for this not to come out, not to be on 60 Minutes," he said. "But the Army decided to prosecute those six G.I.'s because they thought me and my family were a bunch of poor, dirt people who could not do anything about it. But unfortunately, that was not the case." Ironically that may better describe the motive of the 60 Minutes crew.

The relationship between Hersh and Frederick's lawyer was certainly just an amazing coincidence.

If you'd heard this quote from during the time of the 60 Minutes / "Rathergate" story you might have been misled on this question: Ms. Mapes is also responsible for CBS's reporting on the Abu Ghraib pictures, a story she helped break. According to TV reporter Gail Shister, "The scoop was the result of more than two months' legwork by 60 II producer Mary Mapes." In an interview with Charlie Rose, Mapes described how hard she worked to find the incriminating pictures:

"We ended up chasing it, chasing it halfway around the world and back again. Trying not just to chase the rumors of it, but---but to find out what the reality of it. And in the beginning, a lot of it was whispered accounts of pictures that existed somewhere, an investigation that was going somewhere against someone, and we were able luckily to narrow that down and get our hands on the pictures which really gave us our first real hard proof that this was real."

9. A. The key quote from Taguba's Senate testimony: "We did not find any evidence of a policy or a direct order given to these soldiers to conduct what they did. I believe that they did it on their own volition and I believe that they collaborated with several MI (military intelligence) interrogators at the lower level." Follow the link to see the media spin on this one. The headlines screamed "Taguba blames Leadership for Prison Abuse".

10. C. Frederick entered a guilty plea at the start of his court martial. No evidence was presented, the story was not recorded. His lawyer was at his side as he called for all those other guilty parties to follow his example. He didn't clarify who he meant. After he was sentenced to eight years his lawyer called the sentence "excessive" and said he intended to appeal.

What was your score?

A discussion of torture is an ugly necessity in the world today, but those who would enter that discourse with the battle cry of "Abu Ghraib" should at least understand their position. It's a house of cards, ugly cards to be sure, and not a foundation for discussion with any intent of serious resolution.

2005-01-07 12:47:17

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001989.html

Hayes, good morning to you as well.

“the Supreme Court is to interpret the law as to if the law they are looking at is within the boundaries of our constitution.”

Actually the Supreme Court’s job is to interpret the Constitution according to its text, as understood at the time it was adopted. It is like Justice Antonin Scalia said: “You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it.” He also said: “"The Constitution is not a living organism,"

“you described sounded more like they interpreted whatever law they were looking at and felt it fell within these standards.”

Although this is really for another topic I have to say our Founding Fathers were quite clear when they wrote the Constitution how they felt about Government taking property. It is in almost every Amendment, to unlawful search and seizures to not housing troops. So for those Justices to say a city has a right to come in and take your house because building a big Wal Mart will bring in more tax revenue is ludicrous.

“They didnt create the law they only ruled on a law written and passed by a state or our national government.So they are not making law that particular law that law came from our elected officials.”

Again for another topic but I so can’t help refuting this. Tell me what law did our elected officials pass that allowed abortion? Gay marriage? Separation of church and State? Free education for illegal-immigrates? And speaking of school, look at the “law” just passed by the NC Supreme Court that states a town with population 200 should have the same per pupil funds as say a big city like Charlotte. And since this town can’t afford it, guess who gets to pay for it? So where in our Constitution did our elected officials pass that law? I could go on and on but I think I made my point.

As for the rest, I can respect your opinions even though I disagree with you. I trust our military to protect us, that is their job. I do not trust the court system first because it is not their job and secondly because it seems like they can’t handle the job they have been given.

Trish
Scalia may have said that "not a living organism" but there are those who do see at as a living organism as you may be quite aware of that will be one of the major dividing themes on who sits on the SC; is it or is it not?

As far as the case of property siezure I am in the dark here about the case and how is was decided and why; so I would only ask for some reference in which I can have a better understanding.

But again I would argue that the courts and especially the SC cannot enact law they can only be done through congress and by the signing of the president. If I am missing something from my political science 100 about how the courts can make law then here I really ask for some reference. If you are right then I owe you an apology.

As far as the case with the NCSC this is new to me so I cant comment again without some info, so one more time I need some reference.

Since you are new I am a greensboro native living in germany.

Last I will only address the abortion topic but would probably argue the same,ie as in principle for the others. My understanding of Roe vs. Wade is that courts ruled the state could not pass a law that forbids a woman the right to an abortion; or close to that. To me this is not making a law. It restricts what the law could be but it doesnt make one.Judges cant order states to write a law but they can tell them to rewrite the law they have enacted if it doesnt fall within boundries of the Constitution.

Dang Trish....we think pretty similiar! Wouldn't happen to be SINGLE would you?!? hahaha!

Tater said: "Dang Trish....we think pretty similiar! Wouldn't happen to be SINGLE would you?!? hahaha!"

Ha great minds think alike! I just happen to be single what about you. LOL

Trish, Took a little siesta after work this AM but have been busy checking out some of the web sites you mentioned, some you did not mention and some that fell into my lap when searching for something else. What I found might be of interest to some of the other posters.

Two sites you mentioned were blog sites, much like this one, in which people stated their opinions, not necessarily facts. You have pulled from these sites comments of people with your own views. There were people who offered opposing views at these sites also. I read from both.

As far as the SUA in February, 2003 in which Bush told of what we would do "in the event" war was necessary, it was not giving other reasons to go to war as you suggested, but rather a plan to help rebuild Iraq after said war. Much like the plan he promised Afganistan and then tried to renig on.

One can put many spins on Bush's SUA on February 26, 2003. It depends on what your pre-conceived opinion is (your meaning anyone).

Other than Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil telling the American people of Bush's preoccupation with invading Iraq soon after taking office (and everyone ignoring them), there is mounting evidence to support Bush was planning to invade Iraq as early as April of 2001. Note this was before 9/11/2001.

You keep trying to tie Iraq with the 9/11 attacks on America, just as Bush did, but there is absolutely no evidence to support that. Quite the contrary. So please be aware it is blind faith on your part, imho.

I stick to my original statement that Bush had an agenda in so far as Iraq is concerned and he has lied and manipulated to carry out that agenda. I respect you have a different opinion and am glad you are expressing it. Peace.

Trish & Tater

Now you both realize if you so choose to follow through on this little sweet talk that due to some rabid liberal ex-judges who now work for the paper that under local ordinance of HS.101-25 of th N-R you are obligated to invite all blog members regardless of political opinions to your first date. And as I will need to fly over I do expect as any social parasite that you pay for my airline tickets or you can just send me money.

Yvonne:

Hope you had a good rest, think of taking one myself.

?Two sites you mentioned were blog sites, much like this one, in which people stated their opinions, not necessarily facts. You have pulled from these sites comments of people with your own views.?

First off, you are going to have to show me where I pulled from these sites comments of other people and stated they where facts. I pulled one quiz and everything in that quiz and the answers are not opinions but FACT with links to back it up. Now I might have used something else but I?m pretty sure that was the only one and there is just too many post to wade through so would you mind giving me an example of where I pulled just an opinion?

"Other than Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil telling the American people of Bush's preoccupation with invading Iraq soon after taking office (and everyone ignoring them), there is mounting evidence to support Bush was planning to invade Iraq as early as April of 2001. Note this was before 9/11/2001."

Yeah and that has been proven that those were the plans that Clinton had drawn up for regime change.
"
You keep trying to tie Iraq with the 9/11 attacks on America, just as Bush did, but there is absolutely no evidence to support that. Quite the contrary. So please be aware it is blind faith on your part, imho."

Where have I tried to tie Iraq with 9/11? I personally believe that yes, Saddam did have ties to terrorist (this is an undisputed fact as he paid Palestinian suicide bombers). However as far as Saddam planning, no I don?t believe that. Although I do think he would have sold weapons to terrorist and harbored them (which we did find one and I will check the name when I get home but he was the one that hijacked the cruise ship and killed the American Jew)

"I stick to my original statement that Bush had an agenda in so far as Iraq is concerned and he has lied and manipulated to carry out that agenda. I respect you have a different opinion and am glad you are expressing it. Peace."

That?s fine you can say he lied, however you cannot say me made up intelligence or lied about weapons of WMD because as proven Clinton, the UN and even Kerry all said it way before Bush was in office.

Trish
Question: You condemn Sadaam for allowing a known terrorist into his country. Fair enough I agree

But since there is a known and wanted terrorists,wanted for murder, walking around in our country ( I use the present tense carefully as I have not heard lately what has happened in this case if he is still free or if we finally got around to arresting him)

What does that say about Bush and us?

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter
MY VERY SPECIFIC POINT with that is this:
Many accuse us of aiding a terrorist nation in our support of Israel.Not saying I agree but many argue that.

Hayes:

"But since there is a known and wanted terrorists,wanted for murder, walking around in our country"

It would not suprise me one bit since illegals cross our border every day and nothing is done.

"What does that say about Bush and us?"

Is it Bush or is it the fault of those courts that you put so much trust into?

"

Trish, I failed to make myself clear on the blog site comment. (It is what you were saying in an earlier post about things not coming across like you meant them.) I did not mean to imply you pulled and posted other people's posts, only that the comments on these blog sites that reflected you own view were what you were referencing in your own comments. (Still clear as mud?)

You mentioned two web sites when making your comments. I went to these sites only to discover they were blog sites. When I started reading the comments of the posters, I found out there were also opposing viewpoints. But you had offered the sites to validate your posts, not that you posted their posts.

My point was it seemed pointless to me to substantiate an opinion with an opinion. Now I will readily admit I, as well as most who post here, misunderstand a writer's intent sometimes. If this is the case, I'm sorry.

As for the other, yes I do think Bush manufactured evidence and used the excuse of WMD to instill fear in people and scare them into agreeing with his agenda. I think he knew full well Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US. IMO, there is too much evidence that point to GWB having conceived the take over of Iraq starting as early as 2001 to simply turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to. That's just my opinion.

Yvonne,

"My point was it seemed pointless to me to substantiate an opinion with an opinion"

But I was not backing up any of my opinions with opinions. I was backing up my facts with facts. The quiz is all facts and is backed up by facts. Click on the links even one is the New York Times. If you were talking about the quiz. About the soldiers blogs, yeah someone ask what is going on over there and I told them to go read what the soldiers have to say and that the soldiers blogs even have comment sections and emails so ask them. I guess you could say that a soldier's blog is their opinion of what is going on but most stories and pictures are things that really happened. Why do you believe a reporters version before you would the person experincing it?

Yvonne said: "As for the other, yes I do think Bush manufactured evidence and used the excuse of WMD to instill fear in people and scare them into agreeing with his agenda. I think he knew full well Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US."

So let me ask you did Bush manufacture the UN's evidence? What about Bill Clinton did he manufactures his also? Did Clinton know what Saddam wasn't a threat? Also if the CIA director was a Clinton appointee, why in the world wouldn't he say something, wouldn't he have known since Bush was using the CIA's intelligence? Also you keep saying proof? What proof?

Hayes:
“but there are those who do see at as a living organism as you may be quite aware of that will be one of the major dividing themes on who sits on the SC; is it or is it not?”

Yes it is, but let me ask you where is the Constitution does it say it is a living thing to change with the times? There is a process set up in our Constitution to change it. It is called an Amendment to be ratified by the states. Because history has shown us (Articles of Confederation, Revolutionary War, Declaration of Independence) what our fore fathers thought of a strong central government, they didn’t trust it. Amending the Constitution is a way where “we the people” have a say in being governed. However some groups know they are not in the majority, so how to get the law change? Why taking it to court. Judges are now making law and the heck with the legislative progress. The heck with the majority.

“As far as the case of property siezure I am in the dark here about the case and how is was decided and why; so I would only ask for some reference in which I can have a better understanding.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9250.htm Here is the link to the story. Also just google it this decision caused major waves yesterday.

“But again I would argue that the courts and especially the SC cannot enact law they can only be done through congress and by the signing of the president. If I am missing something from my political science 100 about how the courts can make law then here I really ask for some reference. If you are right then I owe you an apology.”

Yeah see that is the way it is suppose to go. That is the process, but the courts (states and the Supreme) are circumventing that process.

“As far as the case with the NCSC this is new to me so I cant comment again without some info, so one more time I need some reference.”

http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_03/080.htm or google Leando decision
“In 1994, 10 families from five counties sued the state, claiming that children in poor counties do not receive the same educational opportunities as children in wealthier districts. The case took the name of Leandro, the lead plaintiff. Six urban school districts later joined the lawsuit. The case eventually led to a landmark 1997 N.C. Supreme Court decision defining public schools’ constitutional requirement to provide all students with a “sound basic education.” Judge Manning ruled in 2002 that the state is solely responsible for upholding this constitutional right. As a result, additional money is now available for 16 disadvantaged school systems.”

“To me this is not making a law. It restricts what the law could be but it doesnt make one.”Judges cant order states to write a law but they can tell them to rewrite the law they have enacted if it doesnt fall within boundries of the Constitution."

That is just a play on words it all boils down to the same thing, they made the law of “right to privacy” that in turn made the law of having an abortion, when in reality it was a state issue to being with.

J"udges cant order states to write a law but they can tell them to rewrite the law they have enacted if it doesnt fall within boundries of the Constitution."

Judges order states all the time to write laws (the Leando case mentioned above)
Judges also say what laws a state can write and cannot write, correct? (abortion, gay marriage (although the Supreme Court hasn’t taken on this one yet) So where is the legislative process that you spoke of when a Judge states what a state can and cannot do?

Trish
First thinks for the reference I will check them out sometime today and get back with you.

Second Just on a personal note you would save yourself time and space if you didnt rewrite each point you were responding to and just respond to it.

"Living Document": Again I say you are arguing about whether the Constitution is or isnt. I take from your points you come down on the side it isnt. But there are people who see it as one.

To me the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the foundation of our country. It is an imperfect document hence the admendments. But I shiver everytime someone who disagrees with a court decision starts talking about admendments. Admendments should be rare and far in between to put in simply. But if someone sees admendments as proof that the document is living then I have no issue with that because most admendments I agree with. Voting rights for women and the Brown decision.

Leando Case
I will make two points using this case as an example. First if the SC judges rule against the law in question they have not stated directly you must rewrite the law but have said indirectly if you want the intent of this law then you must go back and rewrite in a way that fits within the rules we have set forth. Plus quickly to another point the Constitution and BOR and the decisions of the SC is to protect(one major goal) the rights of the minority. I dont take that to mean to heck with the majority. We will differ here.

More to the case: Base on what you presented I am more surprise a NCSC decision was needed to make the state to do its job. Sorry but for me it is the responsibility of the NC Public School system to ensure that all students in their systems are given the same chances. That means student A in a poor county is getting the same chance as student B from a rich county. And if there is a inbalance then they need to address this problem. To me this only strengthens our state in the long term.
At least in our public school system we cant have: have and have nots.

Now if the court ruled how this is to be done then they crossed a line.

But again I may read what you sent,the reference and come back with a different opinion so take this only as a first look.

Last, Not all judges are good and some do try to inject theirs views but that doesnt mean all should be condemned. There are white racist in NC and Greensboro but to call me one because of that is wrong.

Trish
forgot one key point about the SC. I had always felt during the 2004 campaign that Bushes best question to the american people was not who do you trust to best protect you but:

Who do you want choosing your next Supreme Court Justices?

2004 was about this issue only as who is to make that decision that will effect our country for the next 20 years long after Bush becomes a foot note in the history books.

Hayes,

Let me ask you is there any where other then here we can debate this subject? I would put my email address out here, but really I do fear a bunch of spam if I do. haha

Hayes said: "20 years long"

Ha! only if we are lucky, man but do some of those oldies keep hanging on. LOL Just teasing.

Trish
Just click on my name that is my address. Please make it clear it is from you as I dont open the mails I dont recognize.

I may be naive to have my actual email address here but I get so much junk now it would onyl be a few more to ignore.

"Let me ask ... is there any where other then here we can debate ... "

Let's have a picnic!

Check all weapons at the door. Everyone wears a voice activated timer that allow a limited and equal time for all to speak, and use a talking stick (American Indian thing) to assure only one speaks at a time.

I'll bring the sweet tea.