| |
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| |
| Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
04-07-2022, 02:30 AM
|
#1
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,481
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
|
That doesn’t say what you think it says. |
|
|
|
|
|
04-07-2022, 05:34 AM
|
#2
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
That doesn’t say what you think it says.
|
it says she defended gitmo defames and criticized the us military while
doing so. it also
says she wrote amicus briefs for detainees that she wasn’t formally representing, but who she wanted to help on her own time.
we know what it means when you lib these baseless insults spence. usually, not always, it means i’m right but you can’t bring yourself to admit it.
what did cotton say, specifically, that was wrong?
maybe she said the military was merely “deplorable” instead of specifically accusing it of war crimes. maybe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-07-2022, 06:35 AM
|
#3
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
That doesn’t say what you think it says.
|
oh and here, according to CNN, she very specifically accuses the US of war crimes.
now, of course she has the right to say that. and others have the right to judge her for saying it, and to conclude that saying it makes her a potentially dangerous candidate for a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS.
Lindsay Graham voted for Kagan and Sotomayor. But he has concerns about Jackson. Maybe there’s a chance he has valid reasons to be concerned since he doesn’t blindly oppose all democrat nominees. A reason besides racism, that is.
You have to wonder if they picked a radical intentionally, just so that when the GOP questioned her about some of the controversial
things she’s said, the left could
claim “racism”. All they have to talk about, is Trump and racism.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/23/polit...eck/index.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Last edited by Jim in CT; 04-07-2022 at 06:42 AM..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-07-2022, 03:53 PM
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,481
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
oh and here, according to CNN, she very specifically accuses the US of war crimes.
|
Not really. First she was assigned to the cases as a public defender, second the briefs she filed were to document the clients assertions of torture which certainly could be considered a war crime. She was simply doing her job.
We tortured a number of Taliban Jim, just because they're bad guys doesn't make it not illegal under the Geneva Convention. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-07-2022, 05:23 PM
|
#5
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Not really. First she was assigned to the cases as a public defender, second the briefs she filed were to document the clients assertions of torture which certainly could be considered a war crime. She was simply doing her job.
We tortured a number of Taliban Jim, just because they're bad guys doesn't make it not illegal under the Geneva Convention.
|
the DOJ looked into it, and decided it wasnt illegal under the geneva convention. there was a legal
finding before we engaged in it.
if you’re telling me you wouldn’t water board someone to save your kids, you’re lying. if nuking two cities wasn’t a war crime, and it wasn’t, water boarding is nothing.
if you have a terrorist and have reasonable suspicion he can prevent an attack, it would
be immoral not to waterboard him.
how many american children are you prepared to sacrifice on the altar of not waterboarding jihadists, exactly? for me the answer is exactly zero.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-07-2022, 05:56 PM
|
#6
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,481
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
the DOJ looked into it, and decided it wasnt illegal under the geneva convention. there was a legal
finding before we engaged in it.
|
It was deemed justified by a Bush attorney who came up with a convoluted letter to support the policy. Take it to the Hague. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-07-2022, 07:08 PM
|
#7
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
It was deemed justified by a Bush attorney who came up with a convoluted letter to support the policy. Take it to the Hague.
|
You take it to the Hague. you made the accusation,,the burden is on you.
The president relies on a lawyer who’s be friendly to him. he’s supposed to ask a lawyer who hates republicans?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:30 PM.
|
| |
Hybrid Mode