Ashcroft: Bush=More Respectful of Libertys & Rights Than Any War President

[kpete]

Ashcroft defends Patriot Act Former attorney general questions critics' sincerity
By Lisa Hoppenjans, Staff Writer

CHAPEL HILL -- Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft defended the Bush administration's anti-terrorism measures amid audience hecklers and a crowd protesting outside UNC-Chapel Hill's Memorial Hall on Tuesday night.

......................

"The president has been more respectful of civil liberties and civil rights than any previous wartime president in the history of the United States," he said, pointing out that Franklin Roosevelt ordered Japanese Americans be sent to internment camps during World War II and Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to arrest tens of thousands of civilians during the Civil War.


...............

His 50-minute speech Tuesday was interrupted frequently by shouts from the crowd and, at one point, at least 20 people stood up and walked out together.

"How many innocent Iraqis have died?" one woman shouted after Ashcroft said that U.S. combat deaths in the last five years had been fewer than the losses on Sept. 11. As he did with many of the interruptions, he stopped to respond.

more at:
http://www.chapelhillnews.com/106/story/2361.html

[babylonsister]

1. How the hell could Ashcroft come to that conclusion? Respectful

of civil liberties? I beg to differ. :eyes:

[TroglodyteScholar]

2. I'll wait for a statement...

...from someone who has a better understanding of what civil liberties are.

[marmar]

5. Exactly...I wouldn't want to hear Hitler talk about racial sensitivity...

and I don't want to hear Ashcroft talk about civil liberites. I suspect his definition is quite warped.

[spanone]

3. Who is paying Ashcroft to speak out? He doesn't talk for free.

[Coyote_Bandit]

4. Thing is

there has been no formal legal declaration of war. That means that the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the ever illusive "war on terror" can only be described as political. We would all do well to recharacterize these eventes for what they are.

We are not at war.

[Loge23]

6. Dinsdale returns!

...with apologies, and gratitude, to the Pythons:

"I've been told Dinsdale Piranha nailed your head to the floor."

Stig: No. Never. He was a smashing bloke. He used to buy his mother flowers and that. He was like a brother to me.

Interviewer: But the police have film of Dinsdale actually nailing your head to the floor.

Stig: (pause) Oh yeah, he did that...Well he had to, didn't he? I mean there was nothing else he could do, be fair. I had transgressed the unwritten law"


This just gets more and more insane.

[indepat]

7. Even in pre-emptive war?

[Cha]

8. How about any fucking lying

faux war preztleDENT?

[jeff30997]

9. Let the eagle sooar !!!

What a ridiculous clown!

Watch this and try not to laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riKGGWFqnH8

:rofl:

[135th]

10. It's actually not a bad argument,

as long as you focus on war related issues. Compared to 20th Century wars in particular, Bush looks pretty good:

WWI(Wilson): draft, speaking against the draft and war is a crime.
WWII(FDR): draft, internment of Japanese/German/Italian citizens.
Korea(Truman): draft
Vietnam(LBJ): draft, various crimes commited against protesters that can't be pinned on LBJ but deserve mention (Kent State, etc).
Gulf War(Bush 41): nothing I can think of, though if anyone has anything feel free to fill me in.
Iraq(Bush 43): harasment of protesters (not directly Bushs fault, but deserves mention).

The only president Bush looks worse then is Bush, because the Gulf War comes off pretty tame compared to the others. If anything has anything I'm missing, feel free to add it.

[riderinthestorm]

13. But the "war" on terror isn't really a "war" now is it?

It's actually a fabrication to strip civil liberties from Americans.

Welcome to DU (for as long as you last...) :eyes:

[135th]

15. Nice to be here,

though I've been around for a while. What's wrong with that argument? Not since WWII has the US really had a war in the strict legal sense, that doesn't change the fact that thousands of Americans lost their lives fighting. Like I said, Ashcroft's argument holds up if you look at war related civil liberties exclusively. Right now we aren't being forced to fight, and can crtiticize the war openly. That can't be said about most 20th century wars.

[undeterred]

11. Asscroft speaking: Drape your breasts!

[stepnw1f]

12. This From a Guy Who is Phobic of Nude Statues

These right wingers are weirrrrrd.

[Disturbed]

14. Busholini respects nothing except MONEY!

What is a war crime?
By Tarik Kafala
BBC News Online


Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1420133.stm



Willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment

Willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health

Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person

willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial,