Bush defends stance on proposed terror tribunals

Now you're trying to put words in my mouth.....and maybe McCain and company are trying to do the same thing to Bush....it is election time you know....

Do you need McCain to explain to you what Bush's remarks "really" meant ?
I don't....I listened to him loud and clear....I understood every word he said....I don't rely on others the re-interprate what I can hear for myself....

Our soldiers and CIA and FBI need to be protected from prosecution by ambiguous language in law....just as us, the common citizen need that protection.....I realize that each and every contingent can't be forseen but they can make at least an attempt to distinguish what is allowed and what is not...at least in some general sense.....if it was left to the likes of Ted Kennedy...you might remember ranting on tv about the ladies panties episode like it was the equivilant of pulling out toenails....some poor sucker might find him or her self in trouble....

Like threatening a prisioner with you growling dog....need we sent our soldiers to prison for that kind of action...?

I say fuck it...just ask your questions politily and take the rest of the day off......why risk your life for a country that is ungrateful for your sacrifice and duty....let the likes of Kennedy do the interrigation...
 
and I am asking you why respected republicans have a problem with Bush's proposal..... do you have an answer for that?

and are you suggesting that Bush has not put forward a piece of legislation he would like congress to act upon? He is doing more than asking congress to clarify it...he is asking them to clarify it the way he would like it to be clarified.... and republicans and democrats are having a problem with that.
 
It election time....
------------------------------

Jim Rybicki, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Alexandria, confirmed that 17 abuse investigations remain open, but declined to discuss any details.

The New Yorker magazine first identified Swanner's connection to the al-Jamadi case last year.

A Justice Department memo written in January said 20 investigations related to detainee abuse allegations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been referred for prosecution.

Ten came from the Defense Department, the memo said, while the remainder came from "another agency," a reference to the CIA.

Only one, that of CIA contract interrogator David Passaro, has been prosecuted. He was convicted in Raleigh, N.C., last month of felony assault for beating an Afghan prisoner who died one day after being pummeled with fists and a flashlight, evidence showed. Passaro was indicted before then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft set up the special prosecution team in Virginia.

The Justice memo said two of the 20 cases were closed without charges because "the department has determined in each of them that there was insufficient evidence to support a prosecution."

In a statement to the Tribune late Friday, the Justice Department declined to comment "on ongoing criminal investigations." But the agency, which is supporting Bush's push for the legislation, said there has never been a War Crimes Act prosecution because the statute is too vague.

"The president's legislation strengthens the War Crimes Act as a prosecution tool by providing concrete standards that would give individuals clear notice as to its prohibitions and enables prosecutors to bring appropriate prosecutions," the statement said.
-----------------------
If you're concerned that these 17 cases won't get convictions, write you congressman....what the hell, they're just soldiers and civil servants fighting a war with terroists...they might claim "fear of getting your fucking head cut off syndrome" and get away with whatever terrible crimes they are accussed of...I know you'll do you utmost to see that don't happen....good luck...

Now try the ignore feature....
 
spam spam spam.... why can't you just answer a simple question?

and where have I EVER said that I didn't want clear guidance to our troops?

now why don't you try some more cut and paste spam to avoid looking like an idiot?
 
bravo said:
Now you're trying to put words in my mouth.....and maybe McCain and company are trying to do the same thing to Bush....it is election time you know....

Do you need McCain to explain to you what Bush's remarks "really" meant ?
I don't....I listened to him loud and clear....I understood every word he said....I don't rely on others the re-interprate what I can hear for myself....

Our soldiers and CIA and FBI need to be protected from prosecution by ambiguous language in law....just as us, the common citizen need that protection.....I realize that each and every contingent can't be forseen but they can make at least an attempt to distinguish what is allowed and what is not...at least in some general sense.....if it was left to the likes of Ted Kennedy...you might remember ranting on tv about the ladies panties episode like it was the equivilant of pulling out toenails....some poor sucker might find him or her self in trouble....

Like threatening a prisioner with you growling dog....need we sent our soldiers to prison for that kind of action...?

I say fuck it...just ask your questions politily and take the rest of the day off......why risk your life for a country that is ungrateful for your sacrifice and duty....let the likes of Kennedy do the interrigation...
Click to expand...

.....and maybe McCain and company are trying to do the same thing to Bush....it is election time you know....

McCain, Warner and Graham aren't facing an election this year.

And Colin Powell has never held an elected office.
 
Well, YOU mentioned the legislation first not me...

Bush has asked the Congress for clarifaction and guidence on Article 3.....

then you should agree with that according to your last post....

The fear with the proposed legislation seems to be its retroactivity and the 17 cases that are coming up....
I guess it could be seem that Bush might be trying to protect the accussed from prosecution...and I hope he succeeds in the close calls...
If the cases are proven in court, he can't do much about that....
I admire him in going to bat for those that might be tryed under a law that is up to interpritation....maybe by political foes or those that would use the accussed for some political gain....clarity protects all of us....

But all this is another matter, another debate....opinions on both sides...not for me to decide....thats what we have a Congress and Court system for...
 
bravo said:
No....it IS about clarifing words like 'degrading'.....kinda vague to try to put a US soldier in prison for degrading someone....stinky panties on your head could be degrading....thing its worth jail time or just a dishonorable discharge...
Click to expand...

I consider it nationally degrading to have Bush as our president.
 
does the fact that three past Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all think this plan of the president's stinks to high heaven mean anything to the Bush asslickers????

Or are they so far invested in this guy that they are really willing to abandon all sense of right and wrong in order to defend him and his insanely counter-productive foreign policy?
 
Just remember three things: Torture doesn't occur until a major organ fails resulting in death; and the CIA hasn't tortured anyone at Gitmo. So technically, since we have always shipped our prisoners all over to secret prisons in Europe and other Arabs countries from Morocco to Syria, we are pretty torture free. And Bush would like to tell you that he needs to waterboard people because he can't get good intelligence without waterboarding but he is afraid that he will give information to al Qaeda who would then train for water boarding. I heard tonight on one of the broadcasts that the Army used "The Battle of Algiers" which has several scenes of water boarding in it, as a training film for interrogators. The more you hear the more bizare this group seems to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top