Salty

iTrader: (14)

What do you make of this?


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

dub2w

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

deyes

"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.

subaruguru

Ashcroft is already gone

Salty

iTrader: (14)

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.

dub2w

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

Salty

iTrader: (14)

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...

psoper

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He was the man that advised the White House that the president's orders, as commander-in-chief, superseded all other law, specifically our own war crimes act, and therefore anybody who committed a war crime in the belief that he was following orders would have a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

Salty

iTrader: (14)

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.

psoper

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

SilverScoober02

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.

dub2w

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

bassplayrr

iTrader: (9)

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

-Chris

Salty

iTrader: (14)

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...

psoper

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?