DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**ahagotyou** · 01-14-2007, 08:56 AM

this guy should be removed from his position immediately. the government is attempting to intimidate those representing detainees at guantanamo.

Do you have any evidence that the government is intimidating them? Or are you just talking bullshit?

according to the report, the pentagon has stated that:

Stimson's comments "do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the thinking of its leadership,"

Notice that the pinkopressco report took the quote out of context. It doesn't even quote the question that the Pentagon spokesman was responding to. And on top of that, AP decided to only quote the predicate of the answer, and left out the subject.

What is AP trying to hide? Why not quote the question or the complete answer?

THINK!!!

thats it! after everything the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs said, the harshest rebuke he gets is this. what a joke. this was no accident.

Most likely, Maka was rebuking the AP reporter's statement, not Stimson.

the DoD did this on purpose as a blatant form of manipulation. i suppose many people will not have a problem with the governement official in charge of the detainees is basically saying they're all guilty terrorists before they've been charged, tried, or convicted of any crime. in a regular trial i'm certain the prosecuting attorney or presiding judge would be removed from the case immediately for misconduct or something similar. but i guess this is another twist in bush's world where up is down and left is right.

The detainees are outside of the USA and have no right to a trial. I'd say you are the one who's got it ass-backwards.

so here he's basically accusing the lawfirms of recieving illicit funds. what a fuckwad.

Bullhit, he didn't accuse them of recieving illicit funds.

Pentagon won't back official who blasted Gitmo lawyers - CNN.com[/QUOTE]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon on Saturday disavowed a senior official's remarks suggesting companies boycott law firms that represent detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

It true AP style, they tell a big fat one right in the first paragraph. Then in an fallacious attempt to try to back it up they say...

Stimson listed the names of more than a dozen major firms he suggested should be boycotted.

"And I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms," Stimson said.

He didn't suggest they should be boycotted, he just made an astute deduction that the lawfirms may have to choose between clients. CEO's have to answer to their stockholders. If they use a lawfirm that represents those from an organization that attacked the company it could reasonably be construed that the lawfirm has a conflict of interests. Of course this would get the stockholders in an uproar.

He didn't say they should be boycotted.

This is a typical example of the way the anti-USA activists at AP serve up the grape kool-aid to the ignorant masses.

01-14-2007, 08:56 AM	#8
ahagotyou Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 571 Senior Member	this guy should be removed from his position immediately. the government is attempting to intimidate those representing detainees at guantanamo. Do you have any evidence that the government is intimidating them? Or are you just talking bullshit? according to the report, the pentagon has stated that: Stimson's comments "do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the thinking of its leadership," Notice that the pinkopressco report took the quote out of context. It doesn't even quote the question that the Pentagon spokesman was responding to. And on top of that, AP decided to only quote the predicate of the answer, and left out the subject. What is AP trying to hide? Why not quote the question or the complete answer? THINK!!! thats it! after everything the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs said, the harshest rebuke he gets is this. what a joke. this was no accident. Most likely, Maka was rebuking the AP reporter's statement, not Stimson. the DoD did this on purpose as a blatant form of manipulation. i suppose many people will not have a problem with the governement official in charge of the detainees is basically saying they're all guilty terrorists before they've been charged, tried, or convicted of any crime. in a regular trial i'm certain the prosecuting attorney or presiding judge would be removed from the case immediately for misconduct or something similar. but i guess this is another twist in bush's world where up is down and left is right. The detainees are outside of the USA and have no right to a trial. I'd say you are the one who's got it ass-backwards. so here he's basically accusing the lawfirms of recieving illicit funds. what a fuckwad. Bullhit, he didn't accuse them of recieving illicit funds. Pentagon won't back official who blasted Gitmo lawyers - CNN.com[/QUOTE] WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon on Saturday disavowed a senior official's remarks suggesting companies boycott law firms that represent detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It true AP style, they tell a big fat one right in the first paragraph. Then in an fallacious attempt to try to back it up they say... Stimson listed the names of more than a dozen major firms he suggested should be boycotted. "And I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms," Stimson said. He didn't suggest they should be boycotted, he just made an astute deduction that the lawfirms may have to choose between clients. CEO's have to answer to their stockholders. If they use a lawfirm that represents those from an organization that attacked the company it could reasonably be construed that the lawfirm has a conflict of interests. Of course this would get the stockholders in an uproar. He didn't say they should be boycotted. This is a typical example of the way the anti-USA activists at AP serve up the grape kool-aid to the ignorant masses.
	Quote