What do you make of this?


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041115/D86CD53G0.html


WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Colin Powell and three other Cabinet members submitted their resignations, a senior administration official said Monday, as the shake-up of President Bush's second-term team escalated.

Besides Powell, who had argued Bush's case for ousting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein before a skeptical U.N. Security Council in February 2003, others whose resignations were confirmed Monday included Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, Education Secretary Rod Paige and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham.

The departures of Attorney General John Ashcroft and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans had been announced last week. The resignations announced Monday bring to six - out of 15 - the number of Cabinet members to decide so far to leave.

sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na, hey hey hey, goodbye

Powell is smart to get out. Ashcroft is a loon that Bush could do without

"the time has come for me to step down as secretary of state and return to private life,"

Big loss of leadership in this country in my opinion. I'm sure private life looks welcoming after the election though.

sha-na-na-na, sha-na-na-na, hey hey hey, goodbye

Powell is smart to get out. Ashcroft is a loon that Bush could do without

Ashcroft is already gone

I can honestly see Powell "returning to private life" because the man has done enough for 5 lives. Maybe he's taking a breather for the next few years before running in 2008 with someone as a VP? He'd probably do well as president but the Republican party would never nominate him for that slot. To be honest I believe Bush is far too conservative for Powell and there may have been some tension in the oval office. **** happens...

As for the other members it's really too hard to say... maybe something happened between them and Bush on a personal level -or- maybe they're just tired and want a break? Too hard to say if you ask me.

I wonder what kind of fall-out Bush and Co will experience with the uber-conservative evangelical Ashcroft out of the picture?

I wonder what kind of fall-out Bush and Co will experience with the uber-conservative evangelical Ashcroft out of the picture?


What do you mean? A lot of conservatives thought getting rid of Ashcroft was a good idea. It really makes no difference what anyone thinks at this point...

Ashcroft is already gone

Yeah, JA's gone, and boy am I excited about his replacement!

Alberto Gonzales is the man who advised the White House that they should build a defense in advance against someday being charged with war crimes.

He advised that we should declare the Geneva conventions as inapplicable, so as to be free to commit actions that would otherwise be considered war crimes.

He was the man that advised the White House that the president's orders, as commander-in-chief, superseded all other law, specifically our own war crimes act, and therefore anybody who committed a war crime in the belief that he was following orders would have a valid defense.

Yeah, JA's gone, and boy am I excited about his replacement!

Alberto Gonzales is the man who advised the White House that they should build a defense in advance against someday being charged with war crimes.

He advised that we should declare the Geneva conventions as inapplicable, so as to be free to commit actions that would otherwise be considered war crimes.

He was the man that advised the White House that the president's orders, as commander-in-chief, superseded all other law, specifically our own war crimes act, and therefore anybody who committed a war crime in the belief that he was following orders would have a valid defense.

Yeah....

Although I don't believe in inhumane war crimes, many criteria involving the Geneva Conventions aren't effective in the WOT. If we were allowed to do half the things the Geneva Conventions allows us to do then I honestly believe we would have had UBL in custody immediately after Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan.

Yeah....

Although I don't believe in inhumane war crimes...

OK we'll just stick to humane war crimes, after all- torturing detainees has given us such great intelligence!

What do you make of this?

Everyone knew Powell was gone...At least I thought they did. He was the only voice of reason when everyone else in the administration *cough*cheney*cough* was in the rush to attack Iraq.

It is really a sad day because now there isn't anyone on the cabinet now that really appeals to a moderate like myself. I just wish Rumsfeld would have left. I think Abraham was sick of not getting Bush's energy initiatives through congress, and he was just worn out.

Yeah, JA's gone, and boy am I excited about his replacement!

Alberto Gonzales is the man who advised the White House that they should build a defense in advance against someday being charged with war crimes.

He advised that we should declare the Geneva conventions as inapplicable, so as to be free to commit actions that would otherwise be considered war crimes.

He was the man that advised the White House that the president's orders, as commander-in-chief, superseded all other law, specifically our own war crimes act, and therefore anybody who committed a war crime in the belief that he was following orders would have a valid defense.

But he's a Latino, fitting in well with Bush's all-colors-of-the-rainbow Cabinmet filling prerequisites

I'm a little scared to know that one of the very few voices of reason in the bush regime is leaving. :(

-Chris

OK we'll just stick to humane war crimes, after all- torturing detainees has given us such great intelligence!

What would you classify as a war crime, psoper? Be honest...

You do realize that there's some unnecessary laws and rules in the UCMJ and Geneva Conventions, right?

For example, Lt. Col. West of the 4th ID faced a possible courts marital under UCMJ last year for scaring answers out of a Iraqi POW for intelligence that was crucial to his protection and the safety of his men. He threatened the detainee's life and fired a pistol over the POW's shoulder in order to gain priority intelligence that was crucial for a possible offensive on his own American troops. Do you think this was justified in the ends?

BTW Lt. Col West had the criminal charges dropped and received administrative punishment which ruined his potential career...

What would you classify as a war crime, psoper? Be honest.....

Far be it from my range of expertise to "define war crimes"; I just rely on the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950;

more specifically;

Principle Vl
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
Crimes against peace:
Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.

But Alberto says W is above all law, domestic and international law, so who really cares what anyone thinks is a war crime?

Far be it from my range of expertise to "define war crimes"; I just rely on the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950;

more specifically;

Principle Vl
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
Crimes against peace:
Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.

But Alberto says W is above all law, domestic and international law, so who really cares what anyone thinks is a war crime?

So that's it? It's just black & white then?

You don't have anything personal to add about mission effectiveness and how it pertains to petty offenses as defined in UCMJ/Geneva war crimes?

Let me ask you this... If you were in Lt Col. West's shoes how would you have handled the particular situation he faced? Would you a) Disregard the immediate threat after considering possible repercussions of war crimes -and- not demand priority intelligence which could save friendly lives, including your own or; b) Do the exact same thing Lt. Col West did to get the intelligence he needed during unconventional circumstances via illegal action?

To be quite frank, I wouldn't let myself get into Lt Col West's shoes.

Being a pawn in an illegal war is not a situation I would knowingly volunteer to place myself in.

And how do you know that the "priority intelligence" he gathered by shooting over heads actually meant anything? Its his word against others, and apparently those that served with him felt it was inappropriate enough that they raised it to command.

The fact that criminal charges were dropped, yet administrative discipline was still rendered shows that his commanders also felt his actions were inappropriate, even if they felt they did not have a criminal case against him.

Another likely scenario is that they had plenty of evidence to convict, but did not want to set the precedent, since after all Councellor Rodriguez wrote his opinion that W is above all this legal crap, and anyone following his orders is thereby exhonerated.


But none of it would have happened if W hadn't launched the illegal invasion in the first place.

To be quite frank, I wouldn't let myself get into Lt Col West's shoes.

What a bull**** answer...



Being a pawn in an illegal war is not a situation I would knowingly volunteer to place myself in.



And how do you know that the "priority intelligence" he gathered by shooting over heads actually meant anything?

The "priority intelligence" meant something because of the fact criminal charges were dropped. If the allegations toward Lt. Col. West turned out to be warranted then he would have been made an example of with a massive dog and pony show. The military has a strong reputation to withhold it's zero tolerance policy so there's no questions later.



Its his word against others, and apparently those that served with him felt it was inappropriate enough that they raised it to command.

Haha nice try... it's the Executive Officer's (XO 2nd in command) job to report anything of this nature or else the responsibility falls onto his shoulders. Haven’t you ever watched Crimson Tide with Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington? :rolleyes:

EDIT: And just so there's no confusion a Lt. Col (Battalion Commander) has been an XO 2 times in his/her career. West knows how the cookie crumbles



The fact that criminal charges were dropped, yet administrative discipline was still rendered shows that his commanders also felt his actions were inappropriate, even if they felt they did not have a criminal case against him.

Actually, it usually means the exact opposite considering the military's zero policy on many issues, especially those of war crime allegations. If Lt. Col. West hadn't been given a slap on the wrist then people, such as yourself, would have whined till the end of time.



Another likely scenario is that they had plenty of evidence to convict, but did not want to set the precedent, since after all Councellor Rodriguez wrote his opinion that W is above all this legal crap, and anyone following his orders is thereby exhonerated.

Set the precedent!? Like this type of situation had never been addressed in past American wars? LMFAO! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/sierra11b/Emoticons/lol.gif

Yeah, JA's gone, and boy am I excited about his replacement!

Alberto Gonzales is the man who advised the White House that they should build a defense in advance against someday being charged with war crimes.

He advised that we should declare the Geneva conventions as inapplicable, so as to be free to commit actions that would otherwise be considered war crimes.

He was the man that advised the White House that the president's orders, as commander-in-chief, superseded all other law, specifically our own war crimes act, and therefore anybody who committed a war crime in the belief that he was following orders would have a valid defense.

He was White house counsel. That's what lawyers do; they protect their clients using the best legal arguments they can muster. The idea that Alberto Gonzales had any hand at all in coming up with the war policy is absurd. Gonzales is not a military strategist or a politician. He is a LAWYER. Bush comes to him, and says "I'm going to do this this and this. Now make a legal defense for me."

That's how lawyers work. It's asinine to assume he supports torture based on his legal work.

Set the precedent!? Like this type of situation had never been addressed in past American wars? LMFAO! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/sierra11b/Emoticons/lol.gif

Salty has it dead on here. I think Psoper's problem is that he thinks based on reading a one page piece of the international conventions on torture and war crimes, that he therefore understands everything about how to apply them.

Spend some more time on google, Psoper.

Gee, its great to know that you guys know me so well you totally understand my thinking and of course you know how little I've studied international law.

I'll be getting back to google now.....

Powell is 67! Man, his biological clock is telling him he needs to fish! :p

Gee, its great to know that you guys know me so well you totally understand my thinking and of course you know how little I've studied international law.

I'll be getting back to google now.....

Ain't it grand? :)


Seriously though, it's not some psychic power that says you don't know what you're talking about...it's looking at what you posted that tells me that.

Well, for your part- you have yet to make one coherent argument disproving any point I've ever brought up, so I don't give you much credibility either.

Well, for your part- you have yet to make one coherent argument disproving any point I've ever brought up, so I don't give you much credibility either.

What was incoherent about my post re: Gonzales's job in the whitehouse?


And, I can't really say much about your "legal theory" because it doesn't exist. Law either works a certain way or it doesn't. I can't really prove that you're wrong except to say "no, that's not quite so simple."

My point was that he made these assertions, which taken prima facia are counter to the covenants and principles of international law.

Your counter was to give excuses, essentially "he's a lawyer, he was just doing his job"

I would state that a laywer that makes administration legal position statements which run counter to international law isn't a very good laywer.

I think we should have a good lawyer as Attorney General.

Do you at least have a decent rebuttal for my last post regarding Lt. Col. West?

My point was that he made these assertions which taken prima facia are counter to the covenants and principles of international law.

Your counter was to give excuses, essentially "he's a lawyer, he was just doing his job"

I would state that a laywer that makes position statements counter to international law isn't a very good laywer.

I think we should have a good lawyer as Attorney General.

Yeah, that was my point. A lawyer's job is to WORK FOR HIS CLIENT. If Bush says "we're doing this, now defend us", that's what you do. You don't set policy as whitehouse counsel. You act just like anyone else's lawyer; you give advice, and do the best you can with what your client gives you.

Now, on top of all that, he actually made a LEGAL argument for the bush policy, so the argument wasn't "we should break the law", it was "we can do this legally." Since you're obviously not even google certified to practice law, I fail to see how you can evaluate the legal quality of the work Gonzales did.

I might as well be arguing with a 2 by 4.

you guys believe all is well in your little army-man world, we'll just kill all the terrists and live happily ever after.

fine, have it your way.

Yeah, that was my point. A lawyer's job is to WORK FOR HIS CLIENT. If Bush says "we're doing this, now defend us", that's what you do. You don't set policy as whitehouse counsel. You act just like anyone else's lawyer; you give advice, and do the best you can with what your client gives you.

OK just one more point-

a good lawyer will tell you, "no- that's pretty f-ed up you shouldn't do that" when his client tells him he plans to do something illegal.

A kiss-ass syncophant lawyer will write up a position statement based on utter nonsense in an attempt to defend a clients wrongful action.

I still think we'd be better off with a good lawyer as Attorney General.

OK just one more point-

a good lawyer will tell you, "no- that's pretty f-ed up you shouldn't do that" when his client tells him he plans to do something illegal.

A kiss-ass syncophant lawyer will write up a position statement based on utter nonsense in an attempt to defend a clients wrongful action.

I still think we'd be better off with a good lawyer as Attorney General.

And a really good lawyer writes out the best legal strategy for you to be able to do what you want to/need to do.

An internet-geocities-conspiracy nut lawyer looks at cnn releases on Iraq, and then gives you a bogus "legal" opinion of the situation.

I might as well be arguing with a 2 by 4.

you guys believe all is well in your little army-man world, we'll just kill all the terrists and live happily ever after.

fine, have it your way.


It's not based on the fact we can or cannot disprove your argument. It's the fact that most of your arguments are unconventional and don't take the path of least resistance if you catch my drift.

It's one thing to disprove someone's argument with facts which happens on occasion in Teh Politics forum. It's another thing to present a somewhat believable argument to the discussion and I believe you’ve failed to do this on numerous occasions. I like to think of your reasoning in the same respect as being dealt a royal flush... sure it's possible but how many times have you seen it happen?

It's another thing to present a somewhat believable argument to the discussion and I believe you’ve failed to do this on numerous occasions.

First off, I have no idea what this means. (But trying to figure it out is a fun mental challenge!)

Second, psoper's point is valid. You try to discredit him because it is an unlikely occurence, but that is a fallacious form of reasoning.

And Guru, you are obviously a smart man. However, wading through your pompousness makes my feet hurt

First off, I have no idea what this means. (But trying to figure it out is a fun mental challenge!)

How can this be true when you managed to explain it's meaning one sentence later?

You try to discredit him because it is an unlikely occurence

Do you at least have a decent rebuttal for my last post regarding Lt. Col. West?

*hint* see post 18 *hint*

"To present a somewhat believable argument to the discussion".... ???

what is that? I didnt explain anything cause I dont know what you are trying to say. I guess I might be able to break this down more effectively if I say it out loud in a Don King voice

:says it out loud as Don King but is still confused:

Sorry, I don't know how I can present it any clearer than post #32