Why now? It's a campaign year.

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It's tragic, but it's not a new thing:

I have not seen a single person seriously condone what happened at Abu Ghraib. I think every A2K member joins with 99% of the nation in condemning it.

It's tragic, but it's not a new thing.

Nowhere on the campaign trail prior to Abu Ghraib have any of the candidates commented on or complained about any problem with U.S. treatment of prisoners or U.S. prisons in general other than some rumbles about holding a few people without due recourse primarily at Guatanamo.

So why is it all suddenly important now? And why is it all George Bush's fault? Because it's a campaign year of course. It's almost as if the current administration planned this or at the very lease approved it. If anybody thinks the president and his cabinet and staff are not absolutely sick over this, I have some nice swamp land to sell and can have the deed transfer ready by nightfall.

The problem as I see it is that all the bru ha ha for heads to roll is undermining our troop morale and encouraging terrorist opposition. I believe it is putting our troops much more in harm's way.

How about everybody just backing off a bit and watching to be sure the matter is handled, the responsible are held accountable, the guilty punished? Let the system work without hurting our honorable men and women in the service overseas.

It's a request for fairness and an interest in justice that you would want for your guy in similar circumstances.

Some other problems prior to the Bush administration:
http://www.cnn.com/1999/US/12/09/us.human.rights/

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss13/geer.shtml

http://thunder.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/99-03%20SPR/tourture.html

And as it continually comes up that GWB condones the prison abuses in Iraq because he (apparently personally) executed people in Texas:

Quote:

. . .In 1992, party orthodoxy shifted. A self-styled "new Democrat," Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas not only favored capital punishment, he also returned to Little Rock during the campaign to sign execution papers for a convicted murderer. . .

. . .All six upper-tier candidates are on record as supporting at least some application of the death penalty. Moreover, four were opponents who have modified their views -- Howard Dean, John F. Kerry, Joseph I. Lieberman, and John Edwards. Richard A. Gephardt has been a consistent death penalty supporter, and Wesley K. Clark initially said after joining the race in September that he backed a moratorium on executions, but has voiced support of capital punishment as a punishment option for "the most heinous crimes.". . .

. . .Kerry still describes himself as a death penalty opponent because it "is inequitably enforced and has been wrongfully applied." Yet he says capital punishment should be available "in cases of terrorists who have literally declared war against our country." Moreover, after voting against an expansion of the federal death penalty in an omnibus crime bill in 1994, Kerry voted for the full legislation, which also banned assault weapons and provided funds for 100,000 additional local law enforcement officers.
©© Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/07/democrats_shift_on_death_penalty?mode=PF

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,325 • Replies: 89

No top replies

I think blaming it on the campaign year and diminishing the power of imagry is a product of the campaign year.

0 Replies

But wouldn't it be better to channel all this energy in a public outcry for reform? To set in force policies to ensure it can't happen again?

0 Replies

Quote:

One cannot fashion a credible deterrent out of an incredible action

robert s mcnamara re vietnam

0 Replies

Dunno. IMO pushing for reform will draw out the substantial numbers of people who actually support it and they'll invoke the ticking time bomb scenarios and such. Dunno what the result will be but I don't see much chance of reform with this administration in office.

If it takes Bush out it will have a better chance of accomplishing this reform. This administrations open questioning about many such standards sets the tone from the top down.

0 Replies

Quote:

Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.

gen william westmoreland re vietnam

0 Replies

Then you guys are saying that it is your opinion that the only reason this mess occurred was because George Bush is president? You think previous administrations were not responsible for human rights violations on their watch? And you are saying that the current administration doesn't care and doesn't want the problem fixed?

0 Replies

I don't say Bush is responsible, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the abuse, which the military knew about months ago, would still be going on if the photos hadn't been published.

There had clearly been a decision at a fairly high level to "loosen up" the detainees. And those who made that decision, which clearly led to the abuses we now know about, must be held responsible.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Then you guys are saying that it is your opinion that the only reason this mess occurred was because George Bush is president?

No no, that's certainly not the only reason. This administration's willingness to blur the lines with human rights has more to do with it than the mere fact that he's the president.

I'm saying that I think the only reason this is perceived as such a mess is because of the pictures (otherwise it'd just be a "bleeding heart for terrorists" thing).

And I think that prevarication on human and civil rights by the administration helped set the stage for this kind of abuse.

And I go on to think that a different administration would set fewer theaters and opportunities for such abuse.

0 Replies

I don't disagree with that D'. The photos did and should have triggered total outrage. And if reforms are now implemented, that will be the good to come out of this. Apparently, U.S. hands weren't clean well before George W. Bush took office. (See links above.)

Where I disagree with many is that George Bush somehow condoned this kind of thing. I have seen zero evidence of that. And I think it is unfair to suggest he won't order the mess fixed.

If he doesn't, then I'll join the rest of you in demanding his head on a platter.

0 Replies

Well, it looks like foxfrye is carrying that old GOP flag to even lower heights than previous seen.

It's tragic, but it's not a new thing.

My father served in Vietnam. I saw my parents this past weekend for dinner and I asked my father if he'd even engaged in any of the depraved behavior we're learning took place in Iraq at the hands of the US soldiers.

He was genuinely taken aback by my question, but answered truthfully with a "no." He went into a detailed explanation about how strict rules are followed with regard to prisoners of war and expressed his shame at what we're seeing happened at Abu Ghrain.

Nowhere on the campaign trail prior to Abu Ghraib have any of the candidates commented on or complained about any problem with U.S. treatment of prisoners....

Well foxfrye, maybe that's because this is a matter of international law being violated as well as the Geneva Convention and the Oath of Honor soldiers take. Not everything is a conspiracy from the Kerry camp.

So why is it all suddenly important now? And why is it all George Bush's fault? Because it's a campaign year of course.

Folks, I truly believe foxfrye thinks this is true. Just read her posts. Never mind international law or the Geneva Convention, as Rush Limbaugh said last week, the MP's "were just blowing off steam," so what's the big deal? This all falls under the heading of normal and business as usual, right? Wrong!

I believe it is putting our troops much more in harm's way.

I believe the actual events and the ensuing anger among Arabs is putting our troops in more harms way, as well as making a joke of it all as you did on another thread.

How about everybody just backing off a bit....

Sure foxfrye says this. The scandal is hurting her candidate Bush in every poll. Even Zogby has handed the election over to Kerry. Is anyone surprised to hear foxfrye says anything else?

So everyone, let's just remain silent and pretend none of the prisoner abuse happened. Sure, not in a New York minute, honey. :wink:

0 Replies

craven writes:

Quote:

And I think that prevarication on human and civil rights by the administration helped set the stage for this kind of abuse.

What prevarication is that Craven? And remember I consider a lie to knowingly put forth a mistruth.

0 Replies

I'm not using it in the meaning of a lie but in the meaning of quibbling with the truth.

The Geneva concentions dictate that there should be no coercion at all but the need (which I recognize in some cases) to circumvent it when dealing with non-military combatants was extended to use of coercion against far too wide a spectrum.

Most of the people we are softening up for interrogations "have nothing to do with anything" by the military's own admission and I believe this is a result of the initial prevarications in regard to interpreting the Geneva conventions.

The administration is right in that there are certain types of combatants that the Geneva was not made for but the administration cut out the mechanisms for delienating them.

A "competent tribunal" is supposed to make the distinction that the US does arbitrarily and without such a safeguard we see more feckless use of interrogation.

The prevarication in the interpreting of the Geneva accords is something I think contributes to the relaxed atmosphere for rough interrogation and contributes to its arbitrary application.

0 Replies

Quote:

The administration is right in that there are certain types of combatants that the Geneva was not made for but the administration cut out the mechanisms for delienating them.

Do you think this was intentional? Or was it an oversight resulting in a tragic blunder?

Do you think the President is disingenuous when he says he is outraged by what he sees and that he has full intent to see that it is not repeated?

0 Replies

Deecups36 writes, "Sure foxfrye says this. The scandal is hurting her candidate Bush in every poll."

You've hit the proverbial nail on the head, Le Deecups.

I just heard the CNN/Time/Gallup poll and Bush's approval rating has shriveled to a tiny 46% -- an all time low for him. 51% now disapprove of Bush. Lethal just 6 months before an election.

That said, the propaganda brigade will have to do some very heavy lifting in the next 5 1/2 months.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you think this was intentional? Or was it an oversight resulting in a tragic blunder?

I think it was both. An intentional decision to avoid the red tape of dealing with the safeguards while trusting our good intentions and I think it illustrated why the safeguards are needed.

Quote:

Do you think the President is disingenuous when he says he is outraged by what he sees and that he has full intent to see that it is not repeated?

It's a tough question to answer. I do think that Bush is bothered by some of the imagery. Especially the imagry of a homosexual nature.

At the same time, similarly discomfitting but less sexually perverse and less gratuitous techniques continue to exist in places like Gitmo.

In Gitmo, the techniques are far more professional and used less fecklessly but Gitmo represents the willing step in this slippery slope.

I think he's sincere in that the homosexual nature of the assaults on the Iraqis bothers him and I think he's sincere in that this was gratuitous and unprofessional but I don't think he wants to rule out the crossing of the line that started it all: the disregard of the "name, rank and serial number" rule in the Geneva accords.

So basically, I think he's sorry that this is where the slippery slope is leading but I think he still condones taking the first step toward disregarding safeguards like Geneva in the war on terror.

0 Replies

William Safire in today's NY Times insists that Rumsfield, the Democrat's chosen scapegoat, should stay.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/opinion/10SAFI.html

This op-ed piece further cites Rumsfield's role and efforts from the beginning in modifying excessive reaction to 9/11.

(Have a dinner date - back later. Everybody play nice.)

0 Replies

I rarely read op-ed and columns but I happened to read that one last night at 3 AM. The points about Rummy were things I'd planned to research.

0 Replies

Well, foxfrye, I will go ahead and tell you what I think and to tell the truth I don't really care if I can prove it or not or if it will taken as just a partisan leftist view from any of those here. I am so fed up with this administration and the American voting public that I have lost all patience and just care about stating the truth as i see it rather than proving any points.

Yes, I think Bush is responsible because number one, the buck stops with the president. If he didn't know he should have. And number two, the Red Cross was giving them reports long before any investigations began after that soldier reported the abuses. So either he did know and he lied when he said he was shocked and dismayed to learn of the abuses or he is so lax in his duties as commander and chief that he ignores reports about wars that he starts. Either way he is responsible. It was not as if this had just happened and he learned about it the same time we did or just a few months before. Like I said, the red cross had been telling them about it since the end of the occupation.

[If need be, I read an article stating just that about the red cross this morning and I can post the link later. But I imagine it has already been done.]

0 Replies

I'd feel better about this discussion if there was 10% of the concern for the rights of the five murdered Americans who were dragged through the streets of Fallujah and Yanbu as there has been for the humiliation of the Iraqi prisoners.

Aw Hell, I'll even go as low as 1%.

0 Replies

Why now? It's a campaign year.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know