samclemens

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 09:11 PM) Foreign Relations are important. yes, yes they are.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 03:22 PM) you waited one day to drag this post up and say that? i know...since i waited a few days, the content of my post is completely neutralized! damn! everybody knows that posts that are late must be criticized. who responds to a post that is relatively old, anyway??

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 03:36 PM) It is difficult to condemn Kofi for his crimes when we knew about it and did nothing the whole f***ing time. If it was so bad then why let it happen? Oh yeah because it wasn't politically expedient at the time to condemn Kofi. In fact, according to the US Senate Subcommittee report -- the US actually facilitated the illicit oil sales. So if Kofi is a corrupt sonofab**** (which he is) then what's the US for facilitating the illegal sales? Let non-committed countries without involvement in the situation focus on all the corruption going on (since you wanted a constructive way) If the US just goes after Kofi, it ignores the glaring beam in their own eye -- that they were just as f***ing corrupt. of course, you didnt answer my question. who the hell should call out annan if its not the US? correct me if im wrong, but you once again offer absolutely NO constructive suggestions, and you seem to imply that since the U.S. is corrupt, and annan is corrupt, and we knew about annan being corrupt, we should all just say "f*** it" and leave him in there. is that a correct assessment?? WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION???? if you dont have one, DONT COMPLAIN! edit: oh, i see...lithuania should call annan out. or some other small, uninfluential country. since those countries have so much pull in the UN (them being in the great 7 like us), thats a great solution that is guarenteed to work.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 03:27 PM) Yet it was Gingrich and the rest of the people thirsting for him to drop trow on the floor of Congress so they could see the distinguishing characteristics of his wang saying that his efforts were "wagging the dog". And actually the CIA admitted (if you read my previous posts with Bojinka and my citations) that the CIA had doubts about the intel and therefore didn't want to go through with the hit. Clinton authorized it but the CIA wasn't sure it was him. The Sudan thing -- it was up to Bush's favorites, the House of Saud, to take him into custody and then be given to the US. But the US/Sudan couldn't convince the Saudis to do it. Hence, the US couldn't get him. Your anti-Clinton hackery is quite hilarious and really devoid of anything called "Facts". Hell, I don't even like Clinton but I won't admit that he did nothing because he actually did combat terrorism. your anti-bush hackery is blinding your reasoning. you blame everything on republicans and bush. was that you in the bolton thread too who i said that to about an hour ago? even if its not, think about the issue and talk it out, instead of just blaming the president. please!

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 18, 2006 -> 11:25 AM) Yes because spending more money than it would take to house him with life without parole would be such a great idea. Killers must really get the right idea that killing is wrong -- because if you do it, the state gets to kill you back. And nice of you to leave out the fact that the "cornerstone" of the State's case came from a jailhouse snitch who lied. The use of jailhouse informants -- contemporaneous inmates who claim to have extracted the confessions of killers while awaiting their trials -- is a regular feature of death penalty trials. Samuelson told the jury that Morales had confessed to him in jail, and gave chilling details about how he planned the murder and how he boasted about it many months later. His testimony was particularly relevant in the jury's verdict for death because he provided the evidence of a "special circumstance" -- a requirement to elevate 1st-degree murder to capital murder. Calling it "the cornerstone" of the government's case, presiding judge McGrath stated: "Mr. Samuelson's testimony describing the confession was the only evidence to support the single special circumstance...that made Mr. Morales eligible for the death penalty." At the time of the Morales' trial, Bruce Samuelson was facing six felony charges, which led Parole Officer Vickie Wetherell to recommend "immediate commitment to state prison." Instead, after writing to Morales' prosecutor promising that he could provide the evidence that would guarantee a conviction with special circumstances (death penalty), the prosecutor dropped 4 of the 6 charges against him, and managed to get court approval of a very light county jail sentence for the remaining 2 charges in exchange for his damning testimony. "I had no doubt that without the plea bargain, such a repeated offender would have been sentenced to prison," Wetherell has declared. "The fact that Samuelson escaped full adjudication and punishment was disconcerting." But how do we know that what Samuelson told the jury was a lie? Because when asked years later by the attorney general how he managed to elicit so much damning information from the accused in a crowded jail cell without any other inmate hearing their alleged conversations, Samuelson boasted of his Spanish language skills ("I was very fluent in it, reading, writing and speaking, both formal and informal, or 'Spang/lish,' 'ghetto Spanish' and in educated Spanish") and asserted that he and Morales had conducted their confessional sessions in Spanish. There is only one problem with this explanation: Michael Morales, a 4th-generation American, does not speak Spanish! This raises the question: How did Samuelson get the specific details about those involved in this crime if not from the defendant himself? Good jailhouse informants have become quite adept at gleaning details from the public record by passing themselves off as parties to the legal process or as law enforcement officials entitled to confidential information. Unfortunately, this is all too common. When 13 of those condemned to death in Illinois were later exonerated, the Illinois Commission on Capital Punishment found that nearly half were convicted as the result of false testimony of jailhouse informants. In California, more than 200 inmates have been released from prison since 1989 because of unreliable trials, and, according to a recent report conducted by San Francisco Magazine, 1 in 5 was convicted on the basis of false testimony of such informants. -- Now the bastard may very well be guilty and deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life -- but the use of the jailhouse testimony lie to up it to a capital case is total and complete BS. I'm not saying let the guy out -- but commute the sentence to life without parole, especially in light of the evidence about this "cornerstone" of the State's capital case. But who needs logic and reason when there's an execution afoot cuz killing is wrong! (that is unless the state is doing the killing) you are right, this guy doesnt deserve to die, and snitches lying in court are usually what puts people in the chair. happens in almost every death row case!

FINALLY. god damn, FINALLY!

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 12:50 PM) Google search it. You'll find that Bill Clinton was trying to bring counter terrorism efforts to the forefront of his administration in 1995, before the Oklahoma City bombing, but it was blocked repeatedly by Republicans. In 1996, the Clinton administration introduced a counter-terror initiative that sought to increase funding for counter terrorism programs. It actually included enhanced wiretapping capabilities so that the US could be more flexible in pursuing non-state actors who were threats to national security. (FISA was amended in 1995 to give the administration a 72 hour window after the beginning of wiretapping to allow the government more flexibility in pursuing terror suspects.) The Clinton administration actively sought to upgrade security at US interests including its embassies during the 1990s, so much so that they actually got into an argument with Germany that delayed renovation of the Brandenburg Gate because Germany objected to blast walls and 20 foot high fences in the center of Berlin. (The bulk of embassy operations were later moved to an old US military base in the Southern region of the city where security measures could be more easily used.) Clinton actively tried to dry up economic assets of known terror suspects, including Bin Laden in 1998. Under his watch, he had the FBI reorganize itself to devote at least part of its resources specifically to counter terror organizations. His administration also chartered a blue ribbon investigation panel chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, and who included former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. They delivered a comprehensive study of recommendations that could have been implemented (some of them immediately) but when introduced fell flat because it just wasn't the interest of the people in charge at the time. What's my point? The Clinton administration actually did quite a bit to combat terror during its term. But because it did so without drawing attention to itself over and over and over again, when something major happened - it was all about how the Clinton administration screwed up. The truth is that we live in a free society. And with freedom comes a degree of vulnerability. We can do whatever we can to protect ourselves and maintain our way of life - ideals and all. But that means that sometimes some mean people with box cutters can slip through the cracks and cause us a world of pain. Because we value our freedom, we also have to accept the possibility that others who don't may use our freedom against us. So terrorism happening isn't Bush's fault. It isn't Clinton's fault. But I can say that ignoring specific threats can be a President's fault. And I haven't seen any evidence to show that the Clinton administration did just that. thats really great that he had initiatives and tried to freeze some bank accounts. but practically, what did he accomplish? not a damn thing. the reason is that hugging and singing koombya and appeasing terrorists instead of physically stopping them isnt going to make them stop trying to pull s*** off like 9/11.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 02:32 PM) I'm saying that Kofi is indeed a bastard. However, I'm not so sure the US should be the one leading that charge because they knew of the scandal and did nothing when it was going on. Rooting out the corruption takes an entity who didn't have their thumb in the pie to be successful. wow...another complaint without any kind of solution offered. you say the US should not be the one screaming for the rooting out of corruption in the UN? why not, considering we pay for over half of the s***e resolutions they pass through their worthless assembly? if not us, then who? just because we "knew" about some corrupt s*** or part of some corrupt s*** doesnt mean that kofi annon should stay in power at the UN. do you have anything even remotely constructive to say about the issue at all? or you just hate the president, and the president appointed bolton, so you have to hate bolton. i got it.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 11:33 AM) You know so little about this issue, it's stunning that you'd make a comment yourself. Bill Clinton did start the work of transforming the way government responds to threats - his work was by no means complete, or in some cases enough, but to say he did absolutely nothing or had a "grease up and bend over" policy is just wrong. what is it i'm missing? please enlighten me then. what work was it that clinton did? perhaps you should change the description of what he did from "not complete" (not complete in the sense s*** was done) and "enough" (but not apparently enough to stop any terrorist acts, ramifications climaxing on 9/11) to "completely deficient". clinton did not do even close to enough to quell terrorism- at least with the current prez you can complain that he is doing too much (at least thats the trendy liberal complaint nowdays, isnt it?). dont forget to insult me again in your response, since im as wrong and stupid as you say and imply. after all, since i dont agree with you, i must be wrong.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 11:26 AM) Yes. ...and your reasons are??

i dont agree with much of hacket's statements, but i have to agree that the man was shafted. if he was in another state (MI, for example) i think he would have done alright. the man refused to be a tool of the party, and got run out.

that corrupt SOB needs to be tried for his involvement in oil-for-food with saddam, as well as his son. the UN isnt going to do anything with that bastard at the helm. hes just an obstructionist at this point. is anyone still going to say that bolton's not the man for the job as UN ambassador to the UN? i love that hes shaking things up and telling it like it is.

yeah, there is of course blame to around to everyone involved on both sides of the eisle. but hidsight is 20/20, my friends. clinton REALLY f***ed it up with his "get ready U.S., grease up and bend over" policy towards terrorism. he should have nabbed bin laden when he had the chance. so he gets more blame than anyone else in my opinion. i do have to tip my hat to clinton for keeping his f***in' mouth shut with criticism in areas where he was totally deficient when he was in office. at least he has the decency not to be a pot calling the kettle black (cough...carter...cough). p.s. carter sucks

In soviet russia, car drives you!

YES! my money says sosa will never make the hall.

sounds like freedom fries in the us congressional cafeteria

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 12:23 PM) The "wag the dog" stuff by the way was Clinton trying to go after Osama Bin Laden. Not Bosnia. The Republican members of Congress just opposed it because it was Bill Clinton's doing and not theirs. oh so when Sudan had bin laden in custody and offered him to the clinton admin. and clinton personally turned down the offer, that was the republican congress' fault?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 12:54 PM) I said nothing about US citizens. If we arrest a foreign citizen, can we just hold them indefinitely? If some tourist is arrested in New York for a crime, can we do whatever we want to them because they are not US citizens and also not soldiers? There is due process for foreigners, even if its not specified in the Constitution. If the US decides it is OK to just treat these people in any way it chooses, then again, as I stated earlier, we have no ground to stand on INTERNATIONALLY as a country that protects personal freedoms. So in your mind, a tourist who runs a red light in the US is equivalent to an Afghani running around Pakistan or Afghanistan with an AK-47 trying to kill our troops? please explain that one to me. here's my opinion on the difference: one is a terrorist, and the other is not. in response to all those network news claims about over half the detainees not bineg involved in violent acts: funding terrorists makes you a terrorist. theres no difference between those two crimes, both make you a terrorist (analogy: charles manson was convicted of murder even though he did not actually kill anyone). for the record, and contrary to what i am getting from your post impliedly, i do not support the indefinite detention of even terrorists without a trial. however, i could give a rat's ass how long it takes for that to happen. you all know my position on this from my previous posts in this thread. these terrorists have no protection under the geneva convention or the US constitution, and as far as im concerned, they should consider themselves lucky they were not simply executed when they were captured, as our military had the legal right to do under the geneva convention. why are the liberals in this thread stretching so far to hold the hand and wipe the ass of people that, given the chance, would kill you and celebrate it? just because you hate the president you hope to implement policies that would result in more troops dying. so lets release all the terrorists in guantanimo.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 05:55 PM) There's no excuse for Bush to go around FISA. thats your opinion. it is the current administrations opinion that despite FISA, the Constitution grants executory powers in the President that supercede FISA. Until a court says otherwise, you may want to consider that you could be wrong, and that you quite possibly are in the minority in regards to your opinion on this issue. im just trying to get you to see both sides of the issue. they are right until proven wrong. dont be so outraged, it happens all the time. its how the powers change through time. some office asserts power and they either keep it or are challenged. if no one challenges this (courts would be most credible and effective way) then it will become precedent.

look what this argument has reduced to...

whoa, sorry about that. felt like i was sort of on the bandwagon there, but i see where the line is now. sorry, wont happen again.

QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ Feb 14, 2006 -> 01:44 AM) Just for Giggles.... 1) JFK 2) Jefferson 3) Nixon 4) F.D.R. 5) LBJ (because he used to pull his pants down at public events and named his pecker "jumbo") This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you. what is your source to call lincoln a racist? stop smoking meth. and the president who was in office during the height of the cold war (and came within inches of f***ing it up during the cuban missile crisis; due to luck alone there was not mutually assurred destruction) who was shot before he could really do much of anything? i agree that JFK COULD have been a great president, but he didnt have the chance. what did JFK do that was so good for the US? oh and he also continued to escalate the vietnam war while giving that b.s. lip service about it being "their war to fight".

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 12:29 PM) Right, we should tell everyone, "Do as I say, dont do as I do." Uniforms are a pathetic argument. you are right, the uniforms are a technical point. but its still valid. i'll stick with it. dont only address half of my argument though. what about the violations they have and continue to commit? then trying to be afforded it's protections? i got a huge problem with that kind of blatant hypocrisy, thats why i feel so staunchly about this issue.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 12:23 PM) This argument is bogus - this is the US government trying to have it both ways. if the Geneva conventions don't apply, because these are not soldiers, then guess what? They are criminals. And in that case, where is the due process? This is why the program is illegal and embarrassing for the US. They are trying to play both sides. Now, I agree with Nuke that the report was poorly researched and can't stand too well on its own. Its typical UN bull. But the detainment of these people at Gitmo, for the length of time they have been there, is a travesty. Our reputation as a nation of freedom and justice for all is at stake on the world stage, and this Gitmo thing is making us look like hypocrites. Hello? THEY ARE NOT U.S. CITIZENS. this country is not called the united states of the world. is the united states of america. unless you are an american citizen, YOU DONT HAVE THE PRIVILIDGE OF DUE PROCESS. the US government has no duty whatsoever to provide due process to people who have never lived in the US, and are trying to kill our troops overseas. i totally understand why there is such a debate about whether or not terrorists captured in afghanistan and iraq fall under the geneva convention. but there is no way that they fall under the US constitution. i simply fail to see your reasoning on how constitutional protections exclusively (and expressly) reserved for american citizens apply to a foreign combatant who has never even set foot in the country before (wouldnt matter if they did anyway, that doesnt make you a citizen).

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 12:19 PM) So you are saying that we should ignore the geneva convention because the terrorists do? Doesnt that make us as bad as them? I especially like the assertion that these guys dont need to be treated fairly because they arent dressed properly, lol. well i guess we should protect sworn enemies of our country with a doctrine that does not apply to them. we should also collectively stick our thumbs up our asses and wait for the next 9/11. also sounds like a winning strategy over in iraq. but its ok, cause we will still be "better" than them. soldiers who do not wear uniforms cannot be afforded the geneva convention's protections. it was the same in WWII (soldiers caught in battle or behind enemy lines without their uniform were allowed to be executed by their captor). the fact that they arent dressed in uniform means that they cannot hide behind the geneva convention. that and their blatant disregard of it's rules. who even knows how much else of it's been violated by different acts of terrorists.