Arar Sues Ashcroft [Archive]

Dancing David

24th January 2004, 07:04 AM

Mahar Arar was a Canadian national deported by our country to Syria while he was in transit from Germany to Canada. He was detained in New York city and then deported, he claims that he ws never allowed to consult with Canadian officials. He also claims that he was deported by the US to be tortured by the Syrian government.

He is now suing Ashcroft and the INS officials that deported him, on the basis of a law outlawing the 'aiding and abetting of torture', which was a law that Bush the Elder signed into law.

I have been amazed at the complacency of this forum about this news story. A foriegn national deported while in transist through our country, no trial, no legal evidence presented and this guy gets tortured. We are starting to act like a police state and all the citizens just look the other way.

How would you feel if it was an American in transit in Canada who was deported to be tortured.

We need to have national security but not at the cost of our liberty! Funny how a 'leftist' is the one who cares about personal liberty, and not the traditional defenders of freedom.

We can not sink to the level of supporting torture and the abuse of human rights or we are no better than the Soviets that every one loves to decry!

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

24th January 2004, 07:57 AM

I have been following this story but the facts have been so few, so ellusive , it has been very confusing to me.

Arar (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/)

A lot of controversy is being stirred up in Canada as a
reporter's home was searched by RCMP (http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2004/01/21/arar040121)

It looks like Juliet O'Neill dug too deep for her story and allegedly communicated leaked sensitive governement documents. CHarges may be pending on reporter.

The CBS News program 60 Minutes II reported on Wednesday night that Canadian authorities were told of Washington's plan to deport Maher Arar to Syria and that they approved.

O'Neill has become a target. It will be interesting to see how the journalist community respond to the search of a reporter's home.

The Canadian government has come under a lot of criticism (http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_031126.html) lately on its in-action, or inability to protect the intersest of Canadians abroad. The Canadian government has been using inneffective "soft diplomacy" to deal with detentions and allegations of torture of Canadain citizens in Syria and Saudi Arabia, and an execution of a Canadian citizen/journalist in Iran.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

24th January 2004, 08:03 AM

Arar's statement (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/arar_statement.html)

"I was ready to confess to anything if they would stop the torture." (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/11/04/arar031104)

Dancing David

24th January 2004, 08:43 AM

Thank You PPG, the last time I posted on this is was when Arar was saying that the Canadians were the ones who wanted him deported. On As It Happens last night they were saying that the main evidnce against Arar was that he had been to a 'training camp' somewhere. What ticks me off , here in the US, we have plenty of 'training camps' for paramilitary groups, where they practise all sorts of potential terrorist acts. Then we have the Nut Case Supreme David Koresh who is busy raping little girls, burns down his own compound and becomes some sort of national freaking hero!

And now it is back to the cold war menatlity, it is okay to break the law if we do it in the right cause.

AAAAARGGH!

corplinx

24th January 2004, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Then we have the Nut Case Supreme David Koresh who is busy raping little girls, burns down his own compound and becomes some sort of national freaking hero!

Can you point me to anyone who thinks David Koresh was a hero? I for one have never seen Koresh lionized but instead Janet Reno/Bill Clinton demonized.

Koresh was a sick mother scratcher and I have never heard anyone say otherwise.

It was the siege of his compound that was scrutinized as overboard dramatics that provoked a response from an unstable cult leader

Zep

25th January 2004, 02:19 AM

Two Australian citizens have been held under extreme privation at Camp X-ray by the US government for two (2) years without charges, trial, or even access to lawyers on US suspicion that they may have been involved in Al Quaeda in some way. No evidence whatsoever to support their suspicions has yet been produced publicly.

Boy, how the US would squeal loudly if that were done to one of them! They would have probably mounted a major armed invasion already, if GWB had anything to do with it.

And this is how this US government treats its FRIENDS! So you wonder why they have no compunction in dealing with in-transit people so cavallierly. It's because they officially don't seem to give a big rat's a$$.

rikzilla

25th January 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Two Australian citizens have been held under extreme privation at Camp X-ray by the US government for two (2) years without charges, trial, or even access to lawyers on US suspicion that they may have been involved in Al Quaeda in some way. No evidence whatsoever to support their suspicions has yet been produced publicly.

Boy, how the US would squeal loudly if that were done to one of them! They would have probably mounted a major armed invasion already, if GWB had anything to do with it.

And this is how this US government treats its FRIENDS! So you wonder why they have no compunction in dealing with in-transit people so cavallierly. It's because they officially don't seem to give a big rat's a$$.

Access to lawyers?? You think that would help? I suppose we could similarly criminalize suicide, eh? Those suicidal people will certainly think twice before ending their lives if they know that they could be prosecuted! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by George W. Bush:
I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all. They view terrorism more as a crime -- a problem to be solved mainly with law enforcement and indictments. After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted, tried, convicted and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of Sept. 11, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States -- and war is what they got.

LFTKBS

25th January 2004, 08:52 AM

My ad hominem attack of the day: God, Rik, you suck so bad.

"it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States -- and war is what they got."

Hey, cowboy, you can't just round up whoever you think is a terrorist and do whatever you want. We have trials to determine guilt or innocence; that's the way it's supposed to work. You are a enemy of the Constitution, rik, and you President Bush are - yes, yes, yes - traitors.

Dancing David

25th January 2004, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by corplinx

Can you point me to anyone who thinks David Koresh was a hero? I for one have never seen Koresh lionized but instead Janet Reno/Bill Clinton demonized.

Koresh was a sick mother scratcher and I have never heard anyone say otherwise.

It was the siege of his compound that was scrutinized as overboard dramatics that provoked a response from an unstable cult leader

Ah, you point to my spin dear one, I can't deny it. I did have occasion to meet a few people who felt that Koresh was some sort of hero, and that T. McVeigh was sort of doing the right thing. Fortunately they are in the minority.

And I don't see why they demonized Reno for her choice at Waco, Ruby Ridge was a stupid thing to do. And the 'stand-off' at Waco should have never occured. Why was it called a 'stand-off' and not a 'hostage' situation.

And if a crack dealer shoots someone in his house they don't refer to him as an 'unstable cult leader'. They refer to him as criminal and dangerous. Koresh was a criminal and a danger, at least to 14 yo girls, and he should have been treated as such. And the FBI got hauled out for it's choices (a good thing) but there was very little scrutiny of how Koresh got to that point.

So it was just hyperbole on my part and an exageration of what i feel is very subtle support for dangerous religous kooks.

Dancing David

25th January 2004, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Access to lawyers?? You think that would help? I suppose we could similarly criminalize suicide, eh? Those suicidal people will certainly think twice before ending their lives if they know that they could be prosecuted! :rolleyes:

So Mr. Rik, it would be okay for another nation to hold our citizen incommunicado?

the point to our liberties is to prevent government abuse of power. Holding people without trial is a good way to start down that path. No one is asking to legalize terrorism, just to make sure the government isn't abusing power.

I am sure that if there is evidence it could be presented in a closed court, if there is judicial review then that would be a long step in the right direction.

PS Thanks for the one start rating! It means I am somebody now!

Zep

26th January 2004, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla
Access to lawyers?? You think that would help? I suppose we could similarly criminalize suicide, eh? Those suicidal people will certainly think twice before ending their lives if they know that they could be prosecuted! :rolleyes:
So you actually SUPPORT the arbitrary jailing of citizens the FRIENDLY ALLIED NATION of Australia without a single shred of evidence being produced to support said arrests, without one iota of access to any legal process, without access by Australian embassy or government staff, for TWO YEARS? Is that REALLY what you are saying, Rik? Did I read you right?

karl

26th January 2004, 02:36 AM

"Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence!"

rikzilla

26th January 2004, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Zep
So you actually SUPPORT the arbitrary jailing of citizens the FRIENDLY ALLIED NATION of Australia without a single shred of evidence being produced to support said arrests, without one iota of access to any legal process, without access by Australian embassy or government staff, for TWO YEARS? Is that REALLY what you are saying, Rik? Did I read you right?

Why yes, indeed I do! That is if by arbitrary you mean capturing them in a war zone shooting at US soldiers. Zep, be reasonable for one moment if you can. Arbitrary would be jacking some poor Aussie tourist who's out on the town.

ar·bi·trar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärb-trr)
adj.
Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.

If people wish to become terrorists, or serve as ununiformed soldiers for outlaw regimes, they know that they are acting outside the accepted rules of war. This is unconventional warfare, and they are not protected by any international laws or conventions. Guess what Zep? Terrorists are not soldiers. Terrorists are not criminals either, they perpetuate acts of war. They inhabit a niche between soldier and criminal. Since they are both, and neither, their handling has been...in a word...innovative.

You are also wrong about this (http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/www/attorneygeneralHome.nsf/0/E4EDFF06CEA01AC5CA256D6D007C3563?OpenDocument) and this (http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2002/fa078j_02.html)
David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib Treated Well
Last week Australian officials visited Australian detainees at the US Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay.

The purpose of the visit was to advance the Australian investigation into the activities of both men.

The investigation team has confirmed that both men are being detained in safe and humane conditions. Detainees receive full medical examinations on arrival and have access to medical treatment on request. They receive culturally appropriate meals and are permitted to observe religious practices. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has contacted the men’s families about their wellbeing and has passed on letters from both men.

The Government will not be releasing details of the interviews for legal and privacy reasons, and in light of the fact that law enforcement and security investigations are ongoing.

Inquiries: Chris Kenny (Mr Downer) (02) 6277 7500 / Carina Tan-Van Baren (Mr Williams) (02) 6277 7300

As a matter of fact, the vast majority of Australians do not seem to care about these people. Tell you what, if Australia captures Americans on a battlefield in the same manner as these creeps were caught, they can do as they like with them as far as I am concerned.

-z

Tony

26th January 2004, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
We are starting to act like a police state and all the citizens just look the other way.

Wake up!! "We" have been acting like a police state since the income tax was first instituted.

But to comment on the issue at hand. Why was the guy deported to Syria? Was he a citizen of that country? I think someone in the government or one of its agencies SHOULD be heald accountable for this guy's torture.

Skeptical Greg

26th January 2004, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

How would you feel if it was an American in transit in Canada who was deported to be tortured.

I wouldn't like it!!

I hope Arar is successfull in his lawsuit, and deals sensibly with his new found wealth..

Dancing David

26th January 2004, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Wake up!! "We" have been acting like a police state since the income tax was first instituted.

But to comment on the issue at hand. Why was the guy deported to Syria? Was he a citizen of that country? I think someone in the government or one of its agencies SHOULD be heald accountable for this guy's torture.

There are two theories in the current running, one is that the Canadians are the ones who wanted him deported, which is the big stink in the RCMP and the other is that it was actualy Syria that wanted him deported.

He admits to having a casual aquaintence with a member of AQ.

Tony

26th January 2004, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

There are two theories in the current running, one is that the Canadians are the ones who wanted him deported, which is the big stink in the RCMP and the other is that it was actualy Syria that wanted him deported.

What is the evidence for the two of the theories? And if either proves to be true, why is he sueing the US? The circumstances around this seem weird.

Dancing David

27th January 2004, 06:39 AM

Good question!
Arar claims he does not know why he was deported while in transit from Switzerland to Canada.
I think he is suing the uS because we have the FOI act and a better media, and if he can get Americans to feel they are the dupes of the Canadians then he will score some points.

This has been weird from the beggining, my concern is that we should not deport Canadians to another country.

Michael Redman

27th January 2004, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
I hope Arar is successfull in his lawsuit, and deals sensibly with his new found wealth.. Not likely. If he sues in the US, I would think the defendants would have the protection of sovereign immunity. If he sues outside of the US, he'll never get a judgment that any US court will enforce. I would be interested in the details.

Originally posted by Dancing David
This has been weird from the beggining, my concern is that we should not deport Canadians to another country. Quite true. I would think (hope) that the Canadian government would raise hell if we did this without their approval. Sending someone to an arbitrary location seems strange. Sending someone to a country of previous citizenship when their current country of citizenship is denouncing their citizenship on the other hand . . .

Again, so much intrigue, so little information.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

29th January 2004, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Michael Redman

so little information.

that is accurate

Perhaps some facts will emerge as it looks like

an inquiry (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/28/arar_inquiry040128) is in the works.

Of particular concern to me is that his testimony was allegedly elicited by torture.

Testimonies are notoriously innaccurate as it is, due to fallible memories, poor recall, emotions, biases, cultural influences, and "leading" by the interviewer/interigator.

Is torture more or less likely to elicit accurate testimonies? Does pain and discomfort encourage more accurate recall? Why did the U.S. justice system decide to utilise the interigation techniques of Syria rather than the universally available and reliable "lie detector"?

What evidence does the U.S. justice have that torture to get information and testimony is more accurate than "lie detectors?" or evidence that torture elicits more accurate testimonies than using other interigation techniques?

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

14th March 2004, 07:26 AM

Ottawa's Poilice chief makes a statement (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/09/canada/arar040309)

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

1st May 2004, 10:51 AM

bumped to illustrate the U.S. outsourcing of interogation to States that allegedly utilise torture.

Dancing David

1st May 2004, 04:56 PM

Thanks PPG! I heard on As it Happens last week that they are going to have a commision investigate Mr. Arar's complaint.

PS I couldn't find anything at AIH but a search there led me to the CBC, the Canadians(who I admire very much) have a security law much more like the British than the United States: Mr. Arar may never get to hear the vidence against him especialy since most of it came from another person detained and tortured in Syria
CBC story about the commisionon Arar's detention (http://http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ot_arar20040430)

Arar is expecting the inquiry into his case to answer a long list of questions, all focused on how Canadian officials were involved in his ordeal.
Lorne Waldman, Arar's lawyer, says "the public information that has been made available to date raises the very grave and serious question of whether the Canadian government, and in particular the Canadian security services, are involved in contracting out torture, in violation of Canadian and international law."
The answers may be contained in some of the thousands of pages of documents the commission has sought from 10 government departments and agencies, including the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).
But Marlys Edwardh, Arar's co-counsel, says her client may never see most of those documents.
"Certainly we have been told there is a large body of documentation that the government of Canada does not wish to put into the public domain. Obviously we haven't seen it."
The government of Canada can ask the inquiry's commissioner, Justice Dennis O'Connor, to declare any evidence secret on the grounds its publication could harm national security, national defence or international relations.
O'Connor will make those decisions in secret, at times with only government lawyers present.
"We have taken the position that we do not agree Mr. Arar needs to be present, or his counsel need to be present, that the interests necessary can be addressed by commission counsel," said Barbara McIntire...

The Fool

2nd May 2004, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Why yes, indeed I do! That is if by arbitrary you mean capturing them in a war zone shooting at US soldiers. Zep, be reasonable for one moment if you can. Arbitrary would be jacking some poor Aussie tourist who's out on the town.

The fact that one of the australians was kidnapped in pakistan...nowhere near any combat zone is a fact you are happy to place in the "facts that must be ignored" box. Why do you do it rick? Is it due to ignorance or dishonesty?
Many of your fellow citizens have sacrificed a lot to enshrine basic principles of freedom that usefull idiots like you allow people like bush to throw in the gutter...

[/B]

a_unique_person

2nd May 2004, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Why yes, indeed I do! That is if by arbitrary you mean capturing them in a war zone shooting at US soldiers. Zep, be reasonable for one moment if you can. Arbitrary would be jacking some poor Aussie tourist who's out on the town.

If people wish to become terrorists, or serve as ununiformed soldiers for outlaw regimes, they know that they are acting outside the accepted rules of war. This is unconventional warfare, and they are not protected by any international laws or conventions. Guess what Zep? Terrorists are not soldiers. Terrorists are not criminals either, they perpetuate acts of war. They inhabit a niche between soldier and criminal. Since they are both, and neither, their handling has been...in a word...innovative.

You are also wrong about this (http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/www/attorneygeneralHome.nsf/0/E4EDFF06CEA01AC5CA256D6D007C3563?OpenDocument) and this (http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2002/fa078j_02.html)

As a matter of fact, the vast majority of Australians do not seem to care about these people. Tell you what, if Australia captures Americans on a battlefield in the same manner as these creeps were caught, they can do as they like with them as far as I am concerned.

-z

I have said it before, they may be guilty as hell of something. Part of our clime out of the primordial slime to a civilisation was to invent the justice system. The legal process they are being subject to is not a judicial process.

We even had the travesty of justice become even worse. An 'interrogator' went onto 60 minutes to let them know what they believed was the inside dirt on Hicks. When the justice system has been debased this much, you really have to worry. A part of the legal system telling the general public what the accused probably doesn't even know what they are planning to hatch on him.

The justice system is not just a system of finding guilt and innnocence, it is also a set of rules to be followed to ensure that justice is seen to be done. When you lose that, you don't have a justice system any more.

Dancing David

2nd May 2004, 06:42 AM

posted by AUP
I have said it before, they may be guilty as hell of something.

The possibility of guilt is no excuse for any government to break the law. which is why this is important.

Either Mr Arar was deported becuase of information that was 'obtained' by the Canadian or US governement, Mr. Arar knows that part of the evidence is that a memeber of AlQueda witnessed a lease and may have lived with him. But he was alos cleared by US officials after Sept. 11 to travel to the US four times after the clamp down. Surely the US was aware of this when they cleared him to travel to the US.

There was another CBC article that says Mr. Arar was detained after evidence was obtained under torture. Which means again that Mr. Ashcroft is violating the law signed by Bush the Elder.

CBC story saying that the evidence was obtained under torture (http://http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/04/30/canada/arar_040430)

Almalki and Elmaati both knew Arar and, like him, they've been investigated by the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
Elmaati's lawyer, Rocco Galatti, made his case Friday in a teleconference.
"The facts of Mr. Elmaati's detention, his torture, his divulgence of Mr. Almalki and Mr. Arar, which later led to their own arrest and detention by the Syrians are intertwined," he said.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

26th May 2004, 11:43 AM

Know and Exercise Your Rights (http://www.adilinfo.org/csisrights.htm)

Mohamed Harkat (http://www.zerra.net/freemohamed/start_here.php) detained since December 10, 2002 without any charges under a CSIS security certificate... four other men [have been]similarly arrested and detained under the power of security certificates: Muhammad Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah, Hassan Almrei and Adil Charkaoui. Mohamed Harket is not allowed to know why he is being detained and possible deportation under the pretext of "national security."

Evidence used to obtain and defend the certificates haven't been shown to the men, or their lawyers.
(http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/10/31/canada/csis_protest031031)

Canada is among many countries that human rights groups criticise the sacrificing of human rights (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/26/world/amnesty040526) in the name of stepped-up national security.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

21st June 2004, 05:58 AM

Arar, allegedly detained for involvement of terrorism while in transit through the US, was sent to Syria by American authorities.Inquiry includes questioning CSIS's methods (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/20/canada/arar040620)

gnome

21st June 2004, 09:40 AM

21st June 2004, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by corplinx

Can you point me to anyone who thinks David Koresh was a hero? I for one have never seen Koresh lionized but instead Janet Reno/Bill Clinton demonized.

Well, yes, I did see one or two people say that on the Audio Asylum "Outside" board, at the very least.

I'm sorry that I can't point you there, I doubt that that material remains on the board, and if it does, it's mega-pages into the past.

But I have seen a FEW (I emphasize that word to make the point) people try to lionize Koresh. A very, very few.

I have seen a lot more people demonizing Clinton for Reno's actions.

Why aren't those same people demonizing Bush for Ashcroft's actions?

Dancing David

21st June 2004, 01:26 PM

Very intyeresting PPG, if I reads canadiam politicians correctly, they have admitted they gave the evidence to the Us that convinced the Us to deport Arar, but they did not say "you should deport him".

They also didn't say "He is a Canadian citizen, return him to us forwith."

I am still upset that we would deport a foriegn citizen in transit, to a country other than his home. AAAAARRRGGGHHH!

zenith-nadir

21st June 2004, 02:59 PM

I prefer to invoke Occam's razor on this one. Is there a giant conspiracy by CSIS, Ashcroft and the INS to "punish" Arar, or did Arar raise a red flag somehow...only time will tell...

Dancing David

21st June 2004, 04:16 PM

Ochams Razor hmm, what does that apply to?

The questions are these:
1. Why did the US , who had cleared Arar to eneter the US on numerous ocassions after 9-11 to work in the US, illegaly deport him to Syria? Why not deport him to Canada? He was a canadian citizen.

2. Why deport him Syria knowing full well that he was likely to be tortured there? In contradiction of American law.

3. What information did the Canadians want concealed at the hearings?

4. Is the fact tha Mr. Arar signed a lease as a witness the sole piece of evidence?

Why is it okay to subvert the constitution of the US?

LostAngeles

21st June 2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
...
Why is it okay to subvert the constitution of the US?

Because we are at war. We did want this war. It was brought to us by swarthy, turbaned men in the wee hours of the morning of September the Elventh©. It was brought to us by an ee-vil dictator. Whom we have now deposed and will deliver into the hands of those he oppressed for justice. (pause for applause) So we will fight it. And we will win. (pause for applause) We will win because God has told me that we shall. He has told me that he has smiled upon this great land of ours and that his hand will be with us to smite the terrorists.

And other stuff Dubya would say/has said.

Tony

21st June 2004, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Why is it okay to subvert the constitution of the US?

It's a pattern of behavior. From slavery, to the federal income tax, from gun control to various government institutions. The constitution has always been subverted. Are you really surprised that it continues to be subverted?

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

22nd June 2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by LostAngeles

Because we are at war. We did want this war. It was brought to us by swarthy, turbaned men in the wee hours of the morning of September the Elventh©. It was brought to us by an ee-vil dictator. Whom we have now deposed and will deliver into the hands of those he oppressed for justice. (pause for applause) So we will fight it. And we will win. (pause for applause) We will win because God has told me that we shall. He has told me that he has smiled upon this great land of ours and that his hand will be with us to smite the terrorists.

And other stuff Dubya would say/has said.

emphasis mine

Which ee-vil dictator brought you September Eleventh?

zenith-nadir

22nd June 2004, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Which ee-vil dictator brought you September Eleventh? There were two, King Khalid, son of King Abdul Aziz and King Fahd.

LostAngeles

22nd June 2004, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe

Which ee-vil dictator brought you September Eleventh?

BEGIN DUBYA

Well, ah, at the time, you know we were sifting through a uh, lot of information. And what the uh, current director of the CIA, you all remember George Tenet right? I believe you went to lunch with him one time Rob. Had the salmon steak, right? George Tenet presented the president, presented me, with a folder outlining how heavily in bed Saddam and bin Laden were. Now, Saddam's been an enemy of freedom-loving people everywhere for years. This man tried to kill my dad. Of course we figured he was involved. He's got the will and the drive. Now uh, (*rubs finger against the side of his nose*) it turns out it might not have been that close. Mr. uh, Tenet gave me a spot of bad information. (*chuckle, Dubya grin with an elbow on the podium*) This isn't anything against George or how he did his job, so please don't print it like that. The intel looked good. Was a slam dunk but it turns out it just wasn't true. But we did go in and topple an evil dictator who would have tried to bring more terror to the free and God-fearing American people. We have liberated a nation and its people welcome us as the bringers of freedom.

END DUBYA

If you missed the point of my orginal post it was more or less, "Because we were attacked and Dubya says we can subvert the Constitution."

LostAngeles

22nd June 2004, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by LostAngeles

Because we are at war. We did want this war. It was brought to us by swarthy, turbaned men in the wee hours of the morning of September the Elventh©. It was brought to us by an ee-vil dictator. Whom we have now deposed and will deliver into the hands of those he oppressed for justice. (pause for applause) So we will fight it. And we will win. (pause for applause) We will win because God has told me that we shall. He has told me that he has smiled upon this great land of ours and that his hand will be with us to smite the terrorists.

And other stuff Dubya would say/has said.

Crap! That should read "We did not want this war."

Oops, oops, oops. It's a uh, Bushism. That's right. Going for authenticity...

:hb: