GONZALES HEARING: Cornyn is saying IC's are NOT covered under GENEVA

[bpilgrim]

Sen John Cornyn (R) Texas
IC = ILLEGAL COMBATANTS

:puke:

cspan 1

peace

[xultar]

1. There is no connectiopn between AQA and Iraq and they told the

Iraqi soldiers to put their weapons down and take off their uniforms.

[berner59]

3. Sen Cornyn on....

Saying it wasn't Gonzales fault (torture memo) - it was Congress's fault...geez is it EVER anyone's fault in this Administration??? Leahy & Kennedy better slam this guy...I would be fuming if I were them...

[xultar]

8. I would have ordered Sen Cornyn OUT of the effin chambers for lying

his ass off in such a fashion.

[theboss]

2. Technically, that is probably correct

It's very specific in it's definitions.

Morally, it's another story.

[bpilgrim]

5. FALSE! All detainees fall somewhere within the protections of Geneva

"The protection and treatment of captured combatants during an international armed conflict is detailed in the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which defines prisoners of war (POWs) and enumerates the protections of POW status. Persons not entitled to POW status, including so-called "unlawful combatants," are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. All detainees fall somewhere within the protections of these two Conventions; according to the authoritative Commentary to the Geneva Conventions of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): "nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.""

more...
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm

see also...

The United States maintains that the Guantanamo detainees do
not qualify for POW status. The United States also maintains that the
assignment of POW status to these detainees would be bad policy.
Specifically, the U.S. argues that neither the Taliban nor al Qaeda detainees satisfy the express requirements of the POW Convention, and
that POW protections would impede the investigation and prosecu-
tion of suspected terrorists.

Of particular concern are: (1) restric-
tions on the interrogation of POWs; (2) the criminal procedure
rights of POWs, which might preclude trial by special military commis-
sions; and (3) POWs’ right to release and repatriation following the
cessation of hostilities.

In short, the U.S. has denied POW status to
the detainees, at least in part, because the Administration views the
rights afforded to POWs under the Convention to be inconsistent with
U.S. policy objectives.

Irrespective of the merits of these concerns,
U.S. policy is manifestly inconsistent with Geneva law if the proce-
dures utilized to classify these detainees were insufficient, or if the classification determinations were inaccurate in fact or erroneous in law.

Furthermore, the treatment of these detainees is arguably defi-
cient under the Geneva Conventions even if the U.S. has lawfully de-
nied them POW status. Assuming the detainees are not POWs, they
are still “protected persons” under common Article 3, and many of
them are protected under the Civilian Convention. The Civilian Con-
vention guarantees rights to “unlawful combatants” that are nearly
identical to the rights assured to POWs under the POW Convention.

Thus, by denying the protections of the POW Convention to the
Guantanamo detainees, the U.S. is violating many of the rights to
which they are legally entitled under common Article 3 and the Ci-
vilian Convention.

source...
http://organizations.lawschool.cornell.edu/clr/JinksSloss.pdf

more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2909354&mesg_id=2909354&page=

peace
http://organizations.lawschool.cornell.edu/clr/JinksSloss.pdf

[theboss]

25. They could be defined as mercernaries

A mercenary is any person who is specially recruited in order to fight in an armed conflict, who takes a direct part in the hostilities, who is motivated by money and is promised substantially higher pay than that paid to other combatants of similar rank, who is not a national of one of the countries involved in the conflict nor a resident of a territory controlled by any of the parties, is not a member of the armed forces of any of the parties, and who has not been sent by another country on official duty as a member of its armed forces. (Protocol I, Art. 47)

A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)

[jmowreader]

35. You're almost describing Halliburton, not al-Qaeda

If ALL of those conditions have to be true to classify someone as a mercenary, you'd have a very hard time classifying anyone as a merc. The pay part is what kicks the AQ members out--they're motivated by hatred of the non-Muslim world and they're probably not getting paid very much, if at all.

[bpilgrim]

54. they are still subject to the GC

and there have been no claims they are mercs anyways.

peace

[xultar]

14. They told the Iraqi soldiers to take off their uniforms and put their

weapons down.

Sounds effin self serving to me.

[theboss]

28. Are we talking Iraqis or foreigners in Iraq?

They are not all the same class.

[bpilgrim]

30. they are ALL covered

ALL combatans AND civilians.

peace

[theboss]

45. Combats and civilians are covered by different standards

And foreign mercenaries are not covered at all.

[bpilgrim]

50. in the Geneva Conventions, hello...

and EVERYBODY is covered... see my links above

peace

[TrueAmerican]

4. Most of the prisoners who were

abused were in the prison for crimes. They weren't there because they were invovled in the insurgency or fighting Americans.

[bpilgrim]

6. just rounded up in SWEEPS and NOT GUILTY of anything - n/t

peace

[skippythwndrdog]

7. Correct.

The conventions only apply to soldiers in uniform under the flag of a sovereign government.

[bpilgrim]

10. NOT TRUE! All detainees fall somewhere within the protections of Geneva

"The protection and treatment of captured combatants during an international armed conflict is detailed in the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which defines prisoners of war (POWs) and enumerates the protections of POW status. Persons not entitled to POW status, including so-called "unlawful combatants," are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. All detainees fall somewhere within the protections of these two Conventions; according to the authoritative Commentary to the Geneva Conventions of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): "nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.""

more...
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm

see also...

The United States maintains that the Guantanamo detainees do
not qualify for POW status. The United States also maintains that the
assignment of POW status to these detainees would be bad policy.
Specifically, the U.S. argues that neither the Taliban nor al Qaeda detainees satisfy the express requirements of the POW Convention, and
that POW protections would impede the investigation and prosecu-
tion of suspected terrorists.

Of particular concern are: (1) restric-
tions on the interrogation of POWs; (2) the criminal procedure
rights of POWs, which might preclude trial by special military commis-
sions; and (3) POWs’ right to release and repatriation following the
cessation of hostilities.

In short, the U.S. has denied POW status to
the detainees, at least in part, because the Administration views the
rights afforded to POWs under the Convention to be inconsistent with
U.S. policy objectives.

Irrespective of the merits of these concerns,
U.S. policy is manifestly inconsistent with Geneva law if the proce-
dures utilized to classify these detainees were insufficient, or if the classification determinations were inaccurate in fact or erroneous in law.

Furthermore, the treatment of these detainees is arguably defi-
cient under the Geneva Conventions even if the U.S. has lawfully de-
nied them POW status. Assuming the detainees are not POWs, they
are still “protected persons” under common Article 3, and many of
them are protected under the Civilian Convention. The Civilian Con-
vention guarantees rights to “unlawful combatants” that are nearly
identical to the rights assured to POWs under the POW Convention.

Thus, by denying the protections of the POW Convention to the
Guantanamo detainees, the U.S. is violating many of the rights to
which they are legally entitled under common Article 3 and the Ci-
vilian Convention.

source...
http://organizations.lawschool.cornell.edu/clr/JinksSloss.pdf

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[skippythwndrdog]

11. Ohhh! New info. I have some research to do.

Thank you! Is Iraq a signatory to the conventions? What about the United States? I understand that the conventions only apply to hostilities between signatories. Is that right?

[WillowTree]

46. The "enemy combatants" being held at Guantanamo...

....are not Iraqis nor from the war there. They're from the war in Afghanistan, presumably Taliban and/or al Qaeda.

[theboss]

27. They could be mercenaries

A mercenary is any person who is specially recruited in order to fight in an armed conflict, who takes a direct part in the hostilities, who is motivated by money and is promised substantially higher pay than that paid to other combatants of similar rank, who is not a national of one of the countries involved in the conflict nor a resident of a territory controlled by any of the parties, is not a member of the armed forces of any of the parties, and who has not been sent by another country on official duty as a member of its armed forces. (Protocol I, Art. 47)

A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)

[bpilgrim]

29. huh?

gotta link, please?

peace

[theboss]

43. I cited the sections of the Geneva conventions

That should help you. I don't have a link on the web.

However, I should point out that this is the same type of "legal argument" conservatives always called hypocritical when Clinton used it.

[bpilgrim]

47. pfft...

whatever, the links i've provided DETAIL that ALL persons are covered.

your posting no where makes clear that the GC does NOT apply.

peace

[theboss]

62. They are excluded from the protections

Here read it:

Part III : Methods and means of warfare -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status #Section II -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status

Article 47 -- Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/0/9edc5096d2c036e9c12563cd0051dc30?OpenDocument

[bpilgrim]

69. no one is a MERC

and they - mercs - are STILL covered by the GC, just their status is diffeerent.

btw: the US is talking about ILLEGAL COMBATANTS, that is the crux of the issue... NO ONE is claiming MERCS.

peace

[theboss]

111. You aren't an attorney, are you?

Mercenaries are "addressed" in the GC. And they are specifically excluded. Therefore, they are not subject the provisions of the GC. I think you are mixing up the language.

As for "illegal combatants," that's a much greyer area, I agree. The fault with this adminisration is that they have no interest in grey areas.

[Bridget Burke]

61. So--the "mercenaries" had pay stubs on them?

Or do they use membership cards?

[theboss]

64. I'm just making an argument and citing the law

That's it.

[bpilgrim]

72. an irrelevant argument

since NO ONE in the administration has even made that claim probably because they would be laughed out of court.

peace

[theboss]

117. I think I'm a better attorney than the administrations's attorneys

The problem with Gonzalez and the entire administration is that they don't care about building legal arguments. They just make a decision and scramble to defend it. That bothers me. So, I'm probably trying to do their job for them out of principle more than anything else.

I should point out that the US has a moral obligation to uphold the pillars of the GC even if they don't technically apply.

[AZCat]

133. Here is a good Geneva Conventions link

www.genevaconventions.org has lots of good info on the Geneva Conventions. It has the full texts of the Conventions along with a topic index - good stuff.

[Occulus]

115. The US did not ratify the 1977 convention

I think it was in 1977. Maybe a different year, but if the provisions in that Convention updated to combatants provisions, we did not ratify it... and therefore, the accords reached in that last Convention are not the law of the land.

It sucks, but there it is. Please correct me if I'm wrong....

[bowens43]

9. right, unless without a specific treaty

ethics and morals are not required.

These hypocritical bastards sicken me.

[underpants]

12. What was up with introducing his family?

as I posted on the other threadS

[bpilgrim]

15. to put a HUMAN face on the MONSTER

imho

:hi:

peace

[bpilgrim]

18. there are CHILDREN in the room

so NO PICTURES... clever

peace

[librechik]

51. I object to the smarmy beatific SMIRK on the face of the

torture mongering shit. And God Damn him for soiling our brand new Dem Senator from Colorado by trading in THE ETHNIC CARD!!!

This is shamful, shameful shameful.

(posted wrong spot, sorry!)

[bpilgrim]

13. this is the same argument that IMPERIAL JAPAN used in NANKING

ILLEGAL COMBATANTS :puke:

they had a hard time picking them out of the crowd as well.

peace

[underpants]

16. Gonzo says Geneva conventions aren't quaint-now licking Hatch's nuts

Hatch's Federalist Society nuts.

[bpilgrim]

17. but they are still defending ILLEGAL COMBATANTS

peace

[underpants]

19. OMG! they are hiding behind the children

Specter just warned wveryone that children are present and they ARE on TV.

[bpilgrim]

20. now we know why they made a point to intoroduce them

peace

[underpants]

21. Yep

Good god this is like a rehearsed beauty pageant.

[Edgewater_Joe]

22. What A Pig

And maybe Reid hearing Coryn go scorched-earth INTRODUCING Gonzalez made him tell Barbara Boxer to sign Conyers' challenge?

Thank God there's evidence of cartilage in the backs of Democratic DC leaders!

[bpilgrim]

23. Believes 'PATRIOT ACT is SUCCESSFUL'

what terrorist have we caught or prevented?

peace

[SoDesuKa]

26. No Repeat of 9/11 Since Patriot Act

One little-noticed provision of the Patriot Act refers to the release of tigers in shopping malls. Since the Patriot Act became law the number of such tigers has been zero. Nada. Zip. The Patriot Act is protecting us.

[bpilgrim]

24. traditional standard of 'probable cause'

G: "welcomes the debate on civil liberties'

G: "PA only pertains BUSINESS records"

G: says GOV must STILL go a judge for a FISA warrent

he's reminded that they NOW don't need probable cause to seek such a warrent :nuke:

peace

[bpilgrim]

31. he's saying CONGRESS ORDERED the TORTURE

peace

[rman]

32. What's an illegal combatant?

A combatant who fights the US without permission from the US?

I don't think the concept of IC's existed when the Geneva convention was conceived.

[bpilgrim]

36. IMPERIAL JAPAN argued the same thing in NANKING!

all persons are covered in the GC even back during WWII.

peace

[CWebster]

37. Hey, if you can't afford a approved uniform

You are not allowed.

Black turbans don't count.

[bpilgrim]

33. he agrees with the view that a PRESIDENT can OVERRIDE rules against TORTUR

:wow:

he's try'n to dance around the issue and leahy is slamming him! :toast:

peace

[bpilgrim]

34. can anyone believe we are going to make this MONSTER the head of justice

what must the world think :scared:

peace

[two gun sid]

38. He's full of shit

They should attach some electrodes to his nuts and get to the truth.

[rusty charly]

40. leahy: "where's the accountabilty?"

gonzales: "that's a good question"

[keithjx]

39. Does Gonzales have training

as a boxer, because he can bob and weave with the best of them. Has he answered any of Leahy's questions?
KJ

[bpilgrim]

41. good point

no

peace

[bpilgrim]

42. Hatch gave BLATANT reminder of the FAMILY present!

:puke:

peace

[keithjx]

44. One good nut-licking deserves another... n/t

[two gun sid]

48. That stupid fuck can't even hit Hatch's

softballs out of the park.

[bpilgrim]

49. still claims ILLEGAL COMBATANTS are NOT covered by the GC

peace

[Sparkly]

52. "Torture? We'd never condone torture!"

Hatch is sure enabling this.

First, as Rummy did, they can claim "Well it's abuse maybe, but not torture." They don't define "abuse."

Second, they can claim "humane treatment," yet not Geneva Convention, for those "not in uniform." They don't define "humane treatment."

Third, they claim the memos describing specific acts were merely "legal advice," not guidelines. They don't define either one.

So that makes a hole big enough for a truck to drive through, doesn't it? What a fuckwad.

[RuleofLaw]

53. Kennedy is claiming torture is taking place today

He is angry. Thats good!

[bpilgrim]

55. ah they switched coverage!

:argh:

peace

[bpilgrim]

56. and now a PRAYER!

peace

[underpants]

58. C-SPAN just switched off Gonzo hearings!!!

Nice thanks ooooh look a prayer.

I posted that on another thread. well done. :thumbsup:

[Sparkly]

57. Oh noooo!!!!

Where else can we see the hearings?!

[bpilgrim]

59. this is FUCKED UP!

:argh:

i suppose they don't want any realtime coverage before they get a chance to spin it :puke:

peace

[RuleofLaw]

60. The hearings are available here

http://judiciary.senate.gov/schedule.cfm

Its the Judicial Committees website

[Synnical]

63. Thanks!

I was screaming at my computer.

[Sparkly]

Thanks!!

:hi:

[Solly Mack]

65. What a smarmy piece of shit

Biden up:

fluff so far...welcoming the new chairman

yadayadayadayada

okies...here we go

"I don't know anyone who is against you being AG" (yeah...sure)

"it's irrelevant if shrub signed off on a memo for torture" (it is?)

[Solly Mack]

66. Biden is still talking

"we're looking for candor"
"I love you but you're not really showing candor"

"it is appropriate to ask you about abu ghraib
...to determine if it came as a consequence (of the memo)"


"...want to clarify...this is about your judgement you have exercised....that shrub relies on...he doesn't have your legal credentials....this is why we are worried about this"

"what's appropriate during this 'dire' concern about terrorism" (dire?...uh..ok)

he's quoting a man for all seasons...thomas moore

[RuleofLaw]

67. Biden is awesome

Unfortunately he still says that Gonzales will be confirmed

[Solly Mack]

68. All bluster no meaning

:(

[Solly Mack]

70. Biden: "this is not about your integrity" (WTF?)

The torture king responds:

"I'm not sure which memo you refer to" :eyes:

"great deal of debate....about what will be required (to get intell)...'reasonable ' people can differ....of course I conveyed to shrub what my own views were...we all conferred...shrub made an decision (to torture)"

[Solly Mack]

71. Sessions up (puke)

listing his own credentials...


basically, gonzales is blaming ashcroft for everything

[Solly Mack]

75. OMG Sessions is such a fucking scumbag

I am yelling at my computer!!!!!!!

[two gun sid]

73. Torture not my fault

I just follow what the DOJ says.

[Solly Mack]

74. Yep..he's blaming ashcroft down the line

[two gun sid]

79. What does al Qaeda

have to do with Abu Gharib?

[Solly Mack]

84. beats the fuck out of me

[two gun sid]

86. Sessions tried

to imply Iraqi prisoners were Zarqawi's people.

[Solly Mack]

88. Yes he did...as an excuse to torture anyone in Iraq they want to...

[RuleofLaw]

76. This is amassing

They are trying to paint the impression that the DOJ is totally independent of the White House.

I thought it was part of the executive branch.

What the hell is going on.

The GOP is painting him as just a counsel, relying on other people.

[Solly Mack]

78. Ashcroft is leaving so they are putting it all off on him

[Solly Mack]

83. Session:" torture isn't policy.....it was just counsel"

Sessions: "al qaeda isn't entitled to the protection of the geneva convention"

Torture boy still blaming the DOJ

Sessions bringing up Roosevelt executing german soldiers....

Sessions: number of people in Iraq shouldn't qualify under geneva...but shrub has done more than he had to do...in extending"

Gonzales: "there is a question if geneva applies to out 'conflict' in Iraq"

[knight_of_the_star]

77. It's back on

Sessions is being another ass-wiper.

[bpilgrim]

80. Jeff Sessions says everyone agrees that Al Quadi are ILLEGAL COMBATANTS

:arg:

peace

[RuleofLaw]

81. And as such can be tortured

This is truly amassing since we really have no clear guidelines for how to assess if a person is a member of the Al Queida>

So they just have to say you are, and then we can torture you.

[bpilgrim]

82. says the GC doesn't apply to many in IRAQ

says bush is showing his compassion

peace

[RuleofLaw]

89. How the hell does he know if

a person is a member of Al-Queida?

He is basically saying torture is OK.

Thats the whole core issue.

[Solly Mack]

91. Yep. That's the bottomline of it all..He says torture is OK.

[bpilgrim]

85. believes not applying GC to our war with AL Quaida is the RIGHT THING

to do :puke:

peace

[ElectroPrincess]

100. Well ya know AL Queda are animals, less than human, ummm ...

like the way we rationalized for genocidal actions to the the American Indians not to mention The North Vietnamese - many atrocities that were covered up or went unreported.

It's the SAME OLD RATIONALE through the ages that's used to justify torture on OUR side: "They are NOT like us, they're savages and less than human."

Bullshit! :argh:

[Solly Mack]

87. My head is exploding. This is unreal!!!!!!!

[two gun sid]

90. We enforce Geneva!

[Solly Mack]

92. He doesn't lie either (cough)

[Solly Mack]

94. Abu Ghraib/Gitmo wasn't their fault...

it wasn't some decision they made (memo)

it was the soldiers....just the soldiers..

[two gun sid]

93. All the fault of those enlisted pukes

having fun. "They are morally bankrupt"

[RuleofLaw]

95. From what I can tell,

Gonzales is saying that the torture conducted in Gitmo is ok, but not in Iraq and that some of the techniques from Gitmo travelled to Iraq.

[Solly Mack]

96. Yes..but it wasn't his fault.

[two gun sid]

98. Now how did that happen?

[janx]

97. "Failure in training and oversight," he says.

He's blaming the military!

[underpants]

103. He actually was blaming war planning

and about spit up a lung trying to cover for it. It would be something to see them pull the nomination in the midst of the questioning.

[janx]

119. I cannot believe that anyone would confirm this guy.

He's a TOOL!

[Solly Mack]

99. Gonzales can't reach a conclusion if torture has any value for gathering

intell

[two gun sid]

101. He's one hell of a judge

[Solly Mack]

104. Guess he means he wants to torture some more to find out

Lindsay G *senator* is blustering for nothing...he'll confirm and be happy doing it

[UTUSN]

102. Bottom Line: GONZALES Blames Everybody Else But Himself

He sez his decisions are "informed" by the Justice Dept, that the Abu Gareb crap was the fault of all those nasty G.I.(s), and that his masser Shrub "has said we do NOT torture." Oh.

[Solly Mack]

105. That sums it up..yes

[two gun sid]

106. Remind me

did the be-headings start before or after we started torturing prisoners?

[UTUSN]

107. Lindsay GRAHAM Kicked Beto's Ass

I never thought I would say anything positive about him. He just said "when you play cute and start down this road, we have lost our way." "It is NOT inconsistent to have DUE PROCESS --AND---to conduct a war on terror." "Your memos are not PARTLY wrong, they were ALL wrong."

[janx]

109. Graham is very pissed off about the torture.

VERY. I've seen him talk about it before.

[Solly Mack]

108. "with respect to Gitmo, the SCOTUS did disagree with Bush Inc"

(on torture)

(this is gonzales)

[underpants]

113. Did you see Gonzo freeze at the question at the end?

Did the DoJ memo endanger US troops with regard to the UCMJ?

*chirp**chirp* Stone cold look*chirp**chirp*

[Solly Mack]

116. Yes! best moment so far

[Solly Mack]

110. Oh, now there's a surprise...Lindsay G. blusters then votes for him anyway

[two gun sid]

112. It doesn't apply to library records and it does

This guy is a lawyer?

[Solly Mack]

114. So they say

lol

[janx]

126. Harvard or no Harvard--he doesn't seem very bright to me...n/t

[Solly Mack]

128. Hard to sound knowledgeable though when you're lying through

your teeth.

I agree though...a real idiot.

[two gun sid]

136. All the good liars are from Yale

[Solly Mack]

138. lolol

[UTUSN]

121. He's Sargeant SHULTZ, "I-----Know------NOTHing"

The memos he rubberstamped (he's not an original thinker) had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING.

[Solly Mack]

118. So now we know ashcroft resigned to take the blame

[Solly Mack]

123. Texas executions being discussed now

hmmmm

[underpants]

120. Feingold asking about Texas clemency memos

on the day of the execution

[underpants]

122. Gonzo says they talked about the WELL ahead of time

IF Gonzo thought the time was right and IF he could bring it up.

[Solly Mack]

125. but but...shrub had no real power

:eyes:

[two gun sid]

124. But it's all the fault of the clemency board

[Solly Mack]

127. well, he's not nothing but consistent..."it's not MY fault"

[Solly Mack]

130. We need a new thread started maybe? part II?

[UTUSN]

134. "We MAY Have Discussed It" Maybe. Not Saying "we" did.

"You never included in the memo the main point of the appeal, that the defense lawyer slept through most of the trial." GONZALEZ sez, "We MAY have discussed it (liar)."

FEINGOLD's time is up. Kissy kissy. This is a "roughing up"? Now slimebag CORNYN is up, with more kissy-poos, "Has it been your experience that sometimes lawyers disagree?" (smile, smile). "I for one think you have been CANDID (liar). This committee has asked you HARD questions. (liar)"

[underpants]

142. Fiengold"This was a VERY famous case I find it hard to believe...

that the fact thatthis man's lawyer was asleep was not in the Governor's brief." Something like that.

Fiengold skipped right over the fact that Texas was killing so many people that Gonzo can just claim he doesn't remember....eh there were tons of them who knows?

[AlCzervik]

129. Feingold is awesome!

although Gonzalez barely even answered him i'm glad Russ got that out there.

[two gun sid]

131. Should torture be allowed

to get this fucker to answer truthfully?

[Solly Mack]

132. LMAO seems only fair to apply his own thinking to him as well

[RuleofLaw]

135. By focusing on the Geneva convention

they totally forget that US law prohibits torture by itself and that there is a perfectly good definition of torture.

[Solly Mack]

137. Yes!!!! You're 100% correct...and they pray the people don't know that

[RuleofLaw]

141. The Dems should forget about the Geneva Convention and ask

about US Law.

Gonzales and the GOP is saying that in this war against terror, torture is OK to obtain information, as long as you torture the right people. i.e. people not covered by the Geneva convention.

US law does not make such a distinction!

[Solly Mack]

146. Yes, they should

but I fear they won't

[janx]

139. Graham at least mentioned it re military law.

But he'll vote for the guy anyway, probably.

What is wrong with these people?!

[Solly Mack]

140. Graham said he would vote for him during his questioning

[two gun sid]

143. Lindsey said he would vote to confirm yesterday

[Solly Mack]

145. no surprise there

[AlCzervik]

144. yup, heard him say that yesterday

he tried to put on a good show today, appear all righteous and indignant. Not buying it. Shumer's up.

[Ian David]

149. Tough questions, low expectations

It looks like they're asking tough questions, devestating him, and then saying, "you have my vote."

Schumer (another one doing this) just let him off the hook: "Think about it and get back to me.")

[Solly Mack]

147. Shumer just slapped him (verbally)

[otohara]

148. Continue Discussion Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2911676