Dick Durbin

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

<snip> the clever way you called me a liar but said you wouldn't do so out of respect

I thought you'd enjoy that.

But seriously, our corporate media has been trumpeting that exact same take all day long. "Durbin sez our leaders and military are like nazis". It's bull****. I explained why above.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

They have no right to legal representation or hope of a trial. They are not being held as criminals, but as enemy combatants. This explains it far better than I could

http://www.disam.dsca.mil/itm/IMSO/F...nDetainees.pdf

My, that's a pretty document. No typos. Straight margins. A lot of work obviously went into it's production. Perhaps we should put as much work into getting this administration to actually abide by it. Or did I miss the part where it say it's A-OK to torture enemy combatants?

And as an aside, may I just say how offensive it is to me and many more like me to see the memory of 9/11 whored as it is in this document to support our illegal actions in Iraq.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

And as an aside, may I just say how offensive it is to me and many more like me to see the memory of 9/11 whored as it is in this document to support our illegal actions in Iraq.

Now, some might say calling our our actions in Iraq illegal is a lie, but I won't out of respect for those with whom I disagree.

Very simple, and I've stated it over and over - an invasion of Iraq was completed justified and completely legal the first time Iraq violated the cease fire from Gulf War I.

On one other note, I'm with you on the torture. The Abu Ghraib stuff - prosecute those responsible. But what Durbin described is certainly not torture, and certainly nothing even close to comparable of the Nazis, Soviet gulags, or Pol Pot.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Very simple, and I've stated it over and over - an invasion of Iraq was completed justified and completely legal the first time Iraq violated the cease fire from Gulf War I.

Stated over and over again doesn't change the fact that your position is highly debateable. For one thing, violation of the cease-fire was not our stated reason for going there.

We were told that he posed a threat. In reality, there are many other nations who happen to pose far more of threat. The weapons weren't there and many people have come to the conclusion that Saddam was in fact complying. He was letting the weapons inspectors in and all indications were that there were no WMD's. I know you disagree but the facts aren't there to support your belief.

Of course, the real reason we went in was regime change, and according to international law, that is illegal.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Now, some might say calling our our actions in Iraq illegal is a lie, but I won't out of respect for those with whom I disagree.

Yes, you're right. Some might say that. I would advise them to remember that lying to Congress is illegal. Mr. Bush went into this war by reporting to Congress, as required, that Iraq and Al Queda were in league (false) and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that threatened its neighbors and could threaten the United States (also false). And the mobile weapons labs and the drones and all that other stuff, but we don't have to go through all those lies again unless you just want to. More and more evidence is gathering that Mr. Bush knew it was all false... hell, may have even "fixed the intelligence" to force regime change if British reports turn out to be true.

Of course, it could be something else. Maybe it's this crazy across the pond language thing. Fixing the intelligence may mean something totally different over there.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Very simple, and I've stated it over and over - an invasion of Iraq was completed justified and completely legal the first time Iraq violated the cease fire from Gulf War I.

Hmmm What you say doesn't square with the reports of the British government scrambling to put a legal facade on this whole mess. They knew this crap was illegal.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

On one other note, I'm with you on the torture. The Abu Ghraib stuff - prosecute those responsible.

I'm very glad to hear you say that. Can I assume you mean no matter how high it goes?

Originally Posted by scaeagles

But what Durbin described is certainly not torture, and certainly nothing even close to comparable of the Nazis, Soviet gulags, or Pol Pot.

Call it what you want. We all saw the pictures. America didn't like what it saw. It is immaterial to me at this point what you call it. Your attack on Mr. Durbin was unfair. Having stated that, I'm satisfied on this point.

Hey, did y'all see we're getting a new prison in Cuba. KBR's (Kellogg Brown and Root Services) gonna build it for us. I hear they're owned by Halliburton. I read we're gonna spend $30 million for it. It sounds like it's gonna be nice. For that price, I hope we get stainless steel restraint loops built in the floor. Those old steel ones start to degrade with long term exposure to air, blood, urine and feces.