Posted on 01/23/2005 6:25:00 PM PST by Brian Allen
Alberto Gonzales targeted by media low-lifes
BrookesNews.Com
Marian Wilkinson is not alone in her political bigotry and prejudiced reporting: the repulsive Roy Eccleston is every bit her equal. Terror lawyer Bush's new legal chief revealed just how low this creep can sink (Murdoch’s Australian, 12 November 2004).
He quickly set the tone with this opening statement: “Alberto Gonzales the White House lawyer, who advised George W. Bush to ignore the Geneva Conventions when interrogating suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners, will become the new US Attorney-General.”
The only thing in it that is true is the bit about becoming “the new US Attorney-General,” the rest is a rotten lie. In a memo to the President Bush Gonzales explained why terrorists were not subject. This advice was based on legal advice contained in a Departments of Justice and State memorandum.
To state as the leftwing Eccleston did that Gonzales advised Bush to “ignore the Geneva Conventions” is an outrageous lie. Eccleston was clearly hinting that terrorists were entitled to the rights and privileges of the Geneva Conventions. They are not.
The Conventions denies POW status to “unlawful combatants,” a category that terrorists clearly fall under. Unless, of course, one considers terrorism to be a legitimate activity, particularly when it targets the US.
The following are just some of the criteria governing POW status. To obtain it captured combatants must have “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance,” they must “carry arms openly” and they must have been "conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”
During the Gonzales confirmation hearing the Democrats brought forward as witnesses Rear Admiral John Hutson, president and dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center and former Clinton-administration Judge Advocate General, and Harold Koh, president and dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in New Hampshire.
Under questioning both men agreed with Alberto Gonzales’ position that terrorists do not qualify for POW status.
It ought to be clear even to the Bush-hating Eccleston that terrorists do not come under the protection of the Geneva Conventions. But of course Eccleston doesn’t give a damn about these conventions anymore than he cares about the victims of terrorism. This anti-American is motivated by a hatred of Bush and his administration.
(Eccleston is not alone at his paper when it comes to targeting the US rather than terrorists. Stephen Romei, who is just as dishonest and as politically bigoted as Eccleston, is appalled that terrorists have been denied “due process” and has been driven to “despise the arrogance that governs the US war on terror.” [The Australian, Gunning for God 13 March 2004]. No doubt about it, Murdoch’s rag is getting worse).
This leftwing excuse for a journalist couldn’t help taking a swing at the outgoing Ashcroft. According to Roy ‘Scoop’ Eccleston Ashcroft was apparently “disliked by Democrats and civil libertarians” because they thought he was “trampling individual rights in his pursuit of terrorists through the Patriot Act.”
Although Eccleston doesn’t say that Ashcroft actually violated Americans’ rights the implication is all too clear. Otherwise why mention the Patriot Act at all? Once again it is what these lefties leave out of their ‘reports’ that count. In this case it was the fact that House vote was 357-66 in favour while the Senate voted 98 to 2.
Among the Act’s supporters was John Kerry, who helped write it, and Janet Reno. Considering these facts what are we to think of Eccleston? It is undeniable that he strove to give the impression that Democrats opposed the Act leaving readers to conclude that it was an entirely Republican affair.
In Gonzales queries FBI claims (8 January 2005) Eccleston was back to his dishonest ways, still trying to insinuate that that a al Qaeda was entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions and that Gonzales was denying them their rights. Naturally Eccleston made no attempt explain why these savages were entitled to be treated as POWs.
He toed the lefty line that interrogation methods are “abuses threaten US troops should they be captured, they argue.” This is sickening. What these creeps are trying to do is define anything other than rank, name and number as torture. In other words, these loonies are intent on treating these sadistic thugs as ordinary POWs come what may.
How could anyone but a congenital idiot believe that treating terrorists as POWs would civilise them? These are the same thugs who make snuff movies of their kidnapped victims being decapitated; every area they take control of they turn into a charnel house; these are the monsters that kidnapped a woman, hacked off her limbs, disembowelled and then chopped off her head.
And what do leftwing lowlifes like Eccleston give us? Sleazy ‘reports’ basically arguing for POW status for these butchers. He talks of abuses but never tells us what they are. Let me name several: lengthy squatting, turning down air-conditioning, being draped in the Israeli flag, being forced to listen to loud pop music, etc.
No wonder the creep didn’t want to list them. Now it is an unfortunate fact of life that abuses take place in wartime. But what this creep is insinuating is that the administration is encouraging torture. This is a lie and the lying Eccleston knows it.
White House law chief linked to abuse culture (Herald-Sun 12 November 2004) gave us Phillip Coorey pushing the same phony Eccleston-Wilkinson line — shouldn’t that be lie? — on Gonzales and the Geneva Conventions.
Coorey just had to tell us that Gonzales “was a strident defender of the Government's policy of keeping detainees at such places as Guantanamo Bay for long periods without access to lawyers or courts.” That they weren’t entitled to lawyers and courts was too much for this lefty birdbrain to grasp.
Lawman faces torture test (Herald-Sun 7 January 2005) found the intellectually challenged Coorey at it again, accusing Gonzales of drafting the “now-infamous memo to Mr Bush saying anti-torture provisions of the Geneva Conventions were ‘quaint' and ‘obsolete’ and should not apply to prisoners in the war on terror.”
Coorey is lying: Gonzales did not draft any memos. As for ‘quaint' and ‘obsolete’, this is a disgraceful case of using selective quotes to condemn Gonzales. I have already made it clear why terrorists are not entitled to POW status. What Coorey needs to explain, along with his lying mates on The Age and The Australia, is why he ignored the Geneva Conventions criteria for POW status.
Furthermore, he should tell us why he omitted from his report the results of the Republican questioning of the Democrats’ three witnesses against Gonzales. It could not have anything to do with the fact that the Republicans demolished the Democrats’ arguments, could it?
Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor
WASHINGTON
Roy Eccleston
Suite 446, 529 14th St NW,
Washington DC 20045
Tel: 1 202 628 6269
Fax: 1 202 393 3892
e-mail: royeccleston@aol.com
I don't want him as AG... he will open the floodgates for illegal Mexican immigrants, and renew the assault weapons ban.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.