That wasn't my argument........I said there were some similarities.
That was what you said at first. Later when I said "painting them as being anything like the nazis is without justification", and you replied "Yes, that's what the Germans said when Hitler was taking the Jews." So it was your argument, even if it wasn't your original argument or the argument you consider most important.
I have shown you but I believe your partisanship prevents you from admitting there is any significance to them.
I think your partisanship causes you to see significance to them.
Commander-in-Chief means you are commander of the all the military forces for the US. The military's actions reflect back on the president. He is responsible for those actions. That does not mean he is put in jail. It does mean he must take responsibility for whatever crimes his troops commit and act accordingly.
Crimes where committed by members of the military under Clinton, and Bush Sr. and Reagan, and Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and Johnson... Does that make all of these presidents criminals?
The president isn't responsible for the actions of criminals, if the actions are severe enough to deserve his attention he is responsible for how he deals with them. In this case the known criminals are being or have been prosecuted, and investigations continue as to who else might have had a hand in performing or ordering the crimes. For Bush to get personally strongly involved in the legal cases would probably be an exercise of undo command influence. Theoretically Bush could even face impeachment over that (although in practice it would be very unlikely)
They are internment camps........they are worse then our prisons because up til recently, the inmates had no legal recourse.
Prisoners captured in war normally don't have legal recourse. Can you imagine trying to hold trials for all the German and Japanese prisoners in WWII, or the Chinese and Korean prisoners in Korea? If there is reason to hold people after the cessation of hostilities then there will be the need for some form of trial, either in Iraqi or Afghani courts, or a US military tribunal, or some sort of civilian trial, or potentially (but not likely) some form of international trial.
The only differences with the Hilter camps is that there has been no killing [as far as I know] and that the torture is more mental than physical. Furthermore, I understand they are fed regularly.
You miss the important difference of why the people where rounded up. They where not arrested for being part of an ethnic or religious group, they where detained as being enemies in war. They where detained for their actions and their plans, not their religious beliefs or ancestry.
Because conditions were worse at Auschwitz does not make these places acceptable.
Arguing that they were not anything like Auschwitz isn't saying that they are acceptable, although in this case they are if they are run correctly, beyond acceptable they are necessary. The alternative would be to take no prisoners and just shoot everyone you think is an enemy.
After WW II, most of us learned that internment camps are not a good idea. Apparently, the Bushies missed or ignored that lesson......that is worrisome.
Not only are these places not like Auschwitz they aren't even like the American internment camps in WWII. Then we rounded up people because they where Japanese (even if they where American citizens). We aren't rounding up people because they are Muslim, or Arab, or whatever.
Re: FL being rife with voter fraud
Yes, there was......I posted articles discussing it within the past month.
Yes a lot of people have written about it. That doesn't change the fact that there is no solid evidence that FL was rife with voter fraud or that the voting fraud in FL was unusually high. There is more evidence of fraud from many other recent elections, they just haven't gotten as much attention because they where for congressional or state or local government contests. There is some reason to believe that a congressional contest in CA was decided by the votes of illegal immigrants (hence it was decided by voter fraud), and there was a lot of fraud in the LA senate election of Mary Landrieu in 1996, enough that it might have been illegal votes that put her in office. FL fraud wasn't as bad as these races and appears to have worked both ways, for example in certain Democratic counties there was a lot of questionable ballots that where counted as being votes for Gore.
That is an immature perspective that has no place in foreign diplomacy. Collaboration means compromise, not veto.
You collaborate with people who have the same ideas and goals. If someone doesn't want to do what you want to do then you can't collaborate with them unless the opinion of one side is forced on the other. Either we would be subject to a veto of countries like France, or they would be forced to go along with policies that they don't like. You can't compromise and invade half of Iraq, either you invade or you don't.
Tim |
