The shutting-Gitmo talk happens every June. Oh, if only Bush could do it like he says he wants to! If only he had the power!
You’re not seriously claiming those circumstances exist, are you? :dubious: You’re not? Good. Then the right exists, okay?
The issue is the imprisonment BEFORE the trial, without judicial oversight, and in fact without the trial, as I’m sure you MUST know after all these years. Puh-leeze. :rolleyes:
IOW, justice. You might have heard of it. The purpose for which the tool called “law” was created, ya know? The name of the department which the AG heads, for that matter? The reason the Supremes have the power to review and interpret laws, and rule upon their constitutionality? Your adamant refusal to accept the checks and balances system is quite far out on the fringe.
Of the myriad flaws in this approach of yours, I highlight now just this one: you’ve admitted that you have no interest in weighing accusations against Gonzales with any kind of fairness. In your court, he’s guilty, period, regardless of his actual, technical “guilt” on a given issue. He’s denied justice to others; therefore, we may levy any charge against him with no fear you will contradict it.
Given that your mind is made up on this point – why are you participating in a debate on the subject?
Suuuure it was the issue.
Probably E-Sabbath just forgot to type the word “pre” in front of his uses of “trial” in that quote, eh?
That blurb over on Kos was just laughable. They took quotes out of context and made up a story. The item from June ‘06 was a parenthetical statement* in a freakin’ editorial and the Jun '05 item was a quote from Bush saying he wished he could close the facility, but that he wasn’t going to.
Now, I don’t know how serious this discussion is at present, but that analysis proves absolutely nothing.
*technically it was between two dashes, but that’s the same grammatical device
Nice bluff! Like many Texans, I was weaned on a poker chip, so I’ve seen my share of bluffs. That’s a hum-dinger, and I’d be remiss not to honor it as such.
Is it from tender regard for my feelings, that you refrain from the entire crushing litany of my failings? I hasten to advise that you not strain your charity so, on my behalf. I am not delicate. You got it, bring it. You ain’t got it.
What dreadful consequence does Mr. Gonzalez face? In what court is he on trial, in what regard am I obligated to treat the matter with utter impartiality (which, I assume, you offer yourself as paragon and example…)? I am not on a jury (which would, admittedly, raise the bar drasticly), I am not obliged to a standard of innocent until proven guilty, I am entirely at liberty to form my opinions given the facts and the history at hand.
The victims of Gonzalez Industries, a wholly owned subsidiary of BushCo, are suffering in ways Mr. Gonzalez is most unlikely to become directly familiar with. They are they, he is he, and it his thumb on the scales of Justice, not theirs. Mr Gonzalez’ troubles are trivial in comparison.
Though, I suppose, his chances of sitting with Alito and Scalia are diminished. Worth cracking open a bottle of champagne right there!
Exactly the same dreadful consequences you suffer from my pointing out the traits you and he share in common, of course.
I mean, c’mon, I’m not claiming you’re the ruler over life and death. Backing into this position isn’t helpful, though. If you’re gonna discuss ethics, you gotta do it with some respect for the form: when you condemn someone for acting on the same attitude you appear to hold, it’s a little weird, and I hope you’ll excuse me for pointing out the weirdness.
Daniel
You lost me, Dan’l. What material facts in the matter are dependent on my abundant character flaws?
Bricker, you silly person, if the events leading up to a trial are not legitimate, no trial is legitimate.
I’m sorry, when I first posted, I wasn’t considering the possible ramifications of keeping people in jail indefinitely without charging them.
It’s a reminder that this topic has been raised before, over years, but only sporadically, and only in response to criticism. It’s a reminder that you’re mistaken to take it seriously this time, too.
But you already knew that before realizing your only available response was mere snark, didn’t you?
As you’ve been told before, once again you ain’t got nothin’. Nor, once again, can you make yourself admit it in public. First Rule of Shovels, Counselor.
It would help your cause immensely if you could also focus attention on fairness to the prisoners we’re holding, conveniently, in what can technically be described as “not US territory”, even though it is entirely under US control. Gonzales hasn’t been held in a cage for years, beyond the reach of the justice system, is he? Come on now. :dubious:
I remind you once again about the concept, obviously alien or at least repugnant to you, of the *spirit * of the law. Of justice. The reason the law exists.
I guess we have to remember that lawyers are not seeking justice. They are seeking a verdict in favor of their client.
However, prosecutors and the Attorney General are supposed to do everything possible before the trial to make sure that the case against the accused is legitimate.
My response was a snark? Hah!
There is a good reason for Bush to start dismantling some of his extra-constitutional activities now that the Dems are in power. Most people probably didn’t notice, but he opted not to renew the NSA wiretapping effort back in January, and it’s been pretty clear that Gates wants to shut down Gitmo.
None–I don’t follow what you’re getting at.
Daniel