|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1101
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Hickey wrote:
... Bottom line - some people just overreact. Last night as I was leaving the Bank One Ballpark rally (cool event, but they didn't seem to be expecting 35,000 people)... as we were leaving, the police (for some unknown reason) slid one of the gates shut. This temporarily boxed in a good number of people, most of whom didn't really appreciate it. After a few moments, they re-opened the gate. We walked out beside a couple young (college-age) guys - one of them was visibly shaken, and was talking about how that was his "worst nightmare"... that it was just like Nazi Germany and the brownshirts. Two things to keep in mind - they were probably Republicans (so they should know better), and I just invoked Godwin's law. Thread over. No, you did not meet the criteria from invoking Godwin's Law. Try to get something right once in a while. -- Tom Sherman |
Ads |
#1102
|
|||
|
|||
George Herbert Walker wrote:
Even if they don't like to say it out loud, lots of Democrats think that George Bush's supporters are a horde of ignoramuses. Now comes evidence that they're right! A remarkable new report http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pr...0_21_04.html#1 , titled "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters," from PIPA, the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, suggests that rank and file Republicans are more benighted than even the most supercilious coastal elitist would imagine. UNBELIEVABLE . . . although, of course, not really. Certainly supports my experience in talking to numerous Bush supporters. So many have been absolutely resistant to 'facts' via source documents. When 'incontrovertible evidence--' taken from the annals of the administration that they favor--rears its ugly head, the e-mail thread suddenly stops. I like the hypothesis posited by the researchers: "The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information," according to Steven Kull, "very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters--and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with his supporters." Reminds me of an Al Franken-ism: He says conservatives love their country the way a 4-year-old loves her Mommy: unconditionally. Anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. By contrast, liberals have a "grownup love" for their country. They take the bad with the good and help their loved one grow. So . . . those of you representing the conservative position he what is your reaction to this study's findings?? |
#1103
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:56:09 GMT, "neil0502" wrote:
George Herbert Walker wrote: Even if they don't like to say it out loud, lots of Democrats think that George Bush's supporters are a horde of ignoramuses. Now comes evidence that they're right! A remarkable new report http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pr...0_21_04.html#1 , titled "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters," from PIPA, the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, suggests that rank and file Republicans are more benighted than even the most supercilious coastal elitist would imagine. UNBELIEVABLE . . . although, of course, not really. Certainly supports my experience in talking to numerous Bush supporters. So many have been absolutely resistant to 'facts' via source documents. When 'incontrovertible evidence--' taken from the annals of the administration that they favor--rears its ugly head, the e-mail thread suddenly stops. I like the hypothesis posited by the researchers: "The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information," according to Steven Kull, "very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters--and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with his supporters." Reminds me of an Al Franken-ism: He says conservatives love their country the way a 4-year-old loves her Mommy: unconditionally. Anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. By contrast, liberals have a "grownup love" for their country. They take the bad with the good and help their loved one grow. My observation is that the liberal attitude is more like that of a teenager toward Mommy: every imperfection is hypocrisy, each rule obvious fascism and every disagreement, no matter how minor, cause for screaming, thrashing, trashing and hateful invective. All of which is followed by demands for food, money and personal services at no charge. So . . . those of you representing the conservative position he what is your reaction to this study's findings?? I'm not going to dig into that study. In any poll, ANY POLL, you need to see the actual questions and methodology, you need the internals before accepting the results. Let's also wonder what ax the people doing the poll and providing the interpretation may have to grind. The list of PIPA sponsors are the usual suspects of leftist philanthropy in America. In short, I don't think that study came close to asking the right questions in a way that would elicit useful information. I think they sought to portray Bush supporters as ignorant and succeeded. Anyway, I can't speak for any unconditional Bush supporters. I simply don't know any. I know dozens of people who will vote for him warts and all. I know some whose support is non-negotiable who do feel a sense of loyalty and shared allegiance for reasons as Kull suggests. Every one of those I have met is very aware of Bush's failings (with an entirely different idea of what those are than a liberal think tank) and has some disagreements with him. In fact, that's why I question the PIPA polling, I don't know of any Bush voters who favored subjecting US to the ICC or Kyoto. There's something very wrong with their numbers. Anyway, these seem to sum up their feelings: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/bommer/Wh...es_Around.html http://www.ashleysstory.com/media/Ashley.mplarge.wmv Do you really think the people who made those give a damp fart for the opinions of France's Bonapartist (ex)foreign minister or some corrupt UN official. Myself, I can think of several better candidates than Bush. None of them are running and the alternative offered by the Democrats this time around is an insult to the republic. They could not have made a worse selection for the times. The VP nominee is so singularly unqualified we have to question Kerry's sanity. The guy makes Dan Quayle look like Teddy Roosevelt. Ron |
#1104
|
|||
|
|||
Ronsonic wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:56:09 GMT, "neil0502" wrote: George Herbert Walker wrote: Even if they don't like to say it out loud, lots of Democrats think that George Bush's supporters are a horde of ignoramuses. Now comes evidence that they're right! A remarkable new report http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pr...0_21_04.html#1 , titled "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters," from PIPA, the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, suggests that rank and file Republicans are more benighted than even the most supercilious coastal elitist would imagine. UNBELIEVABLE . . . although, of course, not really. Certainly supports my experience in talking to numerous Bush supporters. So many have been absolutely resistant to 'facts' via source documents. When 'incontrovertible evidence--' taken from the annals of the administration that they favor--rears its ugly head, the e-mail thread suddenly stops. I like the hypothesis posited by the researchers: "The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information," according to Steven Kull, "very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters--and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with his supporters." Reminds me of an Al Franken-ism: He says conservatives love their country the way a 4-year-old loves her Mommy: unconditionally. Anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. By contrast, liberals have a "grownup love" for their country. They take the bad with the good and help their loved one grow. My observation is that the liberal attitude is more like that of a teenager toward Mommy: every imperfection is hypocrisy, each rule obvious fascism and every disagreement, no matter how minor, cause for screaming, thrashing, trashing and hateful invective. All of which is followed by demands for food, money and personal services at no charge. Sincerely LOL! I would add, however, that parents can only expect quid pro quo/contributions/results from children if they have given those children a leg on which to stand--food, clothing, medical care, education, etc. A parent who expects their teens to lift themselves up by their proverbial bootstraps--none having been provided--is cruel and inhumane . . . and turns a problem child loose on society. I contend that the conservatives have edged too far toward this end of the spectrum. Some people (45M?) still need medicine more than they need tax cuts. So . . . those of you representing the conservative position he what is your reaction to this study's findings?? I'm not going to dig into that study. In any poll, ANY POLL, you need to see the actual questions and methodology, you need the internals before accepting the results. Let's also wonder what ax the people doing the poll and providing the interpretation may have to grind. The list of PIPA sponsors are the usual suspects of leftist philanthropy in America. In short, I don't think that study came close to asking the right questions in a way that would elicit useful information. I think they sought to portray Bush supporters as ignorant and succeeded. Also fair, but--again--it has certainly been borne out by my (limited sample size) experience repeatedly. My biggest fear (and we saw it from '92 through 2000) is that the animus created through the mudslinging election season predisposes the winner to lead a house *bitterly* divided . . . no matter what. I'm not talking about the politics of each party. I'm talking about the cognitive echoes of the shouts of liar, coward, traitor, moron, gigolo, etc. In Clinton's case, the animosity was so extreme that [insert any impeachment reference here]. Anyway, I can't speak for any unconditional Bush supporters. I simply don't know any. I know dozens of people who will vote for him warts and all. I know some whose support is non-negotiable who do feel a sense of loyalty and shared allegiance for reasons as Kull suggests. Every one of those I have met is very aware of Bush's failings (with an entirely different idea of what those are than a liberal think tank) and has some disagreements with him. In fact, that's why I question the PIPA polling, I don't know of any Bush voters who favored subjecting US to the ICC or Kyoto. There's something very wrong with their numbers. Anyway, these seem to sum up their feelings: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/bommer/Wh...es_Around.html http://www.ashleysstory.com/media/Ashley.mplarge.wmv Narrow, primal, reactionary, inflammatory, simplistic, flawed, appeal to the most base instincts, did I say narrow?, desperate, etc., etc. I understand you're not calling these vid-clips representative of your views, but the incessant use of 'vote for me or DIE,' explicitly and implicitly is (and I say this rarely) shameful. The matter of degree, IMHO, draws a dramatic distinction between telling seniors that their Medicare benefits may be cut and the worst possible threat you can level: your_loved_ones_will_all_die . .. . . Do you really think the people who made those give a damp fart for the opinions of France's Bonapartist (ex)foreign minister or some corrupt UN official. Myself, I can think of several better candidates than Bush. None of them are running and the alternative offered by the Democrats this time around is an insult to the republic. They could not have made a worse selection for the times. The VP nominee is so singularly unqualified we have to question Kerry's sanity. The guy makes Dan Quayle look like Teddy Roosevelt. Ron .. . . . and on that basic premise (not who I plan to vote /for/ so much as who I plan to vote /against/), I think you, I, and many others agree. I was asked several times to be an activist for Kerry, but told the folks that I could not, in good conscience. I have no love for the man. Edwards, OTOH, to me, is a far, far more benign (whether likeable or not) character than Darth Cheney. I was never afraid of Veeps 'til Dick took the chair. I've been heartened (pun intended??) to see W taking good physical care of himself the last 3.5yrs. And in another matter we have similar feelings: our sense that one of the candidates is the worst possible person for these times. We're just looking at different people..... |
#1105
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 02:46:48 GMT, "neil0502" wrote:
Ronsonic wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:56:09 GMT, "neil0502" wrote: George Herbert Walker wrote: Even if they don't like to say it out loud, lots of Democrats think that George Bush's supporters are a horde of ignoramuses. Now comes evidence that they're right! A remarkable new report http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pr...0_21_04.html#1 , titled "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters," from PIPA, the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, suggests that rank and file Republicans are more benighted than even the most supercilious coastal elitist would imagine. UNBELIEVABLE . . . although, of course, not really. Certainly supports my experience in talking to numerous Bush supporters. So many have been absolutely resistant to 'facts' via source documents. When 'incontrovertible evidence--' taken from the annals of the administration that they favor--rears its ugly head, the e-mail thread suddenly stops. I like the hypothesis posited by the researchers: "The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information," according to Steven Kull, "very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters--and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with his supporters." Reminds me of an Al Franken-ism: He says conservatives love their country the way a 4-year-old loves her Mommy: unconditionally. Anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. By contrast, liberals have a "grownup love" for their country. They take the bad with the good and help their loved one grow. My observation is that the liberal attitude is more like that of a teenager toward Mommy: every imperfection is hypocrisy, each rule obvious fascism and every disagreement, no matter how minor, cause for screaming, thrashing, trashing and hateful invective. All of which is followed by demands for food, money and personal services at no charge. Sincerely LOL! I would add, however, that parents can only expect quid pro quo/contributions/results from children if they have given those children a leg on which to stand--food, clothing, medical care, education, etc. A parent who expects their teens to lift themselves up by their proverbial bootstraps--none having been provided--is cruel and inhumane . . . and turns a problem child loose on society. I contend that the conservatives have edged too far toward this end of the spectrum. Some people (45M?) still need medicine more than they need tax cuts. So . . . those of you representing the conservative position he what is your reaction to this study's findings?? I'm not going to dig into that study. In any poll, ANY POLL, you need to see the actual questions and methodology, you need the internals before accepting the results. Let's also wonder what ax the people doing the poll and providing the interpretation may have to grind. The list of PIPA sponsors are the usual suspects of leftist philanthropy in America. In short, I don't think that study came close to asking the right questions in a way that would elicit useful information. I think they sought to portray Bush supporters as ignorant and succeeded. Also fair, but--again--it has certainly been borne out by my (limited sample size) experience repeatedly. My biggest fear (and we saw it from '92 through 2000) is that the animus created through the mudslinging election season predisposes the winner to lead a house *bitterly* divided . . . no matter what. I'm not talking about the politics of each party. I'm talking about the cognitive echoes of the shouts of liar, coward, traitor, moron, gigolo, etc. In Clinton's case, the animosity was so extreme that [insert any impeachment reference here]. Having watched and been around the conservatives who just hated Clinton so bad they _hurt_. I now get to be amused by the Bush haters, the whole "Bu****ler" thing would be hilarious if it weren't for the generally caustic effect. Hell, Gore himself seems to have become unhinged. People seem to forget that nobody is swayed by the depths of their hatred, they just tick one off in the "hates 'im" column and ignore all else that is said. Unless the hater gets really nuts in which case he's moved into the "nutso" column and his political opinion becomes disregarded. Anyway, I can't speak for any unconditional Bush supporters. I simply don't know any. I know dozens of people who will vote for him warts and all. I know some whose support is non-negotiable who do feel a sense of loyalty and shared allegiance for reasons as Kull suggests. Every one of those I have met is very aware of Bush's failings (with an entirely different idea of what those are than a liberal think tank) and has some disagreements with him. In fact, that's why I question the PIPA polling, I don't know of any Bush voters who favored subjecting US to the ICC or Kyoto. There's something very wrong with their numbers. Anyway, these seem to sum up their feelings: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/bommer/Wh...es_Around.html http://www.ashleysstory.com/media/Ashley.mplarge.wmv Narrow, primal, reactionary, inflammatory, simplistic, flawed, appeal to the most base instincts, did I say narrow?, desperate, etc., etc. I understand you're not calling these vid-clips representative of your views, but the incessant use of 'vote for me or DIE,' explicitly and implicitly is (and I say this rarely) shameful. The matter of degree, IMHO, draws a dramatic distinction between telling seniors that their Medicare benefits may be cut and the worst possible threat you can level: your_loved_ones_will_all_die . . . . Do you really think the people who made those give a damp fart for the opinions of France's Bonapartist (ex)foreign minister or some corrupt UN official. Myself, I can think of several better candidates than Bush. None of them are running and the alternative offered by the Democrats this time around is an insult to the republic. They could not have made a worse selection for the times. The VP nominee is so singularly unqualified we have to question Kerry's sanity. The guy makes Dan Quayle look like Teddy Roosevelt. Ron . . . . and on that basic premise (not who I plan to vote /for/ so much as who I plan to vote /against/), I think you, I, and many others agree. I was asked several times to be an activist for Kerry, but told the folks that I could not, in good conscience. I have no love for the man. Edwards, OTOH, to me, is a far, far more benign (whether likeable or not) character than Darth Cheney. I was never afraid of Veeps 'til Dick took the chair. I've been heartened (pun intended??) to see W taking good physical care of himself the last 3.5yrs. Well Edwards seems likable enough. I'll tell you, if I end up falling off a defective ladder, that's my go-to guy. When he gets me a bunch of money I'll go to Cheney to manage it. So what's the deal with Cheney Fear? He's obviously an extraordinarily capable and intelligent guy - does he know _too_ much? And in another matter we have similar feelings: our sense that one of the candidates is the worst possible person for these times. We're just looking at different people..... That's why we put up with this stupid ritual every four years. Ron |
#1107
|
|||
|
|||
We don't give a **** you ******
"political commentary" wrote in message om... There is even more evidence about the debate wires coming out he http://puppetstring.blogspot.com Thats a wire.... bicycle mechanics, you see wires, that a wire? (George Herbert Walker) wrote in message . com... Ronsonic wrote in message . .. A teeneaged boy was told that he was a security risk because he had a Kerry sticker on his wallet when searched by the Secret Service. If you have any Kerry-Edwards material in your possession, you are deemed to be a security risk and are threatened with arrest. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4076497 After the rampages from Kerry's goons this last week that isn't a stretch. Rove's newest scheme? Not long ago, Karl Rove told Sean Hannity "We've got a couple of surprises that we intend to spring." Perhaps we can glimpse the outlines of one of those surprises. Across the country, Bush campaign headquarters have been shot at, attacked, and burgled. None of these attacks have prospered the Kerry campaign in any way. Each incident has admirably served Karl Rove's propaganda purposes. In a previous election, he once staged a "bugging" of his own candidate. One of the most recent office assaults took place in Knoxville, Tennessee, where a drive-by shooter put two rounds into a Bush/Cheney headquarters. As we have noted in one of yesterday's post, this same office played a key role in an apparent hoax connected to the "mystery bulge" controversy. The purpose of the hoax remains unclear. I suspect that the intention was to sidetrack any investigators looking into the issue, just as legitimate concerns over Bush's National Guard service were sidetracked by the CBS debacle. Another senseless attack took place at the Charlestown, South Carolina G.O.P. office. News reporters covering that story dealt with the mysterious Phil Parlock, previously linked to a number of obviously-faked "attacks" by alleged Democrats. In one of these attacks, Parlock's son played the role of a violently enraged unionist. "Enraged unionists" from the AFL-CIO allegedly spearheaded mob action against various Bush offices on October 5. While these apparently began as legitimate protests, everyone old enough to recall the protests of the '60s will know the danger of the agent provocateur. # posted by Joseph : 1:33 AM www.cannonfire.blogspot.com/ for the active links (sorry, to lazy to paste them in) Also see www.isbushwired.com for a similar analysis of another Rove scheme to discredit the "Bush is Wired" story. |
#1108
|
|||
|
|||
(political commentary) wrote:
There is even more evidence about the debate wires coming out he http://puppetstring.blogspot.com Thats a wire.... bicycle mechanics, you see wires, that a wire? Heh... I've seen some nonsensical conspiracy theories, but suggesting that GWB wore "a wire" to a debate... 1) when the same audio could be picked up on any TV set in the US 2) with a connection cable the (apparent) size of a brake cable outer (bike content) 3) inexplicably routed outside his shirt 4) that somehow disappeared from other camera angles I can't WAIT until this election is over so the level of nonsense returns to normal. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame (George Herbert Walker) wrote in message . com... Ronsonic wrote in message . .. A teeneaged boy was told that he was a security risk because he had a Kerry sticker on his wallet when searched by the Secret Service. If you have any Kerry-Edwards material in your possession, you are deemed to be a security risk and are threatened with arrest. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4076497 After the rampages from Kerry's goons this last week that isn't a stretch. Rove's newest scheme? Not long ago, Karl Rove told Sean Hannity "We've got a couple of surprises that we intend to spring." Perhaps we can glimpse the outlines of one of those surprises. Across the country, Bush campaign headquarters have been shot at, attacked, and burgled. None of these attacks have prospered the Kerry campaign in any way. Each incident has admirably served Karl Rove's propaganda purposes. In a previous election, he once staged a "bugging" of his own candidate. One of the most recent office assaults took place in Knoxville, Tennessee, where a drive-by shooter put two rounds into a Bush/Cheney headquarters. As we have noted in one of yesterday's post, this same office played a key role in an apparent hoax connected to the "mystery bulge" controversy. The purpose of the hoax remains unclear. I suspect that the intention was to sidetrack any investigators looking into the issue, just as legitimate concerns over Bush's National Guard service were sidetracked by the CBS debacle. Another senseless attack took place at the Charlestown, South Carolina G.O.P. office. News reporters covering that story dealt with the mysterious Phil Parlock, previously linked to a number of obviously-faked "attacks" by alleged Democrats. In one of these attacks, Parlock's son played the role of a violently enraged unionist. "Enraged unionists" from the AFL-CIO allegedly spearheaded mob action against various Bush offices on October 5. While these apparently began as legitimate protests, everyone old enough to recall the protests of the '60s will know the danger of the agent provocateur. # posted by Joseph : 1:33 AM www.cannonfire.blogspot.com/ for the active links (sorry, to lazy to paste them in) Also see www.isbushwired.com for a similar analysis of another Rove scheme to discredit the "Bush is Wired" story. |
#1109
|
|||
|
|||
After Terror, a Secret Rewriting of Military Law
By TIM GOLDEN Published: NY Times, October 24, 2004 WASHINGTON - In early November 2001, with Americans still staggered by the Sept. 11 attacks, a small group of White House officials worked in great secrecy to devise a new system of justice for the new war they had declared on terrorism. Determined to deal aggressively with the terrorists they expected to capture, the officials bypassed the federal courts and their constitutional guarantees, giving the military the authority to detain foreign suspects indefinitely and prosecute them in tribunals not used since World War II. The plan was considered so sensitive that senior White House officials kept its final details hidden from the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and the secretary of state, Colin L. Powell officials said. It was so urgent, some of those involved said, that they hardly thought of consulting Congress. White House officials said their use of extraordinary powers would allow the Pentagon to collect crucial intelligence and mete out swift, unmerciful justice. "We think it guarantees that we'll have the kind of treatment of these individuals that we believe they deserve," said Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a driving force behind the policy. But three years later, not a single terrorist has been prosecuted. Of the roughly 560 men being held at the United States naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, only 4 have been formally charged. Preliminary hearings for those suspects brought such a barrage of procedural challenges and public criticism that verdicts could still be months away. And since a Supreme Court decision in June that gave the detainees the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal court, the Pentagon has stepped up efforts to send home hundreds of men whom it once branded as dangerous terrorists. "We've cleared whole forests of paper developing procedures for these tribunals, and no one has been tried yet," said Richard L. Shiffrin, who worked on the issue as the Pentagon's deputy general counsel for intelligence matters. "They just ended up in this Kafkaesque sort of purgatory." The story of Guantanamo and the new military justice system became an intractable legacy of Sept. 11 has been largely hidden from public view. But extensive interviews with current and former officials and a review of confidential documents reveal that the legal strategy took shape as the ambition of a small core of conservative administration officials whose political influence and bureaucratic skill gave them remarkable power in the aftermath of the attacks. The strategy became a source of sharp conflict within the Bush administration, eventually pitting the highest-profile cabinet secretaries - including Ms. Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld - against one another over issues of due process, intelligence-gathering and international law. In fact, many officials contend, some of the most serious problems with the military justice system are rooted in the secretive and contentious process from which it emerged. To the policy's architects, the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon represented a stinging challenge to American power and an imperative to consider measures that might have been unimaginable in less threatening times. Yet some officials said the strategy was also shaped by longstanding political agendas that had relatively little to do with fighting terrorism. Military lawyers were largely excluded from that process in the days after Sept. 11. They have since waged a long struggle to ensure that terrorist prosecutions meet what they say are basic standards of fairness. Uniformed lawyers now assigned to defend Guantanamo detainees have become among the most forceful critics of the Pentagon's own system. Foreign policy officials voiced concerns about the legal and diplomatic ramifications, but had little influence. Increasingly, the administration's plan has come under criticism even from close allies, complicating efforts to transfer scores of Guantanamo prisoners back to their home governments. To the policy's architects, the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon represented a stinging challenge to American power and an imperative to consider measures that might have been unimaginable in less threatening times. Yet some officials said the strategy was also shaped by longstanding political agendas that had relatively little to do with fighting terrorism. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jobst Brandt |
#1110
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Hickey wrote:
... I can't WAIT until this election is over so the level of nonsense returns to normal.... So you must be a Kerry supporter then, since we have had four years of policy nonsense from the Cheney/Bush II administration. -- Tom Sherman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|