Fashcroft has resigned

[CrazyDT]

I am sorry for his deep supporters.

Let's arrange a farewell, guys!

Let him know your kind regards.

dt

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=240673

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/NY12011092320.jpeg

[stanford]

Excellent news,someone just as bad will take Ashcroft's place.
How do you think is Ashcroft's job mission accomplished??

[WASP]

It's Ashcroft, not Fashcroft. I don't think there are many, if any, supporters among us, the forum dwellers, because the majority, if not every one, does not have a slightest idea who this person is. And I am not talking about the information gathered off the Internet, news channels and etc. I mean really know him. i.e. stanford. He has no freaking idea what he’d just said, he was even reluctant to check the CNN's website to see who's replacing him and yet he dared to pitch a negative comment with respect to Ashcroft, disregarding the fact that during the period of his service in the US as an attorney-general no further terrorist attacks were transpired. Yes, he had a lot of controversy around him due to his unsuccessful decisions that depicted him as a sexist/racist, but that does that make him a bad attorney-general? No. He wasn't the best indeed, but he was not bad at all either.

[CrazyDT]

It's Ashcroft, not Fashcroft. I don't think there are many, if any, supporters among us, the forum dwellers, because the majority, if not every one, does not have a slightest idea who this person is. And I am not talking about the information gathered off the Internet, news channels and etc. I mean really know him. i.e. stanford. He has no freaking idea what he’d just said, he was even reluctant to check the CNN's website to see who's replacing him and yet he dared to pitch a negative comment with respect to Ashcroft, disregarding the fact that during the period of his service in the US as an attorney-general no further terrorist attacks were transpired. Yes, he had a lot of controversy around him due to his unsuccessful decisions that depicted him as a sexist/racist, but that does that make him a bad attorney-general? No. He wasn't the best indeed, but he was not bad at all either.


oooh, no, he is Fashcroft, not a tree hugging liberal :)

No, I know who is gonna be in his place and I am not worried because fuehrer’s party never lets followers down.


dt

[Maroon]

Da chuvak horosho poyot. Prikolniy. :D hahaha. Nu niche, it will be nice to look at a latino but a little old hunk now.;) There are some policies i did not like by Ashcroft.:)

He is resigning because there was a major f*** up. Whatever it was, we won't know.;)


Ciaooo.

[Guardian]

It's Ashcroft, not Fashcroft. I don't think there are many, if any, supporters among us, the forum dwellers, because the majority, if not every one, does not have a slightest idea who this person is. And I am not talking about the information gathered off the Internet, news channels and etc. I mean really know him. i.e. stanford. He has no freaking idea what he’d just said, he was even reluctant to check the CNN's website to see who's replacing him and yet he dared to pitch a negative comment with respect to Ashcroft, disregarding the fact that during the period of his service in the US as an attorney-general no further terrorist attacks were transpired. Yes, he had a lot of controversy around him due to his unsuccessful decisions that depicted him as a sexist/racist, but that does that make him a bad attorney-general? No. He wasn't the best indeed, but he was not bad at all either.
John Ashcroft, the USA attorney generaland the embodimentof the Christian right in the bush adminstratioin resigned, making the start of a 2nd-term reshuffle. Also, resignation of Don Evans, the commerce secretary was also announced last night. It looks like more other departures to be seen.
Ashcroft has been chempion of the religious right and a lightning rod for liberals for his overt opposition to abortion, his support of gunovners' right ans more lot conservative and stupid ideological leadership stuffs.
Choice of resignation's replacement as an attorney general will show us of how GW Bush is planing his policy for the 2nd tearm 4 year.

Probable replacements are:
Larry Thompson (he could be first black american attorney general). He is less ideological than Ashcroft and much respected among Justice Department Politicians. If so, he has to resign from Pepsi Co's well paying job.
Alberto Gonsalez(another .......), a lawyer in White House. Who has recently signed memorandum/report suggesting the recent wars in irak and afhganistan were 'war on terror' and didn't break the Geneva Memorandum.
Rudolph Giliani, a former NY mayor. He might be too liberal on social issues for core Republicans
Marc Racicot, a former Montana governor, who helped much run bush's re-election campaign. he is certain to get a nice posistion.
Evans, old friends with Bush from Texas days, who helped GW Bush to raise money for political battles within Texas in old days.

Also, Powell Colin, Condaleezza Rice, and Ramsfled Donald are expected to leave their job before second term start, if not before...:) It is gonna be new re-engined Bush Government then;)

Joe :)

[Maroon]

Hm...Joe it is Gonzales. Vse uje reshili. Duh!

D.

[Guardian]

Hm...Joe it is Gonzales. Vse uje reshili. Duh!

D.
Really :shock: ???
Look what Bush has chosen? Belive me the situation is gonna go seriously worse from today...:shock:
Mdaaaaaaa :twisted:

[WASP]

Look what Bush has chosen? Belive me the situation is gonna go seriously worse from today...:shock:


Gonzales is one of Bush's oldest advisors… Anyway, I am not sure which situation you are referring to, but you must have a number of serious facts to support that interesting statement of yours. So, you said that because you are an expert in...... (!?!?)

[nbyall12]

Even though he's resigned we still did the presentation about him, all the secretaries in the cabinet. Now I know who they all are! :) They say Powell might also resign?

[Guardian]

Gonzales is one of Bush's oldest advisors… Anyway, I am not sure which situation you are referring to, but you must have a number of serious facts to support that interesting statement of yours. So, you said that because you are an expert in...... (!?!?)
GONZALES SAYS ADMINISTRATION IS A 'STRONG SUPPORTER OF GENEVA CONVENTIONS: "At the same time, President Bush recognized that our nation will continue to be a strong supporter of the Geneva treaties. The president also reaffirmed our policy in the United States armed forces to treat Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at Guantánamo Bay humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in keeping with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention."
- Alberto Gonzales, 5/15/04 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/15/opinion/15GONZ.html?pagewanted=print&position=)(NYT Op-Ed)

VERSUS

GONZALES SAYS GENEVA RESTRICTIONS ARE OBSOLETE: "The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians...In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

- Alberto Gonzales, 1/25/02 (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989436/) (Memorandum to the President, as reported in Newsweek 5/16/04)

Liars!!!!!!!!!:twisted: The whole lot of them.
And remember, as a ratified treaty, the Geneva Convention isn't optional. It has the force of law, and breaking the convention is literally breaking US law. So Gonsalez is one of political and war criminals of Bush Admisntration.

[Guardian]

Here another story about Gonzales + Bush policy:
Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings
Could Bush administration officials be prosecuted for 'war crimes' as a result of new measures used in the war on terror? The White House's top lawyer thought so
The White House was undeterred. By Jan. 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by NEWSWEEK, it was clear that Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. In the memo, which was written to Bush by Gonzales, the White House legal counsel told the president that Powell had "requested that you reconsider that decision." Gonzales then laid out startlingly broad arguments that anticipated any objections to the conduct of U.S. soldiers or CIA interrogators in the future. "As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales wrote to Bush. "The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians." Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

The link for the quote is here http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/site/newsweek/

Are these not enough objective facts, that Gonsalez will 'lead' nation to the bright future?

[stanford]

It's Ashcroft, not Fashcroft. I don't think there are many, if any, supporters among us, the forum dwellers, because the majority, if not every one, does not have a slightest idea who this person is. And I am not talking about the information gathered off the Internet, news channels and etc. I mean really know him. i.e. stanford. He has no freaking idea what he’d just said, he was even reluctant to check the CNN's website to see who's replacing him and yet he dared to pitch a negative comment with respect to Ashcroft, disregarding the fact that during the period of his service in the US as an attorney-general no further terrorist attacks were transpired. Yes, he had a lot of controversy around him due to his unsuccessful decisions that depicted him as a sexist/racist, but that does that make him a bad attorney-general? No. He wasn't the best indeed, but he was not bad at all either.
Can't this go as a personal idea?? :shock: It's really nothing special u said, or perhaps i was addicted to the dark side.I am not happy that he resigned, because there are many more like Ashcroft that might follow in and do worse things. If you make a statue of him it's your willing but did you fail on my question about General's mission?? " He wasn't the best indeed, but he was not bad at all either" You see the contradiction here???

[WASP]

stanford,

where exactly do I contradict with myself? I said he wasn't the best, but he's not bad either. I don't see any contradictions...

[spoon]

I personally dislike him for his P (http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=51202785) A (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207) T (http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/civilliberties/theusapatriotact/alaresolution.htm) R (http://www.repealnow.com/) I (http://www.alternet.org/story/15541) O (http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/PATRIOT/) T (http://www.sacurrent.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10705756&BRD=2318&PAG=461&dept_id=482778&rfi=6) Act

Full description:
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act, H.R. 3162, S. 1510, Public Law 107-56) is a United States legislative law, enacted in response to the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks. The bill passed 98-1 in the United States Senate, and 356-66 in the United States House of Representatives; Senator Russ Feingold (Democrat, Wisconsin) cast the Senate's lone dissenting vote. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on October 26, 2001. Attorney general John Ashcroft was the chief architect of the act.

[stanford]

stanford,

where exactly do I contradict with myself? I said he wasn't the best, but he's not bad either. I don't see any contradictions...
When u mentioned about no existence of "freaking ideas" i followed that you will give some remarks to his "historical experience".So anyway if you live here in States more then i do, no doubt you know much better about these political figuras and especially domestic issues,laws and etc.And i don't like Ashcroft 'cuz of those held captive in Guantanamo,holding them for prolonged periods without charging them or allowing them access to attorneys.If charged later caught again in Afganistan. Or may be 'cuz of tortures. May be you are right also in a sense that i don't know how did he work to protect and defend the Constitution.

[WASP]

And i don't like Ashcroft 'cuz of those held captive in Guantanamo,holding them for prolonged periods without charging them or allowing them access to attorneys.

You did not answer the question about me contradicting. Anyway, do not forget where you come from. Don't act all liberal and democratic and shit. Do you really believe people who are held in Guantanamo deserve to have any right whatsoever? Well, I had read a letter of a Russian Guantanamo detainee, which he sent to his parents. He wrote that he liked his life in prison in the US than his life in freedom in Russia (I read it off some Russian source). Why would any attorney even get the job of defending some terrorist, who fought against his/her own country mates? The vast majority of those prisoners are actually the POWs and/or people who have mastered the highest skills in destroying/killing/raping etc. I am not saying you should like Ashcroft. Ultimately, it is your own choice. However, it's not for you, or anybody else in this forum, to condemn a person of his caliber. He did whatever was necessary to secure the perimeter of his own nation. Did he fail to do so? No!

[Delf]

The vast majority of those prisoners are actually the POWs and/or people who have mastered the highest skills in destroying/killing/raping etc.

That should be proved by the people who accuse them to be terrorists.
Every person is assumed not guilty until given a fair trial with due process.

So, if, for instance, I happen to be an FBI and call WASP a terrorist, it doesn't necesseraly mean that WASP is a terrorist, I (FBI) have to prove it in the court. And WASP has every right to defend himself.

Delf.

[WASP]

That should be proved by the people who accuse them to be terrorists.
Every person is assumed not guilty until given a fair trial with due process.

So, if, for instance, I happen to be an FBI and call WASP a terrorist, it doesn't necesseraly mean that WASP is a terrorist, I (FBI) have to prove it in the court. And WASP has every right to defend himself.

Delf.

Yeah..yeah I, too, know that:

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

What if the guy is a POW? What are you going to do? "Oh sorry buddy we can't put you in prison, because we are not sure you are a Taliban… you may go now, but when we catch you again and we have proper paperwork that would authorize us to put you in prison, we will do so.. now go!" (in the middle of Afghanistan?!?) C’mon man... you know, if you let the guy go there's 95% probability this guy will pick the first gun 2 km down the road and shoot back at you. Guantanamo is not the kind of prison, where they put burglars and all that little shit-head criminals. Moreover, if you do a little research you will be surprised by the fact that America, when one is not proven guilty, deports a lot of Guantanamo detainees back to their home countries; however, some of them are executed, others spend the rest of their lives there. It's a fair game, you guys know it! So, what's the big deal about it?

[stanford]

You did not answer the question about me contradicting. Anyway, do not forget where you come from. Don't act all liberal and democratic and shit. Do you really believe people who are held in Guantanamo deserve to have any right whatsoever? Well, I had read a letter of a Russian Guantanamo detainee, which he sent to his parents. He wrote that he liked his life in prison in the US than his life in freedom in Russia (I read it off some Russian source). Why would any attorney even get the job of defending some terrorist, who fought against his/her own country mates? The vast majority of those prisoners are actually the POWs and/or people who have mastered the highest skills in destroying/killing/raping etc. I am not saying you should like Ashcroft. Ultimately, it is your own choice. However, it's not for you, or anybody else in this forum, to condemn a person of his caliber. He did whatever was necessary to secure the perimeter of his own nation. Did he fail to do so? No!
Yes he did, if he is not why the main problem remains law enforcement and security?? And again everybody has a right to speak his/her idea even if it is wrong or right and argument is not about the choices of individuals, argument is about a topic chosen. If you think he was a right person to protect law and express your idea about his career doesn't mean that you belong to a particular type of political units or whatever.
Once again Ashcroft has been a wrong guy as the nations chief law officer. He detained more then 1400 individuals under the result of cracking down on terrorism,kept for months and may be years ,without charge or trial. As i saw on TV the US supreme Court itself criticized Jus, Department's acts in law enforcement.if you remember Bush during his debate pointed out that he made some mistakes in appointing some high officials, may be one of them was Ashcroft.