Gonzales supports Roe V. Wade...

[Pastor Larry]

Is life not that important to you Galatian? If you can save American lives by interrogation techniques, why isn't that good?

Or I guess the real question is, why are you only selectively pro-life? Why isn't all life important?

From what I read of this memo, the author very clearly defines the limits of acceptability. It is not an open door to anything goes.

 

[fromtheright]

Pastor Larry,

I probably disagree with Galatian far more than I agree but on the memo, it does trouble me. I admit I didn't read all of it but he seemed to be reaching way too far by using organ failure, etc. as a definition of severe pain. I generally take a broader view of what is acceptable in interrogating Al Qaeda/Taliban types, generally looking upon Al Qaeda as the vermin they are, but we are still a civilized country (COL West should not have been prosecuted for firing a pistol near the head of a prisoner in getting info to save American lives). The level of pain that Gonzalez tried to justify, though, seems similiar to that the North Vietnamese used on American POW's and it is the level of civilization that is part of the difference between us and them.

That said, I still support his nomination. Sorry, Galatian.

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
In spite of very poor spelling, a lot of it comes down to understanding responsibilities and integrity. The US AG is to enforce the law of the land. He is not to make law, or change law. He is not a legislator, and therefore his personal views on Roe are irrelevant. It is sad that this has to be explained yet again. I hope the law is changed, but that is not the job of the AG.

As for enemy combatants, they have no rights, as far as I am concerned. They do not live under the laws of this land and cannot appeal to those laws to defend their attempts to subvert by illegal means. If they want things to change, then they need to change. So long as American soldiers lives are at risk, necessary means should be used to gain information that may lead to the saving of lives. I cannot understand why the personal comfort and care of people who hate this country and are trying to destroy it are preserved at the risk of the lives of those who are defending it. We certainly need a good dose of common sense and reality.

My suspicion is that poncho's reading of section 802 is probably tilted beyond recognition. I have looked for some info on it, but can't find any from a reputable website. Here is the section in question:

Section 802 of the Patriot Act, "Definition of Domestic Terrorism," reads:

"[T]he term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended-- (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; ... (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or ... (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

http://federalistpatriot.us/papers/03-41_paper.asp

Not sure what is wrong with that. It basically says that if you use intimidation or coercion, or anything worse, or if you endanger human life you are guilty of domestic terrorism. And it says you can't disrupt the government by assassination or kidnapping. Horrors of horrors ... Why should we forbid such reasonable tactics as endangerment of human life, intimidation or coercion, assassination, kidnapping, or mass destruction??? Are we really so primitive that we think those things ought to be allowed?

Here is what is interesting:
1. Poncho complains that the present administration approved the use of intimidation and coercion in Iraq.
2. Poncho complains that intimidation and coercion are forbidden by the Patriot Act.

That is inconsistent. Make up your mind. If you are against it, then be against it. Don't be politically expedient to be against it when you can attack Bush with it and to be in favor of it when you can attack Bush with it. If you are against intimidation and coercion in Iraq and think it should be punished, then you have no beef with section 802 since 802 prohibits the very thing you dislike (allegedly). If you think intimidation and coercion should be tolerated, then you can't condemn the tactics used in Iraq ... at least you can't be consistent while doing so. You need to make up your mind (and thinking ahead would prevent you from being found in such inconsistency).

The Patriot Act may be overdone. It is likely that no one complaining about it has actually read and studied the whole thing. It will come out in years to come. In the meantime, don't we Christians have more important work?

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

Here it is admited that there are already laws on the books that make "acts dangerous to human life" illegal.

"Not sure what is wrong with that. It basically says that if you use intimidation or coercion , or anything worse, or if you endanger human life you are guilty of domestic terrorism

Read the above ten or fifteen times Pastor Larry. Your on the right track but you take a wrong turn somewhere. Think about this when your re-reading "how many times has the current adminstration used intimidation and coercion and mass destruction to "coerce a civilian population and influence the policy of a government"? (our government and others).

"Here is whats interesting".

1. Poncho complains that the present administration approved the use of intimidation and coercion in Iraq.

2. Poncho complains that intimidation and coercion are forbidden by the Patriot act.

I am confused as to how you can confuse toture with information gathering and terrorism with legal political dissent.

The Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Record of Alberto Gonzales (PDF)

I have never been inconsistant in my belief that torture is wrong no matter how it's rationalized. Abortion is wrong because it is muder of a human being and not to mention dangerous to human life. Political dissent is a right protected by the First Amendment, and not to be confused with intimidation or coercion as the current administration and yourself seem to do. It's not that difficult to understand...really. I fail to see why I have to keep pointing this out.

 

[poncho]

Sorry about the bad links and the double post. I linked to the merriam webster online dictionary for the defintion of both intimidation and coercion. For some reason they didn't work.

 

[The Galatian]

Is life not that important to you Galatian? If you can save American lives by interrogation techniques, why isn't that good?

You mean that maybe we can save American lives by committing "cruel inhuman and degrading acts?"

Maybe so. You know, we could save a lot of human lives by executing all drunken drivers on the spot. Or by euthanizing stupid people, who might do something that might kill someone.

Shall we do these things? Or do God's laws have any application here?

Or I guess the real question is, why are you only selectively pro-life?

Don't you mean "why is Larry only selectively pro-life?" After all, you haven't endorsed killing stupid people or alcholics. If you do endorse that, I will withdraw my statement.

Why isn't all life important?

Indeed, Larry, why not? Perhaps you can explain why you aren't consistently pro-life. Of course, since you have resolutely defended a pro-abortion presidential candidate, we already knew this.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Not sure where you got your powers of prophecy, but I am of the wait and see type. Let's see what he does before we actually condemn him. He may not, and if not, I will be disappointed in him. I will not be surprised. But the truth is that he has already appointed pro life judges. So let's wait and see.

As you are well aware, I didn't condemn anyone. But I don't need "powers of prophecy" as I can simply look at a track record.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />BTW, the judges are not appointed by the Supreme Court.

No kidding ... ... Why would you say that? I didn't say anything to the contrary.</font>[/QUOTE]Here is what I said:

There is NO CHANCE that this Court will even make an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Your response:

They have already appointed pro life judges and most people (especially on the other side) think they will continue to. That is the first step on the road of overturning it.

The Supreme Court does not appoint judges. [Bear in mind that I corrected my own error, and you posted with my old statement, where I accidentally used the word "administration" rather than "Court."]
I am making sure we are on the same page.
I will stick by my revised statement: there is NO CHANCE that this Court will make an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Is life not that important to you Galatian? If you can save American lives by interrogation techniques, why isn't that good?

This is an EASY answer: I don't subscribe to moral relativism. IMHO, the ends DO NOT justify the means.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Your on the right track but you take a wrong turn somewhere. Think about this when your re-reading "how many times has the current adminstration used intimidation and coercion and mass destruction to "coerce a civilian population and influence the policy of a government"? (our government and others).

I have no idea what you are talking about. But that being said, the part of the Patriot Act you referenced sounds harmless, since it is all against the law anyway. And you didn't answer the question.

You are upset that the US used intimidication and coercion in places like Abu Ghraib. You are upset that the US has made the the use of intimidation and coercion a violation of law. You can't have it both ways. Which do you like?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
You mean that maybe we can save American lives by committing "cruel inhuman and degrading acts?"

Yep

You know, we could save a lot of human lives by executing all drunken drivers on the spot.

Not that many, but we could certainly make stiffer penalties and actually enforce them.

Or by euthanizing stupid people, who might do something that might kill someone.

No, not really.

These two analogies show a common problem with you ... a lack of critical thinking. It is hard to imagine you put any thought at all into that. IT was such a ridiculous attempt at an analogy. In neither of those cases do you have participants in a war against the United States who might have information concerning upcoming attacks in which American lives will be lost. You should have taken more time to think because trying to get involved here. You just don't have it. You need to learn to close your browser.

Don't you mean "why is Larry only selectively pro-life?" After all, you haven't endorsed killing stupid people or alcholics. If you do endorse that, I will withdraw my statement.

Being pro-life doesn't mean you support killing others at random. That was ridiculous (see above comments that are applicable yet again). Why would I endorse killing drunks or stupid people? I endorse capital punishment for people who kill others under the influence. I endorse capital punishment for those who kill others while being stupid. I do that because I am pro life and I think life means something.

I am so pro life, I think the lives of Iraqis killed under Hussein matter. I think that alone was sufficient justification to go after and get him out.

Perhaps you can explain why you aren't consistently pro-life.

I can't give an answer to a non-sensical question. I am consistently pro life and you know that.

Of course, since you have resolutely defended a pro-abortion presidential candidate, we already knew this.

This is an absolute lie and you know it. I have not resolutely defended Bush. If you think I have, then you show that don't read much or read very well, because I have very openly criticized Bush on a number of things. But true to form, you only tell part of hte truth, and throw some whoppers in hoping that no one will actually know hte truth. But again, you show that you are not able to keep up in a debate about ideas. You just don't have it. You need to close your browser whenever you feel the urge to respond. You will save yourself a lot of trouble.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
As you are well aware, I didn't condemn anyone. But I don't need "powers of prophecy" as I can simply look at a track record.

I didn't say you did condemn him, but your comments were certainly negative. All I am saying is wait and see. His track record that you can "simply look at" will show that he has appointed pro life judges. I hope he will continue to do so.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Your response:

They have already appointed pro life judges and most people (especially on the other side) think they will continue to. That is the first step on the road of overturning it.

The Supreme Court does not appoint judges. [Bear in mind that I corrected my own error, and you posted with my old statement, where I accidentally used the word "administration" rather than "Court."] </font>

My "they" is the administration, which is the subject of this discussion. They, the administration, have already apppointed pro life judges.

there is NO CHANCE that this Court will make an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I agree. But this court will change in the next four years. And with pro life justices, it could overturn it.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Is life not that important to you Galatian? If you can save American lives by interrogation techniques, why isn't that good?

This is an EASY answer: I don't subscribe to moral relativism. IMHO, the ends DO NOT justify the means. </font>[/QUOTE]I certainly don't argue that it does. That was not the point. The point is that by interrogation techniques you can obtain information that would save the lives of people. It would be criminal not to do so. I am not suggesting irreparable harm, or loss of life. And I didn't see any one in the memo suggesting that, but I didn't read it all. Moral relativism is not in view here. The protection of life is. Ethical dilemmas are never easy to solve, but there are principles that can be applied and should be.

 

[Matt Black]

This is the guy who laid the groundwork for the appalling goings-on at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, right? (So sort of like your equivalent of our very own David 'Bonkers' Blunkett.) And he refuses to rule out torture as a 'valid interrogation technique' and thinks the Geneva Conventions are 'quaint' ; One of the most important reasons to honour the Geneva Conventions in your treatment of other nations' people, is that if you do not, you completely give up all right to demand that the other nations treat your people in accordance with the Conventions. Or to put it another way, Gonzales is saying, in exactly so many words, "I don't give a tinker's cuss how our military people are treated if they fall into enemy hands." THAT is why he should not become town clerk, let alone anything important in the US Administration. Even the Republicans seem to have a hard time accepting him. I did however like Teddy Kennedy's lecture on drowning...who says Americans can't do irony? Oh, he wasn't trying to be ironic?...!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Pastor Larry]

ACtually, the only part of the hearings I saw was when Gonzales said he did not believe that the Geneva were quaint or outdated.

And yes, torture within limits is a valid means of extracting needed information. How would you like to be the one killed because information that was available wasn't achieved? Or how would you like it to be your son or brother? Too often, we distance our positions from the reality of the world in which we live. It sounds great on paper, but it doesn't work in real life.

 

[fromtheright]

PL,

What kind of limits?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I didn't say you did condemn him, but your comments were certainly negative.

Your quote, posed directly to me:

Let's see what he does before we actually condemn him.

If it was not directed at me, then who is doing the condemning?

All I am saying is wait and see. His track record that you can "simply look at" will show that he has appointed pro life judges. I hope he will continue to do so.

If that is the case, then why has nothing been done? There have been several "pro-life" presidents, yet nobody has ever even come close to overturning Roe v. Wade. I will reiterate my opinion once again: ain't gonna happen, Pastor Larry.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />there is NO CHANCE that this Court will make an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I agree. But this court will change in the next four years. And with pro life justices, it could overturn it. </font>[/QUOTE]I will reiterate my opinion once again: ain't gonna happen, Pastor Larry.

I certainly don't argue that it does. That was not the point. The point is that by interrogation techniques you can obtain information that would save the lives of people. It would be criminal not to do so. I am not suggesting irreparable harm, or loss of life. And I didn't see any one in the memo suggesting that, but I didn't read it all. Moral relativism is not in view here. The protection of life is. Ethical dilemmas are never easy to solve, but there are principles that can be applied and should be.

Your quote again:

If you can save American lives by interrogation techniques, why isn't that good?

That is very clearly a case of the ends justifying the means. In other words, the outcome justifies the method by which the information was extracted.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
If it was not directed at me, then who is doing the condemning?

It was a generic comment. "We" was the subject of the verb condemn. (Yes that is correct grammar.) If he does not appoint pro life judges, I will condemn him on that as well.

If that is the case, then why has nothing been done? There have been several "pro-life" presidents, yet nobody has ever even come close to overturning Roe v. Wade. I will reiterate my opinion once again: ain't gonna happen, Pastor Larry.

In this system of government, the president cannot overturn Roe. The SC has to overturn it and there have been no openings for 8 years (I think ... I don't remember exactly). The next step in fighing abortion legislatively is to overturn Roe. In order to do that, we need pro life justices.

I will reiterate my opinion once again: ain't gonna happen, Pastor Larry.

But that is your opinion. It is not founded in fact, yet. It may be true. I hope it is not. But let's wait and see.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Your quote again:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If you can save American lives by interrogation techniques, why isn't that good?

</font>[/QUOTE]That is very clearly a case of the ends justifying the means. In other words, the outcome justifies the method by which the information was extracted. </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't say anything about what interrogation techniques. I merely said we should use them. An interrogation technique can be something as simple as asking a question. In that, the ends justifies the means, I hope you would agree. From that, you can proceed all the way to irreparable bodily harm and death. I believe there are limits. We should not cause irreparable bodily harm, or loss of life. Duress, loss of sleep, noise, solitude, etc are all valid interrogation techniques. I am not justifying all kinds of techniques. I did not specify. THat is why your appraisal was misguided.

 

[fromtheright]

Pastor Larry,

And yes, torture within limits is a valid means of extracting needed information.

What limits would you draw?

 

[Matt Black]

Yes. Rape for instance? And doesn't your statement violate your own constitution? And I take it from your statement that you are perfectly happy for the same courtesy to be extended to US service personnel when they are taken prisoner as a 'valid interrogation technique'? Would you be ok with a US servicewoman (or man) being raped to extract 'necessary information'?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[LadyEagle]

One of the most important reasons to honour the Geneva Conventions in your treatment of other nations' people, is that if you do not, you completely give up all right to demand that the other nations treat your people in accordance with the Conventions.

Bingo! You are correct! But we are not fighting "nations." Unless you want to call the "nation" of Islam a nation, which I don't think anyone is ready to go there. Nope. The kind of vermin we are fighting do not respect international law, Geneva Convention, or any type of Rule of Law. They behead their prisoners. As far as the pics at Abu Gharib, cheerleaders in America form pyramids all the time.... The day forming a pyramid in the nude equals a beheading is quite a stretch.

 

[Matt Black]

I agree that Abu Ghraib and Al-Zaqarwi's barbarism lack moral equivalence (although the worse we behave to them the worse they will to us). But the moment we start stooping thusward, two things happen: one is we lose something morally vital within ourselves (torture debases the torturers as well as the detainees on whom it is meted); secondly, we lose any right we may have to insist on fair treatment for our own prisoners. I agree with you re the nature of our opponents in Iraq not being 'states'; I was recalling more the treatment of US and UK POWs during the 1991 Gulf War...if we are ever in that situation again, expect the worst, if Gonzales and his ilk get their way...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Well,

Actually, it is since you are focusing on the guy's values.

Joseph Botwinick

I wasn't focusing on his values as a whole. I was focusing on his position on RvW.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
PA Jim,

Exactly what would you have the chief law enforcement officer in the country do about abortion?

First, what I wouldn't have him do is simply accept the "legality" of MURDER as "just doing his job". I would hope that he would use the considerable power of the office to resist the "ruling" to the best of his ability. I like what the CP platform says about it:

"...In addition, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. Therefore, although a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation. Roe v. Wade is an illegitimate usurpation of authority, contrary to the law of the nation's Charter and Constitution. It must be resisted by all civil government officials, federal, state, and local, and by all branches of the government - legislative, executive, and judicial.

We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

In office, we shall only appoint to the federal judiciary, and to other positions of federal authority, qualified individuals who publicly acknowledge and commit themselves to the legal personhood of the pre-born child. In addition, we will do all that is within our power to encourage federal, state, and local government officials to protect the sanctity of the life of the pre-born through legislation, executive action, and judicial enforcement of the law of the land.

Further, we condemn the misuse of federal laws against pro-life demonstrators, and strongly urge the repeal of the FACE Acts as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power into areas reserved to the states or people by the Tenth Amendment. ..."