Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans

Haven't you noticed how rarely Schraf, Holmes, and I - easily the most prominently vocal leftists here, though I mean no disrespect to anybody I haven't mentioned - agree?We're always arguing about what Democratic politicans should do. Right now, for example, Holmes thinks that Dean is a liability; I think that he should keep on as he's been doing. I've supported some Republican policies in the past; Schraf would probably stab me with a meat cleaver if she found out I voted for Bush in 2000. (oops.)On the other hand, you and Monk and Tal invariably chime in with the same "you Democrats are Bush-haters; get over the election; Bush has a huge mandate and it's time for you to shut it" nonsense. You three are indistinguishable. It's pretty clear where the echo chamber is around here; it's also pretty clear that not a one of you has the balls to try to defend your own party without the other two as backup.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-19-2005 02:51 PM

This is what we're talking about, how your side doesn't take this discussion seriously. Dean's not running in 08. As DNC chair there's no possibility that he could mount a campaign.So why would you even mention voting for Dean? Why would you expect Schraf to expect you to do something that would be impossible for you to do?

Money isn't speech. Jesus, where have you been? We've been doing that for years now. Don't you remember the thousands of Muslim Americans "detained" without charge or suspicion in the days following 9/11?Did you notice that we haven't stopped doing that, yet?

Determined to avoid any admission that USA PATRIOT and other laws are a threat to our freedoms, I see.

Tu quoque is still a fallacy, and never justification for bad behavior. In fact, they are POW's. Irregular armies are afforded protections under the Geneva Conventions. (I suggest you read them sometime.)Moreover, it takes a full military tribunal to establish if a given combatant is a legal one or not; until that determination, they are indeed entitled to the full protections offered to POW's under the Geneva Convention.So, indeed, it's a vast contravention of internation law - treaties to which we are signatories and to which we are obligated, regardless of the behavior of the other side.After all, criminals break laws all the time, but that doesn't mean the cops get to, right? Your reasoning is idiotic, ill-informed, and genuinely traitorous and a danger to our troops.

Ok, some foreign soldiers are occupying your nation. They fire their muskets in lines in uniforms dyed bright red. Their weapons are clumsy and inaccurate but have the ability to fix bayonets for close combat.You have far fewer soldiers with greatly inferior training, but you have more accurate rifles and better knowledge of the terrain. What do you do? I bet the Recoats would have called it TERRORISM!

Unless they were armed military contractors.Fun fact - armed military contractors - or "mercenaries" as we used to call them - are entitled to no more protections under the Geneva Conventions than the insurgents are. They're both classified as "irregular armies."

Look, no offense, but that's stupid. Either he said something, or he didn't. As it happens his comments are a matter of the public record, so there's absolutely no ambiguity about what he said and didn't say.

You read the wrong document. The document you need to read is the Fourth Geneva Convention (relative to the protection of civilian persons in a time of war).

quote:

---

Article 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

​

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

​

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

---

While it's true that most of our detainees do not qualify for prisoner of war status, asserting that they enjoy no legal protections whatsoever, and that we have open legal license to treat them inhumanely, might satisfy your bloodlust, but it has no basis in international law.

I don't see him disagreeing with that position.On the other hand if you want to get your panties in a twist about people saying things, I've got two more posts' worth of stupid Republicans for you to respond to in the Howard Dean thread. Remember when you claimed there'd be all this outrage all over the place if a Republican called Democrats Nazis? I'm still waiting for you to show me the outrage.

Over the years? Most of this stuff is pretty recent. Rove's comments aren't 2 days old. And you might remember that that wasn't the point. You might remember that you asserted that we'd hear the same outrage if Republicans said bad things, and I pointed out that since they had said them, and there hadn't been any outrage, your assertion was pretty much false.So, I guess I cam presume that you've retreated from that assertion, because it's obvious that you refuse to defend it. Durbin's comments were not inflammatory. Dean holds no public office. Hey, here's a third alternative. Durbin's comments were dead-on right. Hanging people from hooks and beating them to death? That is something you'd expect from Stalin's Russia, not the Land of the Free.You know who I'd like an apology from? The people that are torturing people to death, and the people that ordered it. Not from the guy that had the balls to bring it to our attention.

Circular reasoning. If you want to prove that then you have to prove that Durbin's comments are inflammatory.Now, what exactly is inflammatory about asserting that, when guards hang a man by his arms and beat him until he dies, that would be more in place in Pol Pot's Cambodia than in the United States of America? Seems perfectly true to me.

Great. That's one out of what, twelve idiotic Republican assertions? And I tell you what - I haven't seen any press on Rove's remarks. But I did see plenty in the news about Durbin's non-statements. Where's the Republican outrage at Rove's remarks? Oh, wait, there is none. The White House is standing up for the guy. On the other hand, Democrats lined up to stab Durbin in the back for saying something completely true. On the other hand, I guess Rove gets to rewrite history and nobody in his party - including you - is allowed to disagree.We haven't heard anything close to the same level of outrage at Rove's remarks. So, no, you haven't defended your assertion.

Incorrect. The report was verified by the FBI.

No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI.121504.5053.pdfOfficial FBI report delivered by the FBI to the ACLU persuant to a FOIA request.