Third Party & Independents: Archives

What a sad state this country has come to when someone has to apologize for trying to stand up for basic decency. It’s as if Joseph Welch ended up apologizing for giving aid and comfort to the Communists and slandering a fine man like Joe McCarthy.

In spite of being a right wing conservative I do not think that Durbin’s comments were anything more than frustration over a very sensitive issue and his emotions got the best of him.

That said, am I missing the connection between Durbin’s indescretion and the article? It seems that the article once again focuses on the mistakes made in the unfinished war effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

It seems we are once again launching into an argument of administration “lies” when the reality is we should be exploring “exit” or “war ending” strategies.

VEM,

If that all Durbin stated in his “I’m sorry” speach, few will forgive him or the Dem. leadership that supported his statements before(like Reid).
He’s sorry if some people thought his statement was over the top?, or if he offended some of the troups? That wont cut it!
The Dem.’s get to enter the 2006 election cycle dragging that millstone.

i have often wonder why no news station covers the war in afganastan

Steve—

Durbin was just a side note.

Perhaps if the Administration hadn’t lied we would not need to be exploring ‘exit or ‘war ending’ strategies.’

Is the Taliban coming back after having regrouped, refinanced, and gained new recruits from the ranks of those Muslims who now see America as a defiler of their sacred text?

I hope not. If they are, it’s the fault of the people who made the Koran story up. That wasn’t Bush’s lie…

Does anyone with a rational functioning mind, the ability to use deductive reasoning and foresight, really believe that the ongoing debate surrounding our little Cuban holiday spot is doing no harm to America in the minds of those who need very little reason to do us harm?

Yes, the Gitmo debate doing harm. Of course, that is also the fault of the people who are making it up and throwing the word “torture” around despite the lack of any credible evidence. The real question is: does anyone with “a rational functioning mind” believe using made up allegations of torture for their own political purposes worth making us look bad?

It’s not only bush who uses “lies, half-truths, and just plain preposterous rhetoric.” What I’m sick of is the “leaks” and “unnamed sources” and “officials who speak on condition of anonymity.” Any story that contains such phrases should not be taken as fact, I don’t care which side it’s coming from.
Even if something does happen to be true, people who leak classified government information are criminals. A truly objective reporter (a rare bread these days) wouldn’t use information from such people. But in today’s news media, sensationalism reigns supreme (that goes for both sides as well).

The Traveler

“What I’m sick of is the “leaks” and “unnamed sources” and “officials who speak on condition of anonymity”
“Even if something does happen to be true, people who leak classified government information are criminals. A truly objective reporter (a rare bread these days) wouldn’t use information from such people.”

If reporters couldn’t use anomysous and unnamed sources then watergate scandal would never have been uncoveredand nixon impeached.

Voice,
I didn’t say they couldn’t, I said they shouldn’t. Well, actually I implied it.
Stories based solely on anonymous sources have no credibility.
Nixon wasn’t impeached, btw.

VEM,

Thank you for letting me know that Durbin was a side note.

TheTravler,

my mistake on nixon, he resigned before he was able to be impeached. my point though was that unnamed sources are a vital resource for the press to be able to effectively cover certain stories.

TheTravler,

my mistake on nixon, he resigned before he was able to be impeached. my point though was that unnamed sources are a vital resource for the press to be able to effectively cover certain stories.

i don’t know why that last comment appears twice

The parallels to the early 70’s are quite interesting if you think about. The anti-war crowd, the charges of corruption against a Republican administration, the enemy’s use of both to further their own aims…..

Traveler—

Are you saying that the FBI report that Durbin based his remark on is not accurate, is made up?

TheTraveler:

The Koran Story came from a Source who later changed his mind. Newsweek did not invent it. Arguing about the Koran Incident is like debating whether a badly beaten man was kicked in the balls while he was being beaten. There is no question that torture occured in Gitmo and focusing on the Koran is just a distraction from the bigger crime.

my point though was that unnamed sources are a vital resource for the press to be able to effectively cover certain stories.

A vital resource, maybe. But they must not be the only source, as in so many stories today. If a reporter can�t back up his story, it is our responsibility not to believe it. The facts have to come from somewhere.
It�s unfortunate that so many people believe anything they hear these days whether it�s credible or not. Take the Gitmo thing. Because a few people threw the word around for political purposes, many now believe there is torture going on there despite the lack of any evidence.

Article from WaPo about the “Nazi rule” and various politicians, many of them Republicans, who violated it in recent years. Some of the other violators make Durbin look like a subtle historical thinker.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101753.html

Well Aldous, you�re always good for a laugh…

The Koran Story came from a Source who later changed his mind. Newsweek did not invent it.

Yeah, I tend to change my mind when I�m caught in a lie too. I didn�t say anything about Newsweek. A made up story is a made up story no matter who comes up with it.

There is no question that torture occured in Gitmo and focusing on the Koran is just a distraction from the bigger crime.

No question? Why, because you of all people say so? Earlier in the year you were just positive that we were going invade Iran in June. You mentioned it at every opportunity. You may have noticed I never argued the point, because frankly, I don�t know when or even if we are going to invade Iran. Let�s just say, you have eight days before what�s left of your credibility goes out the window as well. And here I thought you were an anonymous government insider who was illegally giving away our invasion plans in advance. I�m disappointed. ;-)

Dude—

The Republicans must have a school dedicated to the art of hypocrisy, they practice it so well…

TheTraveler:

Not my fault Iraqi Insurgents are tearing Iraq apart against the best efforts of the US. In any case, we still have time for a War. George still has 3 more years to wreck the planet.

TheTraveler:

The International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the FBI, 200+ ex-prisoners now released, etc.

I supposed you want the naked pyramid in video?

TheTravler

I don’t think there really is any debate on whether torture occured at gitmo. I believe the controversy is about whether gitmo should be closed or not and whether the gitmo system is really nesseary.

The International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International

More people making unsubstantiated, over the top statements. Gulag, indeed.

the FBI

The FBI is investigating Gitmo? Please post the link, I�d like to read that story. If it�s from another �anonymous official,� don�t bother.

200+ ex-prisoners now released, etc.

You�ve spoken to them? All of them? You must be higher up in the administration than I thought! In any case, they are the last people on the entire planet that I would trust.

I supposed you want the naked pyramid in video?

Did they make one at Gitmo? Maybe you should �leak� it to the media, then I�ll believe you.

Voice,
I believe the controversy is about whether gitmo should be closed or not and whether the gitmo system is really nesseary.

Yes, this is why we should put a stop to this over the top torture nonsense. You post a legitimate question that I don�t have an answer to. Unfortunately, this is WatchBlog and we�d rather discuss conspiracy theories about torture. ;-)

The Travler

When i said”I don’t think there really is any debate on whether torture occured at gitmo. I believe the controversy is about whether gitmo should be closed or not and whether the gitmo system is really nesseary”

I meant that torture did occur and there was no real debate on that. Not that torture didn’t occur. Looking back on my post i should have made myself clearer.

Here is a site dedicated to the prisoners at Gitmo (they have the other locations too). You can follow the links to the unclassified transcripts of the Tribunals for many of them.

Unfortunately, the CSRT for Sami al-Hajj isn’t in there.

I have to agree with the Traveller on this one. It appears that in an effort to sell advertising and magazines, that many media sources are sensationalizing stories, and even admitting that their sources may be sketchy, while still publishing them.

Mr. Martin’s column claims, or at least implies, that America is breaking the law regarding Guantanamo Bay. Much is being spouted in the media about breaking the Geneva convention with regards to these prisoners of war. The problem is that they are not prisoners of war. Study up on the Third Geneva Convention and specifically about what a POW really is, and it becomes clear that the Gitmo detainees are not “legal combatants” as defined by the Geneva Convention.

It also references lies by the Bush Administration, but does not go on and state what those specific lies were, or provide any evidence to support such claims. Lies are a part of politics, and I wouldn’t argue that we’ve been lied to. What I’d like to have seen was a specific reference to support the columns arguments, instead of just an emotionaly charged statement.

I do agree with Mr. Martin on one point, though. We were not (are not) finished in Afghanistan, and shouldn’t have switched our focus so quickly.

John—

It is frightening that so many cannot, or will not see what is so glaringly obvious about the situation in Gitmo. Would you or any of use want ourselves or our loved ones interned there, indefinably, without being charged and without any possibly of being released? Is this justice; is it the American way; is this the example we want to set for our own society and the rest of the world? And before you answer, recite the words to the Declaration of Independence to yourself and remember this nation was founded on a bedrock of resistance to tyranny and injustice.

We are in essence breaking God’s Laws and yet we claim to be a nation of faith, and we are breaking International Law and our own law; make no mistake, these men were tortured. Denying it will not make it less so…

If they are on the battle field and captured they are one of 3 things. Enemy soldiers, Spies or noncombatants.

Geneva convention:

Noncombatants - should be released

Enemy soldiers - can be held indefinately without being charged, until the conflict (war)is over.

Spies - may be interrogated and summarily excuted on the battlefield.

Since all we have is enemy soldiers and spies I fully support the Geneva Convention punishments as described by James.

James, is there anything in the Geneva Convention that details who makes the decision on the classification of these “on the battlefield” people?

If a guy who is bending down for another mortar shell or rocket is captured and says he was praying, do we release him on his own recognizance?

Another great article, V. Edward., as usual.

“It seems we are once again launching into an argument of administration “lies” when the reality is we should be exploring “exit” or “war ending” strategies.”

The president isn’t interested in any such thing. As to the administrations lies, it isn’t just the Downing Street Memos, there are so many other things that are coming out that may further inform and back up the assertion that they did indeed LIE us into this war — and even worse, aside from Richard Clarke’s and Paul O’Neill’s assertions, yet more on the Neocon’s planning for the war, almost directly after gaining power:
“Secret” Air Base for Iraq War started prior 9-11

Traveler:
“Earlier in the year you were just positive that we were going invade Iran in June.”

I guess you consider a former US marine who was the chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq a total idiot, but some of us don’t, especially in light of the fact that he was so entirely spot-on about everything when it came to Iraq:
The US war with Iran has already begun

Ritter? Adrienne, it was Ritter who came up with the theory that we were going to attack Iran this month in the first place. So no, I don�t trust him.

The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has “signed off” on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005.

I don�t consider him an idiot, but I don�t trust him on this any more than I do Aldous. In a few more days, he will be proved wrong.

By the way Adrienne, if on the off chance Bush does attack Iran without approval from (or even mentioning it to) Congress, I�ll be standing with you when you call for his impeachment!

Traveler:
“Ritter? Adrienne, it was Ritter who came up with the theory that we were going to attack Iran this month in the first place. So no, I don�t trust him.”

Raw Story�s Larisa Alexandrovna: Scott, first let me thank you for taking the time to speak with me. I want to get right to the meat of things by asking you about a comment you reportedly made in February of this year in your joint appearance with journalist Dahr Jamail in Washington state, where you were quoted as saying that George W. Bush had signed off on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005.

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter: No. Someone else wrote that I had said that.

Raw Story: So it is not correct?

Ritter: It is not wildly incorrect, but it is taken totally out of context. The emphasis is placed on the wrong things. What I said was that the President, in October of 2004, had been briefed by the Pentagon. In [the Pentagon’s] preparation to have in place by June 2005 a viable military option. This was in response to instructions by the President that the US must be prepared to implement the next phase of its Iran policy or strategy; the first phase of course being the pursuit of the so called diplomatic option-in other words allowing the European Union to carry out its outreach program.

Raw Story: So Secretary of State’s Condoleezza Rice’s comments regarding not taking any options off the table would echo that sentiment, it seems.

Ritter [Rice] had just come back from Europe, and this is what I was talking about during that speaking engagement, [Rice] said that military plans were not on the table at this time. I said that she was a liar; either she is being really cute or she is lying. Military plans are on the table and the President has signed off on those plans. That does not mean we are going to bomb, but to sit here and pretend that we have fully embraced the diplomatic option or have not considered military plans is wrong. I reminded everyone of the situation in the fall of 2002 where the same Condoleezza Rice, along with Donald Rumsfeld, Collin Powell, and other members of the Bush administration were saying that the United States was embarking on serious diplomatic path to resolve the situation in Iraq. They made these statements to Congress in the fall when the President had already signed off on plans for an Iraq invasion in August. She lied then and she is lying now.

Raw Story: So based on this pattern that you are pointing out, does that then mean an attack on Iran is probable?

Ritter: No, what is happening is that in June, the U.S. will walk away from Europe with regard to their outreach in Iran. If the situation is not resolved by June, the US will shift its policy and methodology. Now this is not speculation on my part. This has been stated. Then [the U.S.] will seek to impose robust sanctions against Iran.

Raw Story: The UN has to approve those sanctions still.

Ritter: Right. Only the UN Security Council can apply those sanctions and the Russians and the French have already said we are not game, we are not playing.

When we confront the Russians with our desire to impose sanctions and the Russians must know there is something else outside of sanctions; so when they are saying no, they know they are opening the door to something else. That something else is a military bombardment. In that event, the U.S. has to be prepared; the Pentagon has been tasked with being prepared to launch a massive military bombardment by June of 2005. October of 2004 was a status report on those preparations.

“By the way Adrienne, if on the off chance Bush does attack Iran without approval from (or even mentioning it to) Congress, I�ll be standing with you when you call for his impeachment!”

Did you read the article I linked to? Specifically:

The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation’s airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein’s dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations.

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

Perhaps the adage of “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist” has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.

But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.

To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.

Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld’s interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan’s role in the upcoming war with Iran.

The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.

But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.

I think we must keep our eyes open and begin closely monitoring whatever happens in the Azerbaijani region — and if it appears that what Scott Ritter is claiming is going on is indeed taking place, perhaps then you’ll consider him more trustworthy.
As for me, the fact that a guy like Ritter — a firefighter, a US marine, our chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, and a person who was absolutely right when he was warning all of us that the administration was not being truthful with the American people before they took us into the Iraq war, the fact that he is saying these things, I feel is reason enough to at least give him the benefit of the doubt.

If a leak happens in a bureaucracy, and nobody’s there to cover it, does it make a story?

//Today’s moment of Zen.

Seriously though, I think it’s rather absurd to argue that if only there was no debate, there would be no harm in the issue.

We Americans would probably tolerate some degree of rough treatment of the terrorists if we could be assured that the terrorists were the exclusive targets, and if folks in the GOP camp weren’t always using the lame excuse that it’s necessary for national security to have such lax legal standards.

Trouble is, that’s an argument from authority, and if there is one nation where arguments from authority are difficult to make unopposed, it’s the good old US of A.

James—

I agree with your classifications, however, do we rely one the President alone to determine who are enemy soldiers, non-combatants, and spies? Seems to me that is elevating the President to the role of sovereign, a position the Constitution expressly forbids.

We are either a nation of laws or we are not. And since Congress never declared a War, are we engaged in one or is this just a series of police actions? And why didn’t the President not ask for a formal Declaration of War from the Congress against Afghanistan; was it so they could play fast and loose with the prisoners? Did they (the Bushies) have it in their minds all along to move these men outside U.S. and International Law in order to torture them and exact revenge for 9/11? I wouldn’t put it past them; as I said in my article I do not trust Bush or anyone associated with his crooked Administration.

Did I miss something? Are we now at war with Iran.

VEM,

I would leave it to the captor of the enemy soldier, non combatant or spy to decide which catagory the individual is in. My guess is that it would cut down on a lot of prisoner taking. I only say this because it has been pointed out that only Rebublicans are fighting the war anyway. I am sure the President would like to do it but he is busy on other issues. He has to delegate.

V. Edward Martin,

You’re not suggesting that Bush personally decides who is captured and detained and who isn’t.

You must know that bush and the pentagon can only control the Macro war. The soldiers on the ground control the micro.

I used macro/micro….the real terms would be strategic and tactical. Hope my point is understandable

Adrienne,

Thanks for the clarification on Ritter�s misquote.

I still don�t think he�s correct, though. I don�t see how President Bush can afford to go to war in Iran politically or financially. Where�s the funding going to come from? Bush has a hard enough time getting Congress to pay for the war in Iraq, even though it�s going on.
Also, I doubt there are enough people in Congress who would support giving him authorization to use force. If he went without congressional authorization, he would be open to impeachment.

Scott Ritter’s Al Jazeera article for reference.

James—

Only the President has the power to anoint someone an Enemy Combatant; that was my over-riding point.

Only the President has the power to anoint someone an Enemy Combatant; that was my over-riding point.

What are you talking about? If someone shoots at me on the battlefield, I’m going to consider him an enemy combatant whether the President says he is or not.
Are you trying to tell us that Bush studies up on every individual prisoner and tells the military what to do with each of them?

Traveler:
“I don�t see how President Bush can afford to go to war in Iran politically or financially. Where�s the funding going to come from? Bush has a hard enough time getting Congress to pay for the war in Iraq, even though it�s going on.”

Well, let us not forget that in the past the president misapproriated 700 million dollars for the war in Iraq.

“Also, I doubt there are enough people in Congress who would support giving him authorization to use force. If he went without congressional authorization, he would be open to impeachment.”

That too, already happened.

Time to impeach, yes?