Bush's response

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, right. This from the man who executed 152 people in Texas in less than four years.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were murderers. Bush was right to kill them. It was one of the few good things that he did in Texas.

I have no sympathy for scumbag murderers.

[kurto]

"They were murderers. Bush was right to kill them...." I think the controversy is that many of these cases were shown to have been real miscarraiges of justice. Laughable trials.

Though I'm arguing with some other fellow, I'm actually a proponent of the Death Penalty. But from what I've read about many of the cases in Texas, they were real travesties of justice.

[kurto]

"Given Bush's beliefs (as stated above) and his position as, arguably, the strongest figure in the US, did he do enough?" Personally, I don't believe anything Bush says.

I believe Bush had the record for executions. I still remember the interview where he snickered about a woman on death row pleading for her life... he mocked her.

Bush's war on Iraq led to how many innocents being killed? The man couldn't wait to go to war.

This is the first administration to advocate torture... to lock up suspects without trials...

"In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life." This completely contradicts his practice with the death penalty.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I don't believe anything Bush says.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't say![img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe Bush had the record for executions. I still remember the interview where he snickered about a woman on death row pleading for her life... he mocked her.

[/ QUOTE ]
And unless Texas law is radically different from other Capital Punishment states, every one of those executed were allowed an attorney to argue their case (provided for free if they couldn't afford it)and years and years of appeals.
It's not like Bush was out there picking random criminals from jail and shooting them.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush's war on Iraq led to how many innocents being killed? The man couldn't wait to go to war.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bush's war on Iraq led to how many innocents being saved? Probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the first administration to advocate torture

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll assume that you're talking about rendition which was NOT introduced under Bush's watch but under CLINTON'S watch.

[ QUOTE ]
to lock up suspects without trials...

[/ QUOTE ]
Many of those locked up are beyond suspected of doing something wrong...

[ QUOTE ]
This completely contradicts his practice with the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong again. Those on death row have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. And guilty of a heinous crime.

[kurto]

"You don't say!" Why would anyone, I have to wonder. (BTW... since I can imagine the typical-- 'you don't like Bush you must be a liberal so I'll write you off' response... My Mother and Father have been life long Republicans. Both voted against Bush. My wife's Grandfather once didn't talk to a relative of his because that relative admitted he was voting Democrat. He's FAMOUSLY Republican. He hates Bush.... Your "you don't say" sounds loaded, but I can't imagine what it implies?

"And unless Texas law is radically different from other Capital Punishment states, every one of those executed were allowed an attorney to argue their case (provided for free if they couldn't afford it)and years and years of appeals." I believe there's been plenty written about the travesties of justice... Lawyer's spending 15 minutes prepping for their cases... sleeping in court was my favorite.

Regardless of the state's laws... As Governor, he could grant clemency. He didn't. It contradicts his statement. You find nothing contradictory about the man who governed over the record number of executions... the man who mocked a woman pleading for clemency... making the statements he did. Seems odd to me.

"Bush's war on Iraq led to how many innocents being saved? Probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions." Complete hyperbole. Who was saved from whom? Its been adequately shown that Saddam was a threat to no one. There was no reason to invade the country.

"I'll assume that you're talking about rendition which was NOT introduced under Bush's watch but under CLINTON'S watch" I'm talking about this administration trying to excuse themselves from torture because the Geneva Convention was outdated. Why are you bringing up Clinton? What's he have to do with Bush's hypocrisy/dishonesty?

"Many of those locked up are beyond suspected of doing something wrong..." I'm not sure that makes sense. 100s have already been let go after 1 or 2 of incarceration because... they didn't do anything. BTW... it used to be 'Republican' to argue for the Constitution and following the law. Its only the new breed on neoconservative who are into picking and choosing when they need to follow the laws, screw with the Constituion, etc.

"Wrong again. Those on death row have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. And guilty of a heinous crime." No they haven't. Are you living in a cave? Apparently you've missed the numerous findings where people (because of new DNA evidence or whatever) were pulled off death row because they were proven innocent. Mind you, there have also been cases where evidence was found proving the suspects innocence when the trial is closed and their appeals have run out. ie... There is plenty of doubt as to their guilt, but the court doesn't care.

You're confusing a legal ruling with truth. They are not one and the same.

In Bush's case, he's notorious because of the terrible rulings that have happened in his state.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe there's been plenty written about the travesties of justice... Lawyer's spending 15 minutes prepping for their cases... sleeping in court was my favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly why we have appellate courts...

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of the state's laws... As Governor, he could grant clemency. He didn't. It contradicts his statement.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could and should are two different things. He should follow the recommendations of the jury and judge during the sentencing phase of trial, and not just grant clemency to every person on death row simply because he (hypothetically) didn't like the DP.

[ QUOTE ]
Who was saved from whom? Its been adequately shown that Saddam was a threat to no one. There was no reason to invade the country.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know...perhaps the innocent Iraqis being tortured to death? Perhaps the women who were raped in front of their families? Perhaps the Kurds who've been the victims of ethnic cleansing?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about this administration trying to excuse themselves from torture because the Geneva Convention was outdated.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tell me exactly where Bush or any other high official in the Bush admin approved torture because "the Geneva Convention was outdated". (I already know you're going to point to Gonzalez, but I want an exact quote of those exact words)

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you bringing up Clinton? What's he have to do with Bush's hypocrisy/dishonesty?

[/ QUOTE ]
I was pre-empting the issue of rendition, which some have falsely attributed to the Bush admin.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that makes sense. 100s have already been let go after 1 or 2 of incarceration because... they didn't do anything. BTW... it used to be 'Republican' to argue for the Constitution and following the law. Its only the new breed on neoconservative who are into picking and choosing when they need to follow the laws, screw with the Constituion, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hundreds? Could you back that up please?
Either way, there are many legit terrorists sitting in Gitmo.
BTW, where in the Constitution does it say we need to provide lawyers etc, to foreign terrorists?

[ QUOTE ]
No they haven't.

[/ QUOTE ]
By the definition of our trials, yes they have.

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently you've missed the numerous findings where people (because of new DNA evidence or whatever) were pulled off death row because they were proven innocent.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is why we have appellate courts as well as orgs such as the Innocence Project.

[ QUOTE ]
There is plenty of doubt as to their guilt, but the court doesn't care.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is whether there is reasonable doubt, not whether there is any doubt.

[ QUOTE ]
You're confusing a legal ruling with truth. They are not one and the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm doing no such thing. Our criminal courts convict people on the principal of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Capital cases usually have higher still standards.

[ QUOTE ]
In Bush's case, he's notorious because of the terrible rulings that have happened in his state.

[/ QUOTE ]
These "terrible rulings" have been handed down by a jury of 12, accepted by the prosecution and the judge, accepted by God knows how many appellate courts, and finally by the Gov.

[kurto]

"Exactly why we have appellate courts..." sigh... you don't even try, do you? There is ample evidence that the courts have failed in this respect. ie... the courts didn't think it mattered that a person's lawyer slept through their trial. Does that sound right to you? (I imagine it does.)

"Could and should are two different things. He should follow the recommendations of the jury and judge during the sentencing phase of trial, and not just grant clemency to every person on death row simply because he (hypothetically) didn't like the DP." LOL No one is suggesting 'every person.' There were numerous cases which were questionable. What about those cases?

hmmm... where's your comment on Bush mocking the woman pleading for her life? You seem silent on that one.

"I don't know...perhaps the innocent Iraqis being tortured to death? Perhaps the women who were raped in front of their families? Perhaps the Kurds who've been the victims of ethnic cleansing?" Honestly... its easier to just stop discussing. Is there a Bush supporter who has an ounce of sense? Kurds... years ago... with OUR support at the time. So you can't bring that up to justify a war a decade later. Nothing you mentioned showed why a rush to war was necessary. CAN ANY BUSH SUPPORTER PLEASE HELP THIS GUY OUT? Such a nonsensical argument.

"Tell me exactly where Bush or any other high official in the Bush admin approved torture...." Like I said.. I can't argue with people who either (1) are ignorant of the news or (2) act ignorant. If you're not aware of what I'm talking about, do some research. I'm sure you'll find it.

"Hundreds? Could you back that up please?" Sure... but I'm sure you're capable as well. Look up how many people were let go in the last 2 years.

"Either way, there are many legit terrorists sitting in Gitmo." Great. What about the one's that aren't terrorists? No one's arguing about legit proven terrorists. We're talking about the ones that aren't legit that have little to no recourse under this admin.

"BTW, where in the Constitution does it say we need to provide lawyers etc, to foreign terrorists?" They aren't foreign terrorists... the point is they haven't been shown to be anything. Honestly, you hurt my brain.

"By the definition of our trials, yes they have." You miss the point... if a court says you're guilty of killing someone doesn't mean you actually are guilty of killing that person. Honestly, try thinking things out. Don't just play semantics. Think about what a person is saying and respond to that. A court's ruling can have no relevence to the actual guilt or innocence of a person. (If you're so ignorant to think that a court's ruling always corresponds to 'truth' then please let me know for it will tell me much about you...)

"I'm doing no such thing. Our criminal courts convict people on the principal of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Capital cases usually have higher still standards." Honestly, you make it hard not to want to insult you. Its as if you're 'playing stupid.' Courts have proven people guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... only to later (sometimes after its too late) to show they were wrong. The problem is Texas was that the standards were horrendous. Again... you're either arguing for the sake of argument or you're not thinking.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly why we have appellate courts...

[/ QUOTE ]

So, it's judicial activism when Florida's appellate courts, the 11'th Circuit, and the Supreme Court *all* rule the same way in the Schiavo case, but not when Texas appeals courts decide a lawyer who slept through his client's trial isn't enough to overturn a verdict?

Niiiiice.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Bush's war on Iraq led to how many innocents being killed?

This is absolutewly irrelevant to my point. The Constitution clearly defines one of the roles of the President to be comnmander-in-chief of the military, and the War Powers Act (regardless of my dislike for it) empowers the CIC to wage war without a declaraion of war from the Congress.

What the Constitution does not allow any President to do is overrule State courts.

[kurto]

"This is absolutewly irrelevant to my point." I wasn't responding to your point. I was saying nothing more then Bush's actions contradict his statement.