AMosely

G.W. Bush himself coined the term 'Architect' for Karl Rove. Rove's tremendous mobilization of what is commonly referred to as the Repbulican base is widely known and studied. He is an amazingly dedicated genius, and he is the reason Bush is President. Why don't you check the facts I am referring to and get back to me. I am specifically drawing from:

Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, analysis/poll of American Evangelicals. April 13, 2004.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionande...3/release.html

Karl Rove: The Architect. Frontline 2004. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ows/architect/
Interviews with the chairman of the RNC, Bush's media advisor for '00 and '02 campaigns

And with regard to Carville: "The War Room" by Hegedus and D.A. Pennabaker, 1993.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108515/


No I'm not. Check my references there too - I am drawing off of already known, accepted and a greed upon definitions.

leejo

No thanks. The reason why Bush is President is because he assembled and led the team that beat his opponents. Rove is A reason why Bush is President, but the chief reason is President Bush himself. He has the power to hire or fire anyone he pleases on his team.

No you're not. The definitions are all out there, and you and your friends may all agree, but clearly there is significant disagreement among highly placed and informed people about what is and what is not torture. I think it comes down to one's definition of "severe".

leejo

Well I broke down and read your linked articles. I pretty much reject them (big surprise, huh?).

Check this out: http://www.thetaskforce.org/download...aphics2004.pdf

I suggest that the 7% jump in the latino vote had a lot more to do with President Bush's reelection than any of Karl Rove's machinations to get the evangelicals, who tend to vote, to vote for a republican candidate, which the white evangelicals tend to do. As fashionable as it may be to cast the recent election as one in which jesus freaks stole the show, I think the more interesting story, and the one that spells the death of the democratic party if the trend continues, is the latino vote.

Frontline is an interesting show, but when politics are involved its biased IMO. I watch it, but I roll my eyes a lot.

AMosely

... but who mobilized that latino vote? Rove sought out mailing lists, magazine subscriptions, he pulled every piece of data he could on ANY possible voter in America to try and target them, put pressure on them through the church, everywhere and anywhere he could. Also note that many Latinos ARE evangelicals! Why are debating this? I am praising Bush's campaign team here.

I'm not even being partisan here - this is American politics - it's the same deal with Clinton, that's why I gave you the link to Pennebaker's film on the subject. These presidents are only politicians. Campaigns are what get them elected - and these things are literally fought like wars (hence the name of Pennebaker's film). Rove is perhaps one of the greatest political strategists of all time - you owe it to yourself to become more familiar with his work.

Funny story with that film, too. Penenbaker originally sought to make a film about Clinton in the 1992 campaign but found 'ol Bill too boring and scripted (which any Presidential candidate is now). Instead, he was captivated by James Carville and George Stephanopoulos, the guys running the campaign. The film is entirely about their handiwork in the 1992 election, and it's a very telling documentary. I heard this straight from Pennabaker himself, who attended a screening I was at.

Steeler

The Latino vote is not as unified a voting block as other demographics. There are big splits in the community about immigration policy, labor, and other issues. While the President's campaign did a fairly good job attracting certain members of that group, he also alienated others. It's a big mistake to consider demographics as blocks of ownership, such as the black vote always "going" Democratic, or the redneck vote always "going" Republican. People will vote for who they think (right or wrong) best represents their interests.

I hate the way campaigners treat us all like we're stupid. And I hate it even more when people justify that treatment.

__________________

aesop rock

War is sick. There's stuff going on in every country of the world, right now, that I don't even want to imagine. Torture is part of war. I ain't sayin it should be, or that it's necessary, I am just sayin it is. As long as we, humans, are engaged in war, we will be engaged in 'inhumane' actions. I think there is no logical solution to the Guatanamo problem. If it is shut down, another one WILL open.

"I think the human race needs to think about killing. How much evil must we do in order to do good." -Robert McNamara, from The Fog of War

"I'd rather be damned-if-I-don't."
-Robert McNamara

__________________
"Who put the fun in dysfunctional? I." - Aesop Rock (http://www.mushrecords.com/release.php?REAID=38)

"Cuz you can choose to say 'Good morning, God' or 'Good God.. morning!" -Blackalicious

It is my firm belief that, until we humans stop using human nature as an excuse for our actions, we will never realize our true nature.

AMosely

He argued that a refusal to outlaw cruelty toward U.S.-held terrorist suspects was an implicit invitation to abuse. Mora also challenged the legal framework that the Bush Administration has constructed to justify an expansion of executive power, in matters ranging from interrogations to wiretapping. He described as “unlawful,” “dangerous,” and “erroneous” novel legal theories granting the President the right to authorize abuse. Mora warned that these precepts could leave U.S. personnel open to criminal prosecution.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../060227fa_fact

AMosely

June 29, 2006 - U.S. Supreme Court declares that Guantanamo violates the Geneval Conventions in a 5-3 decision.

leejo

That's not what the decision says. It addresses procedural issues, but has little to do with Gitmo itself.

I'm waiting for more info. But this isn't a broad condemnation of Gitmo.

CingularDuality

And you have the nerve to call President Bush a liar?

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Switchcraft

Well, the one thing the Court does seem to say with absolute conviction is that we may hold detainees in this conflict until the end of hostilities. It does not say that we must try these detainees for war crimes, but it does say that if we choose to do so anyway, we should be using a different kind of military court than the one proposed. The Court would like us to use the same procedures in normal courts-martial, apparently.

As not all of the portions of the holding were signed onto by all of the concurring justices, some of the more interesting things the opinion had to say are not going to be considered precedent.

As near as I can tell, almost everything today that will be held binding was interpretation of current statute, and thus Congress can quite easily pass new law to adjust as necessary.

AMosely

Huh? I never called Bush a liar. I think his administration is power hungry, short sighted and manipulative.

This ruling judged the military tribunal component of Guantanamo invalid and illegal, which it most certainly is. There will be other trials regarding the holding of hundreds of non-combatants for years without charges being filed.

Mateo

Whoa dog, I would love to set Guantanamo go away as much as anyone, but a little reading of the decision does not support your reading.

First: the court said that the military tribunal violates our own produral processes, as well as those of the Geneva Convention. That Tribunal does not have standing under the law to try these cases.

Second: the court did not touch on the actual validity of the detainment, in fact, they state in several places that normal court-martial procedures apply, not the guidelines proposed by UCMJ.

Third: they reinforced the power of the courts to enforce the Geneva Convention, but did not say that Hamdan's detainment abridged that Convention.

All this ruling says is: the President has to play by the rules.

AMosely

I will concede that I neglected to include the word 'tribunal' after the word 'Guantanamo,' as referenced by a Reuters headline which was linked to in my post. Should have read as:

I stand by my statements that I do believe Guantanamo is in violation of the Geneva conventions - both in terms of holding prisoners without charge or public notification, subjecting them to harsh interrogations and employing a judicial system which has no constitutional or international authority whatsoever. This will be viewed as a dark spot in American history.

I disagree with the excuse that this is somehow a different type of war and therefore must be handled differently. 'Differently' does not mean without oversight, planning or accountability. It does not mean do whatever the President deems necessary. If Bush really wanted Guantanamo to 'be overwith' (as quoted at a Vienna conference) why is he not working with Congress to do just that? Even after this decision he still shows reluctance to work with the issue - "to the extent there is latitude" to work on it. His administration wasn't willing to try going through Congress to begin with, and they remain resistant now. That's not the way the U.S. government was designed to function - with no single branch holding ultimate authority. The administration continues to act as though checks and balances are merely a formality or suggestion. They're not, and I'm glad to see some small signs of correction, which is what appears to be happening here.

carRamrod

Preposterous?

Watch the this video of the guy who George Bush sneaked around the Senate by recess appointment. His name is John Bolton and he's our current ambassador to the United Nations.