Subject:
|
Re: Democracy.... Dubya Style
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:17:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
749 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> > > Actually I think I see him seeing himself as a father figure. To me,
> > > he at least appears to believe he's doing the right thing. Whether he
> > > is or not, only time will tell. Most other political figures leave me
> > > with the impression that they know they're dishonest and corrupt. I
> > > don't particularly care for that.
> >
> > So Bush talks about Freedom and Liberty whist funding gross human rights
> > abuses in places like Uzbekistan & Israel and [you think he is not
> > "dishonest"?]
> >
> > He hands out "lucrative" contracts to his buddies and [you think he is not
> > corrupt?]
>
> That's not what I said (or at least not what I thought I said). I thought
> I said he gives the appearance (to me) of someone who believes what he's
> doing is right. As for myself, I find the lucrative buddy contracts
> questionable, and I can't really tell which side is right on the human
> rights cases you mentioned. Sometimes short term wrongs lead to long
> term rights, and short term rights lead to disaster in the long run.
> Which do you prefer?
Well that's all fine and dandy if he says "Look I'm gonna do some short term
wrongs here, but I'm convinced in the long term it'll be alright" but I don't
hear him saying that.
"It's right to hold these suspected terrorist/conspirators without charge for 2
years before forcing them to face our military commission instead of their own
courts" BALONEY! He knows its wrong, but he still says it's right! In the end,
it may prove to be a good decision, but in the short term IT IS WRONG!
Unfortunately, no-one can see the future [1], and no-one is even PRETENDING that
is why the decision was made.
From an interview with his lawyer:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s1013113.htm
"I don't think that any Australian would want to be tried on those rules of
evidence.
They include allowing in hearsay, testimony from previous trials, unsworn
statements, statements that are obtained in interrogation processes that would
never be allowed in an Australian court.
All those things -- and not to mention the fact that he has been detained for
two years in those circumstances.
The defence is now two years behind the prosecution in terms of being able to
provide an effective defence."
But maybe this is starting to filter through to people that can do something
about it http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s1013815.htm
ROSCO
[1] Well ok, maybe some can, maybe some can even see it clear enough to tell
Dubya he's made a good decision, but I doubt it. So sue me.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Democracy.... Dubya Style
|
| (...) That's not what I said (or at least not what I thought I said). I thought I said he gives the appearance (to me) of someone who believes what he's doing is right. As for myself, I find the lucrative buddy contracts questionable, and I can't (...) (21 years ago, 18-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
32 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
