Is Bush a Conservative? (Warning – opening this thread forfeits your right to gripe at me!)

Commentary Magazine ^ | February 2004 | Daniel Casse

[icwhatudo]

You ignore the facts and twist what I wrote to suit you.

"Unlike you, I said that there are conservative and moderate and more lefty leaning liberal Republicans."

Thats a direct quote and it got shot down by the facts, don't start making excuses.

You're the one who brought in LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, to imply that I'm a queer.That won't work at all. LOL

You mentioned "all stripes", I mentioned one. I'm sorry If it came off as implying you are queer. I'm sure you are sorry for coming off as so high and mighty in telling people what terms they understand or are allowed to use.

Now, you're attempting to infer that I'm not a Conservative. Again, that isn't gonna work. LOL And then, you suggest that I'd be happier on some other site. Well, permit me to return the favor...........go to LP or FU, where your kind is accepted.

My "kind"? Would that be those damn "purists" again? 2 of the 3 sites I mentioned are (r)epublican-why would you be upset to go there?

I've been on FR for well over 5 years and it suits me. :-)

And high up in his tower, high on his horse, he pulls out the "I've been here for yada yada"

Check the dates newbie...LOL

BTW-Since you and I do go back awhile, do you remember the flame wars between (OWK)"One Who Knows" and that other poster(was his name Republican or something like that?)Whatever happened to those guys?

Well anyway I think we may both have bumped each other a bit, both want Bush reelected, and both like this site, and would both rather spend our time going after dems. So with that I'll say, Freeguards and goodnight!

[Mike4Freedom]

The term "enemy combatant" (and the treatment thereof) wasn't invented by Bush, and you know that full well because I have already educated you on that fact.

Your foolish arguments lead people to believe that you think that it is OK to lock up US citizens without bothering with any charges. I am sorry but all the gibberish about POWs and the Geneva convention does not apply to US citizens getting off planes in Chicago.

Padilla has been behind bars since May 2002 without anyone charging him with anything. When a judge says charge him or let him go, the government still does not charge him, but appeals the decision. Do you think that is proper behavior, honorable behavior by the administration? I do not!

[Mike4Freedom]

Unless you are involved in acts that bring you under suspicion, how is the Patriot Act going to effect you?

I will say it slower. All you need is a name that sounds like some bad guy and you are in trouble. All sorts of people have landed on a no-fly list (stating a minor example). No one can tell them why they are on the list and no one can tell them how to challenge it and get off. Beyond the patriot act, additional provisions have been tacked on to other bills here and there. Now, not even the meaningless FISA warrant, let alone probable cause, is required to rip apart all your financial doings.

[Mike4Freedom]

Libertarians aren't "honorable" because they aren't honest.

I would not be talking about the honesty of Libertarians. How about the honesty of our current Republican president. Sure looks like he told some whoppers with catastrophic results-at least 10,000 deaths. And he covers himself with appointing a blue ribbon investigation to blame the CIA but not release its report till way after the election. I am sorry, but I need to know for sure what happened BEFORE November 2 and I am assuming the worst since I will not be getting any information in time.

[Texasforever]

Sure looks like he told some whoppers with catastrophic results-at least 10,000 deaths.

Yep we killed a bunch of Iraqi soldiers. What is your point?

[blackbart.223]

"Yep we killed a bunch of Iraqi soldiers. What is your point?"

What many people forget is September 11. Pay no attention to anyone who doesn't remeber it.

[gatorbait]

Ashcroft is listening to your every breath....beware.......but, not to worry.President Kerry will respect all of your rights and Attorney General Patrick Kennedy will ensure he does. if not ,Justice W.J.B Clinton will hear your caseand of course , find in your favor.

The Libertarian Party, proudly being the Better Greens since , well, we can't remember...but don't bogart that joint, man...

[Southack]

"Your foolish arguments lead people to believe that you think that it is OK to lock up US citizens without bothering with any charges."

Per the Geneva Convention, it is OK to lock them up without charges or shoot them on sight.

Remember, more than 1,000 U.S. citizens answered Hitler's call to fight for the Fatherland prior to WW2. Those Americans enlisted in the Wehrmacht and wound up fighting *against* U.S. military forces.

When they were captured, they were POW's and got no attorneys and had no charges filed against them.

Likewise, our military was not required to stop battles, offer attorneys, and give full due process of a trial to every group of NAZI's that might include an American citizen before we shot those SOB's.

And there was a third group. The NAZI's sent 8 former U.S. residents dressed as civilians back to the U.S. aboard two different U-Boats. One submarine landed the NAZI Americans in New England, the other landed them in Florida. Their missions were to blow up U.S. manufacturing plants and poison our water supplies.

But because they wore no recognized military uniform and carried no military ID's, they were subject to battlefield justice (i.e. any punishment desired by their captors - that would be us - up to and including being shot on sight). Thus, these "enemy combatants" were NOT entitled to the rights of legitimate, recognized POW's.

That they were given cursory military tribunals in FBI headquarters was frankly more than they were entitled to by treaty or law. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the military tribunals and declared them in compliance with all U.S. laws and international treaties.

This was more than half a century ago. So Bush didn't just invent the idea and treatment of enemy combatants, contrary to the filthy rubbish that you are attempting to spread.

If you don't like the Geneva Convention, then rail against it, fine. But don't try to lie and blame GW Bush as if Bush invented the whole concept of "enemy combatant" being different from recognized Prisoners of War (i.e. POW's).

That sort of dishonest partisan attack is typical of you Libertarians, who are also known to spread other falsehoods against Bush...

[Mike4Freedom]

Yep we killed a bunch of Iraqi soldiers. What is your point?

Do I understand from your remark that you consider Iraqi soldiers something less than human, people whose life is not worthy of the respect due to all people under the commandment "Thou shalt not kill"?

If this government attacked another nation under a false self defense claim, then all deaths, both sides plus civilians, constitutes homocide-mass murder. All G-d's children are equal and any killing under false pretenses is the worst sin possible.

Despite the outcome of the fictional war crimes trial on JAG, this war is a crime.

[Mike4Freedom]

Per the Geneva Convention, it is OK to lock them up without charges or shoot them on sight.

Do YOU think that is OK? Do you support the administration in this action? Will you support President Hillary in a decade or so when she decides, using this precedent, that FReepers are enemies of her state and need to be rounded up and interred for the duration.

[Southack]

You seem pretty worked up for someone who's been caught lying about what Bush supposedly "invented." Methinks thou dost protest too much, Mr. 3rd Party Activist.

Yes, I support this administration, and yes, it is OK to shoot spies and sabotuers on sight during combat. Likewise, it is OK to shoot our enemies, even if some of them are, like Taliban Johnny and Jose Padilla, U. S. citizens... And no, we don't have to stop battles to give attorneys, trials, and full due process to such people, even though they are U.S. citizens.

Oh, I know. You'll lie some more and ironically claim that "Bush lied" and other such nonsense... You'll claim that the war was illegal because Congress didn't sign a "declaration," even though you are smart enough to know that when Congress approves money for an Iraq attack, that *is* all the declaration needed by our Constitution...and you'll claim that we went to war under false premises, even though you know full well that we went to war to *prevent* Hussein from becoming an imminent threat, as well as because Hussein was in violation of his 1991 ceasefire agreement with us, in addition to Hussein being in defiance of a dozen years worth of UN resolutions, as well as Hussein rewarding the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel with cash bonuses of up to $25,000 each.

But such facts don't matter to you. You'll even pretend to be religious, in fact, if you think for a moment that your deception will aid your 3rd Party promotion.

Because you are a 3rd Party activist. Your job is to lie and deceive, as you've been caught *red* handed doing on this very thread, for instance with your bogus claim about Bush somehow managing to "invent" the term "enemy combatant" even though the Geneva Convention that defined the treatment of such people is *older* than G W Bush.

You are so busted.

B U S T E D

[Godfollow]

Um, what's your source for that?...

[Godfollow]

So, who you voting for, France?

[Mike4Freedom]

Your job is to lie and deceive, as you've been caught *red* handed doing on this very thread, for instance with your bogus claim about Bush somehow managing to "invent" the term "enemy combatant" even though the Geneva Convention that defined the treatment of such people is *older* than G W Bush.

I am sorry if the phrase "enemy combatant" was used in the past in other contexts. Nevertheless, using the phrase to arrest and imprison a US citizen just walking through an airport in the US, not commiting any crime, not armed, just peacefully entering the country with proper passport is a novel use of an invalid power. Now tell me, is it right to keep such a man in jail without charge or allowing him to defend himself? Are you willing to throw over all the civil liberties that our soldiers have died for over the last two centuries to further the short term political goals of Dubya? And please answer this without an ad hominem attack. I generally take such attacks as an acknowledgement that I am on the right side of the argument and my opponent has no real defense.

[Southack]

"Are you willing to throw over all the civil liberties that our soldiers have died for over the last two centuries to further the short term political goals of Dubya?"

Your question is under false pretenses.

If we've "lost" any civil liberties, then they were lost long ago, before "Dubya" (must be that ad hominem thing that you keep talking about that indicates that someone is always wrong) was even born.

As I told you earlier, all that Conservatives are doing is to play by the rules that are already established.

In Jose Padilla's case, we have case law from back during WW2 under a Democratic Party administration in which U.S. citizens (who were working for Hitler against the U.S) in civilian clothes were deposited onto our shores in order to carry out espionage and sabotage. Those Americans were caught in bars and civilian apartments in the U.S. They had no rights whatsoever, per the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Constitution, as ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme Court. They were given military tribunals in FBI headquarters and at least 5 of them were executed without further delay.

Now, what you want to do is to pretend that those 8 NAZI's were just innocent Americans drinking beer and touring the U.S.

That's basically your argument for Jose Padilla.

But your argument doesn't hold up to established case law.

And you Libertarians haven't been attacking the Supreme Court's ruling on WW2 treatment of enemy combatants (read: spies, sabotuers, etc.). Nor have you Libertarians been attacking the Geneva Convention (a treaty ratified by the U.S., making it law here). Heck, you Libertarians haven't even been attacking the FDR administration for its actions against enemy combatants in WW2.

All that you Libs have been doing is making up lies against Bush, such as in this very thread where you make the wild-eyed claim that Bush, who is *younger* than the Geneva Convention, somehow invented the Geneva Convention treatment of enemy combatants!

And as such, your over-excited protests reek of political opportunism. If these principles of pure liberty actually meant anything to any serious 3rd Party, you would have been attacking the Geneva Convention as being in violation of the 14th Amendment, and you would have been pushing to get a new amendment ratified by all Geneva signatory nations...an amendment that would strike out the most egrigious areas of potential abuse under that treaty.

But none of you dare attack the Geneva Convention. All that you care to attack is GWB.

...And you haven't even been honest in those attacks, as I've demonstrated several times on this very thread.

[Southack]

See Post #146, in which Sir Gawain finally refutes his own list (that he posted in message #20).

[CMClay]

"Since taking office in 2001, Bush has allowed domestic discretionary outlays to soar by an annual average of 8.2 percent. That compared with 2.5 percent a year under Clinton, 4.0 percent of Bush the Elder, 2.0 percent of Carter, and 6.8 percent under Nixon. By any measure, Bush the Younger is the biggest-spending president in memory."
- Jeff Jacoby

[dirtboy]

Then see my post #49 and reflect upon how little criticism has been leveled at Democratic Party President FDR during WW2 for executing the American citizens who were brought back to the U.S. by German U-boats to conduct sabotage here.

They had a prompt military tribunal once SCOTUS spoke on the matter. Bush proposes that he has the power to hold a citizen enemy combatant indefinitely without a tribunal. Significant difference.

[Southack]

"They had a prompt military tribunal once SCOTUS spoke on the matter. Bush proposes that he has the power to hold a citizen enemy combatant indefinitely without a tribunal. Significant difference."

No, same law/treaty.

Per the Geneva Convention, POW's may be held as long as hostilities continue. Enemy combatants, on the other hand, may be given *any* punishment whatsoever, up to and including being shot on sight, without any trial of any form.

Thus, both POW's and enemy combatants can be held without trial and without charges and without access to attorneys.

[dirtboy]

No, same law/treaty. Per the Geneva Convention, POW's may be held as long as hostilities continue. Enemy combatants, on the other hand, may be given *any* punishment whatsoever, up to and including being shot on sight, without any trial of any form.

Now, how do we verify that an American citizen seized on American soil and decreed to be an enemy combatant, is actually an enemy combatant?

Thus, both POW's and enemy combatants can be held without trial and without charges and without access to attorneys.

I am not arguing international conventions. I am debating as to whether it is sensible to bestow upon the executive branch the power to declare a citizen not apprehended on a foreign field of battle (such as Taliban Johnny) as an enemy combatant and have the power to detain that person indefinitely without some kind of due process, some kind of check and balance, to ensure that such an awesome power cannot be abused against domestic political enemies.