To The SwiftBoat Vets For Truth - Page 4

Carter pardoned all draft dodgers and sent a message that the govt would put Vietnam behind them I dont give a frack what Kerry was doing there - the man was an officer in the Navy and was representing his govt without the permission of his comanding officer or govt. Furthermore, that officer was representing anti-war groups that had an agenda opposed to that of the govts and miilitary's. You can try and justify his treason but those are the facts.

I dont care what McCain thinks of Kerry. I know McCain - do you? What matters is what McCain would think of your comparison to the way he was treated as a POW and the way we are treating Iraqi POWs. The McCain I know would want to knock you out cold for making such a comparison.

Of course McCain and I are not sorry about the way we are treating POWs - since they are treated extremely well. Yes a few were humiliated by some hicks at an Iraqi prison but that was a scandal and those people are being punished. However the worst that happenned to them, which was not just, doesnt come close in comparison to the least that was happenning to our POWs both in Vietnam and Iraq. Our POWs in Iraq are having their heads sliced off slowly.

"But you are one of those who believe that God is on our side, so whatever we do is okay. Hitler also believed this. "

Dont put words in my mouth - I do not believe that and Hitler did not believe that either - Hitler was a pagan cultist that worshiped ancient Arian gods.

"and so is the Bush administration who has taken a surplus and turned it into a defecit"

That's a lie - Clinton destroyed the PROJECTED surplus by refusing to enact republican tax cuts, which caused a collapse in the market and a short recession. You should try learning some facts before you spout your ignorance. I truly do pity you.

"however knowing the truth wont change your opinion of him because your idols can do no wrong, right?"

Hmmm, sounds familiar.

"I wish people like you could experience your own hypocrisy"

Why, so you can continue to never do so?

Why am I not surprised? Cool-aid boy is now defending okcitykid's statements.

So you also equate the torture and murders of American POWs in Vietnam with the treatment of Iraqi POWs?

Holy Shnikes!

"However, you equate the torture and murders of POWs in Vietnam with the 3 meals, freedom to worship, medical supervision and care etc given to Iraqi POWs. I really do pity you."

Boy, by the way you talk I would figure you just came from a cell inspection, how would you rate the food?

Cool-aide boy, is that me, if so I don't get it, besides being juvenile.

The TORTURE and humiliation of Iraqi's firstly cannot be undermined as you did. Secondly is neither random nor isolated, Guantanomo, Brits, what happened to people in Afghanistan.

And when you look at the cases under scrutiny with the Brits (especially the pictures of sexual poses) you find exactly the same techniques and tactics making it even less arbitrary. Just because you don't have access to more than what Fox News tells you does not mean that there isn't more going on. Some day you will figure this out, well, hopefully.

Now I could see some beatings and sexual humiliation as random if done infrequently and fairly isolated, but the other shit they were doing is far more calculated albiet crude.

And how were these people caught again? I'm not too familiar with this aspect. But I know its important.

Are you familiar with the Nazi's hired after WWII. I'm not sure if that was considered a conspiracy or fact by most if even heard about. But I'm pretty sure it would have made some serious waves if broadcast during or after the Nuremburg trials.

The point is that serious information regarding the lagitimacy of the governments claims and our second hand claims based on them is not even made known to us for decades, basically untill you die off in 50-70 years.

The National Security Archive just won a lawsuit with the CIA for more documentation on the Nazi issue just this month I believe, I don't know if its been covered by media or not if someone knows.

So your consistent arrogance regarding the importance of what you don't know and what you think you know seem at least safe enough to call irresponsible. But can also be called all the things you call others posts as well.

So hows the weather out in my hometown, are you originaly from Arizona or what, Texas perhaps, nah, that would probably be in your handle then.

Again you dilute the point and change the subject. He was equating our treatment of POWs to the treatment of our POWs in Vietnam. Any such equation is ridiculous and outrageous - even immoral.

I am not justifying the humiliation imposed upon a few Iraqis prisoners - it was wrong and the people responsible need to be punished. However it was not torture - that word has a specfic meaning and the actions taken do not correspond.

I was born & raised in Dallas, high schooled in Columbus,OH and then moved to Phx for a job as a graphic designer. I was laid off in 2000 and decided it was time to get my degree. The weather here in Glendale is rainy the last few days. In fact weve had far more rain than usual, which Ive enjoyed. Where in AZ r u from?

Torture is not as thinly defined as you might like, but that may just be the opinion me and my dictionary. Besides there have been claims of physical torture abuse by detainees.

The following are excerpts from an investigation by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba (which was ordered by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of Joint Task Force-7. (Complete text of the Taguba report is posted at the MSNBC site.)
In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses

a. Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. Threatening male detainees with rape;

f. Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g. Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

h. Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

(T)he intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a. Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear;

f. Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i. Writing 'I am a Rapest' (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j. Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

m. Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

These findings are amply supported by written confessions provided by several of the suspects, written statements provided by detainees, and witness statements.

m. Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

I was born in Phoenix and have lived in various areas, spent a lot of years up about 100+ miles north in Payson, Pine, and Strawberry, mountainous countryside.

3797 vets signed this letter. An Admiral tops the list, many high ranking officials.

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/files/vcs/attygen.cfm

quote:

---

Letter to the United States Senate
(view all signatures)

Dear Senator:

We, the undersigned military veterans who have served in every U.S. conflict since 1941, and their supporters, write to respectfully submit our opposition to the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States.

We are patriotic citizens who have served our country, and believe the honor and standards of the U.S. military, as well as the unalienable rights established by the founders of this country, must be upheld.

As such, we are duty-bound to share with you our deep concerns regarding the nomination of Mr. Gonzales and the potential impact on our country.

Honor and Standards of the United States Military

As veterans, one of our strongest guiding principles is upholding the honor and standards of the United States military. Our fighting men and women are the best in the world, and a key principle ingrained through our training and long-standing traditions remains respect for the rule of law and the protection and humane treatment of civilians and prisoners. As President George Bush warned the then Iraqi government in March 2003, the United States treats our prisoners humanely, and we expect other countries to do likewise.

This standard is codified by the 1949 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War, and other international standards, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441). Further, it is an indelible part of U.S. military culture, reinforced through training and professional standards.

As White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales was responsible for advising the President on key legal matters, including the application of the Geneva Conventions to prisoners taken during Operation Iraqi Freedom and in the Global War on Terrorism. Mr. Gonzales specifically advised the President, in a January 25, 2002 memo (attached), that in some respects the Geneva Conventions had been rendered "obsolete" and "quaint", and that the exigencies of the war on terror made adherence to these standards undesirable.

In the same memo, Gonzales recommended a specific finding from the President that the Taliban did not actually constitute a government and prisoners were not to be considered prisoners of war, specifically to avoid liability under the U.S. War Crimes Act passed in 1996. Shortly before the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the Taliban were officially and formally recognized by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two key partners in the Administration's war on terror.

Gonzales noted in this memo that "a determination that the GPW does not apply... could undermine U.S. military culture which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat, and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries." Despite this reservation, he recommended proceeding, making the argument that even if the standards were undermined, the military would continue to follow the law because "that is what you have directed them to do."

As veterans, we find this disregard for the standards of high conduct of U.S. military forces disturbing.

This direction was followed by a 50-page Justice Department memo on August 1, 2002, specifically addressing the treatment and possible torture of prisoners in U.S. custody. In a long and disingenuous argument, the Justice Department made the case that torture could only be defined as the most extreme intent to do physical harm to a prisoner, and that any other inhumane treatment was therefore permissible under the law. Gonzales approved this memo and forwarded it on to the President.

Such lengthy, legalistic arguments fail the common sense test. Torture is not an American value, nor is it a value of the American military.

These mixed guidelines resulted in further confusing signals from commanders in the field to our troops. This could have resulted in egregious and criminal abuses of prisoners in Iraq. Unfortunately, though investigations into the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq make it clear that responsibility for the abuses lie at the command level, it has been the junior enlisted personnel involved who have suffered for the failures of their commanders. The highest-ranking individual prosecuted has been a Staff Sergeant.

Arguing to allow the use of torture, or failing to apply the Geneva conventions to prisoners, appears to be a misguided attempt to prevent "tying the hands" of U.S. military personnel in the field. However, the strongest and immediate opposition to the January 2002 memo from Gonzales came from U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who responded to the memo with his own on January 26, 2002 (see attached). Powell, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has never been one to "tie the hands" of our military forces. He correctly notes that by failing to apply the Geneva Conventions to our enemies, we not only fail to take the high ground, but place our own troops at risk.

Powell notes that applying the Geneva Conventions to the conflict "maintains POW status for U.S. forces, reinforces the importance of the Geneva Conventions, and generally supports the U.S. objective of ensuring its forces are accorded protection under the Convention."

Protection of Unalienable American Rights

As military veterans, we swore to protect the Constitution of the United States. Our U.S. Constitution enshrines certain legal standards and protections forming core American values, including the rights of prisoners to challenge their accusers and enjoy legal counsel.

One of the most controversial aspects of the Global War on Terror has been the indefinite detention of United States citizens as enemy combatants without access to counsel or judicial review. The administration has maintained that it may hold such citizens indefinitely if it affirmatively designates a citizen as an enemy combatant, and that such cases are not subject to review by the courts.

Such a stance is a troubling precedent, and violates the principle of separation of powers which is fundamental to our government. It is not clear what role Mr. Gonzales has played in this decision, but these questions should be asked as part of the confirmation process. In particular, we hope you will determine Mr. Gonzales's position on whether a President has the legal authority to deny a citizen the protections afforded by Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Gonzales' record on judicial review is relatively clear, however. As counsel to then Governor George W. Bush, he was responsible for outlining the facts of each death penalty case in Texas. According to an Atlantic Monthly review of these memos (attached), "Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence."

This lack of concern for critical issues around death penalty cases, combined with the hazy status of Gonzales's role in the indefinite detention of United States citizens, raises serious questions about his fitness for the role of Attorney General of the United States. The ability of American citizens to challenge their imprisonment is a core value enshrined in the Constitution. As veterans who swore to protect that Constitution, we are duty-bound to protest infringements upon it.

Conclusion

The Senate confirmation process of Presidential appointees is an important role in ensuring accountability in the functioning of the United States government. We recognize that you take that responsibility very seriously. We ask that you consider these issues in your decision on the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales, and to raise them in the confirmation hearings.

We would also appreciate a written response we intend to share with our membership.

Sincerely,



Ralph Weymouth, Vice Admiral, United States Navy, Retired
Evelyn P. Foote, Brigadier General, United States Army, Retired; President, Alliance for National Defense
Richard Klass, Colonel, United States Air Force, Retired; President, Veterans Institute for Security and Democracy
Michael McCally, MD, Ph.D., President, Physicians for Social Responsibility, former Captain, United States Air Force
Robert K. Musil, Executive Director and CEO, Physicians for Social Responsibility, former Captain, United States Army
Seth R. Pollack, President, Veterans for Common Sense, former Sergeant, United States Army
Charles Sheehan-Miles, Executive Director, Veterans for Common Sense, former Specialist, United States Army
Erik K.Gustafson, Executive Director, Education for Peace in Iraq Center, former Specialist, United States Army



Attachments
Complete list of signatories
January 25, 2002 memo from Alberto Gonzales
January 26, 2002 memo from Colin Powell.
August 1, 2002 memo from the Department of Justice

---

You will notice many of them are war veterans.

quote:

---

Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote
United States Army (Retired)

Dear Members and Supporters of Veterans for Common Sense:

I am writing you today to ask you to join me in opposing the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States, by signing a letter which will be delivered by Veterans for Common Sense to the United States Senate in the coming weeks.

When I served as Commander of the 42d Military Police Group in Germany from July '83 - July '85, I was responsible for executing the group's wartime mission, should the need arise, of collecting and controlling all enemy prisoners of war taken in theatre operations. Inherent in that responsibility was the absolute requirement that the Group, its leaders and its soldiers adhere strictly to the Geneva Convention in safeguarding the rights of American Forces' prisoners of war and in insuring that prisoners were treated humanely and appropriately in all instances.

Sadly, since September 11, 2001, those priorities have been overridden by some people in the administration who believe that in order to fight terrorism, we have to abandon our standards and honor. We have seen an administration work to abandon our international agreements. We have seen an administration twist legal logic in order to redefine torture and try to make it acceptable. And, sadly, we have seen the deaths in custody of prisoners held by U.S. forces.

One of the first responsibilities our forces bear under the Geneva Conventions is the protection of prisoners of war. These rules not only protect enemy prisoners of war, but protect our own troops when they are captured on the battlefield, and provide an international legal framework for punishing those who violate those rules.

The key author of the quasi-legal arguments to define torture and re-classify prisoners of war was White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. Why do we oppose his nomination?

Mr. Gonzales believes that parts of the Geneva Conventions are "obsolete" and "quaint." According to a January 2002 memo to President George Bush, Mr. Gonzales argued, over the objections of Secretary of State Colin Powell, that the United States should not adhere to its requirements under the Geneva conventions because it wasn't practical.

Gonzales approved a Justice Department document which twisted reality by redefining the meaning of the word torture.

Under Gonzales's tenure as White House Counsel, American citizens have been held without trial; without counsel; without the basic Constitutional protections that both the President, and military veterans, swore to defend, in their oaths of office.

According to the news media, Gonzales nomination is expected to sail through the Senate, with only token questioning. We can change that, by making clear our expectation that Gonzales be strongly questioned in his confirmation hearings and that ultimately his candidacy should be rejected.

You can join us, by signing our letter to the U.S. Senate, which will be delivered when confirmation hearings begin to members of the Judiciary Committee, and to the full Senate before his nomination comes up for a vote.

Please join us in telling the Senate that torture is not an American value.

Thank you for your support for our work. Together we can make a difference, and a better future for our country.

Sincerely,

Evelyn P. Foote
Brigadier General, United States Army, Retired.

---

Xris - Myself and these other, over three thousand veterens know a little bit more about what happened in Vietnam and what is currently happening in Iraq. All you know, Xris, is what FOX NEWS tells you, which is only what you want to here, you have chosen to pretent reality away.

When you wake up, maybe then we can talk.

Ranking Judiciary Member Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): 'I Like And Respect Judge Gonzales And Look Forward To Our Committee's Consideration Of His Nomination.' ('Verbatim' Roll Call, 11/15/04)

Judiciary Member Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY): 'I'm Favorably Inclined [To Support Alberto Gonzales].' ('Washington In Brief,' The Washington Post, 12/2/04)

Judiciary Member Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE): 'I Think He's A Pretty Solid Guy.' (David E. Sanger and Eric Lichtblau, 'Bush Quickly Picks Chief Counsel As Nominee for Attorney General,' The New York Times, 11/11/04)

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): 'But Counsel Gonzales, Judge Gonzales, Again I Don't Agree With Him On Everything. We've Had Some Back And Forth On Some Stuff, But He's Very Smart, Very Fair, And Again, He Has The President's Confidence.' (Fox News' 'Hannity And Colmes,' 11/16/04)

Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA), Vice Chairman, Congressional Hispanic Caucus: 'You've Got To Compliment That. At Least They Are Making The Outreach Effort At The National Level.' (Hans Nichols, 'Hispanic Caucus Blasts DNC,' The Hill, 12/15/04)

Rep. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), House Democrat Caucus Chair: 'These Appointments Mean A Lot In The Latino Community ... [A] Hispanic Attorney General - That Means Something. ... These Aren't 'Tokens.' This Is Real.' (Joe Klein, 'The Benetton-Ad Presidency,' Time, 12/27/04)

Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO): 'I Told [Gonzales] I Expected To Support Him.' (Mike Soraghan, 'Salazar Supports Bush On Migrants,' The Denver Post, 11/19/04)
------------------

If you can get a transcript of Liebermans Senate speech where he explains why he will vote to confirm Gonzales then you should read it. Its quite brilliant and the best defense of Gonzales that was offerred through out the hearings. Ive been looking but cant find it. Ill keep looking...

Robert D. Novak:
Continuing decline of Senate reflected in confirmation politics
By ROBERT D. NOVAK

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=50614

SEN. Charles Schumer of New York, intensely ambitious and partisan, was uncharacteristically caught off balance. He had worked so amiably on federal judgeships in his state with Alberto Gonzales as White House counsel that the senator effusively endorsed his nomination as attorney general. Now, weeks later, Schumer was not only criticizing Gonzales but opposing his confirmation.

How did a four-year relationship suddenly sour? There was no revelation about Gonzales causing scales to fall from Schumer's eyes. Instead, the inner circle of Senate Democrats determined that the previously non-controversial Mexican-American from Texas would be the prime target of President Bush's second term nominations. Schumer, caught leaning the wrong way on a party matter, recovered and was one of 35 Democrats (out of 41 present) plus one nominal independent who voted last Thursday against Gonzales.

This is confirmation politics, an especially noxious form of partisanship emerging during the current Bush Presidency. Unlike the parallel Democratic campaign to block confirmation of conservative judges, there is no effort to prevent non-judicial nominees from taking office. Rather, it spotlights negative Bush issues - prisoner abuse for Gonzales - by attacking the failed policy's supposed architect.

The Democrats' course was tipped off Jan. 19 by Sen. Joseph Biden during Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Condoleezza Rice's nomination as secretary of state. Biden, the committee's ranking Democrat, told Rice he would vote for her with 'frustration' and 'reservation' because 'I believe strongly the President is entitled to his Cabinet.' Yet, a week later, he opposed Gonzales in committee.

Actually, Biden has a long record of opposing Republican non-judicial nominees. In the elder George Bush's administration, he voted against John Tower for secretary of defense and Robert Gates for CIA director, as well as several lesser nominees.

Biden's propensity to vote no increased during the second Bush's administration as Senate Democrats, in the minority, used the confirmation process to underline issues. Far from giving the new President the benefit of the doubt, Biden in 2001 voted against John Ashcroft for attorney general, Gale Norton for secretary of the interior, Theodore Olson for solicitor general and John Bolton for under secretary of state.

The good-natured senator from Delaware was no lonely dissenter. At his side were such senior Democrats as Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Patrick Leahy of Vermont (joined by up-and-coming first-termers like Schumer). Sen. Harry Reid, the new minority leader who advocates a less partisan Senate, was a no-voter in every case except support for fellow Westerner Norton at Interior.

Democratic memoranda earlier revealed a coordinated campaign to derail Bush judges, and Senate sources say the party's stance on new Cabinet nominees also is orchestrated. Party leaders decided to use the debate on Rice to rehash Bush's Iraq policy without really opposing her confirmation, but to actually oppose Gonzales while trying to tie him to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

Of the six Democrats who broke party ranks to vote for Gonzales, five were from 'red' states carried by Bush for President. The sixth was from 'blue' Connecticut: Joseph Lieberman, 2000 nominee for vice president and 2004 candidate for the Presidential nomination. Freed of national political ambitions, he can be Joe Lieberman again. In the most closely reasoned speech supporting Gonzales, he demolished the case against him.

Lieberman pointed out that the case was based on a Justice Department memo to Gonzales about illegal combatants. 'I have to ask myself,' Lieberman told the Senate, whether to deny confirmation 'because of a memo written by somebody else.' As for Gonzales's refusal to tell senators his comments to the President on the memo, Lieberman said, 'I respect the right of the counsel of the President to keep private . . . the private counsel he gives to the President.'

When I first covered the Senate 45 years ago, confirmation battles were rare. It was considered a stain on the Senate in 1959 when President Eisenhower's nominee for secretary of commerce was rejected because of one powerful Democratic senator's personal animus. Today, nothing is personal. President Bush's 2001 nominees were attacked because of their opinions and his 2005 nominees because of administration policies. The decline of the Senate continues

okcitykid,

All you know is the propaganda you read from Democrats. When you begin to understand how party politics is played then we can talk...

"All you know is the propaganda you read from Democrats. When you begin to understand how party politics is played then we can talk..."

I take it you are serious, your hypocricy never ceases to amaze.

Of course I am serious and how am I being a hypocrite?

Is that your favorite taunt?

If Democrats Don't Believe In Torture.

If Democrats Don't Believe in Letting Bin Ladin Go Free.

If Democrats Don't Believe In Lying To Congress.

If Democrats Believe In Only Going To War To Defend Our Country.

Then I'm a Democrat. But You're wrong - There are a lot of Republicans who believe in doing the right thing.

For Example:

quote:

---

Republicans Must Not Support Torture

I generally support the 9/11 Commission Bill (which is more formally known as H.R. 10). However, Sections 3032 and 3033 are very disturbing. They make it very easy for the US to move terrorist suspects into the custody of other countries in order to allow such suspects to be tortured in that country.

I strongly believe in the principle of policing your own. I am a Republican and a regular advocate for the Republican Party. You should consider this post a kind of 'toughlove'. As such I have some harsh words for the sponsors of this bill. This portion of the bill is morally, ethically, and politically wrong. It may be that you did not know all of what you were sponsoring (the bill is 300+ pages). But you should know now, and you should take action to change it.

---

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2004/09/republicans_mus.ht
ml
That's not propaganda - that's right from the mouth of a Republican.
You don't think any of those over three thousand signatures were Republicans?

You just want to pretend that the wrong thing is the right thing just like the Germans did.

But instead of looking out the window and claiming that it's not really raining. Why don't you just run out there in the rain and claim it's not raining. Where is your military service Mr. Xris, why aren't you in Iraq, that would truly be supporting Mr. Bush.

You're a back seat driver and you probably don't even have a license.

quote:

---

Of course I am serious and how am I being a hypocrite?

---

As I recall - you are the one who called me a hypocrite, and I believe leftwood just showed you the mirror.

I have no idea wtf you are trying to say. Neither do you, I think.

When did I say there were lots of Republicans that dont believe in doing the right thing?

How am I being a hypocrite?

Can you possibly ATTEMPT a response?