Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

the G-man said:

In reviewing the arguments of the "Paul Wellrs" of the thread, it seems that their premise boils to the following: "An act of Bush (actually his employee) led to a suspected terrorist, or terrorists, going free; said terrorist(s) later were involved in a new crime, which resulted in individual(s) dying; therefore, Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of said individual(s)."

In other words, they are arguing that anyone whos actions free a suspected criminal is guilty of that criminal's future crimes.

If we accept that premise, then they should also be against the ACLU and every criminal defense lawyer in America. After all, the ACLU often takes cases that will result in the freeing of a suspected criminal. If that suspect later commits a new crime, by their logic, the ACLU is directly responsible for those crimes. Therefore, to be intellectually consistent, whomod, Paul, Id, et al, must argue AGAINST the ACLU.

In fact, if we accept their premise then they need to support the detention center at Gitmo. After all, many, if not all, of the detainees are suspected or potential terrorists. If we allow them to go free, they COULD commit a crime. So allowing them to go free would make us responsible for their future crimes. Therefore, whomod, Paul, Id, and anyone else abscribing blame to Bush for the London attacks, in order to be intellectally consistent, must now argue IN FAVOR of Gitmo.

Furthermore, the case against the ACLU and IN FAVOR of Gitmo is actually stronger than the case against Bush.

In Bush's case, there was clearly no intent. Even if we accept the whomod premise, it is clear that the actions of the Bush administration were inadvertent and not specificially designed to allow suspected terrorist to go free. After all, the suspected terrorists were not RELEASED by Bush. And the British government, by Paul's own admission, was on its way to get them when the escaped.

In the case of the ACLU/Gitmo opponents, the intent is clear: to release a suspected criminal, in order to preserve his or her rights.

Therefore, in order to attack Bush for inadvertently and indirectly causing a suspected terrorist to go free, an intellectally consistent person MUST attack the ACLU/Gitmo opponents for intentionally and purposefully causing such persons to go free.

Of course, none of them are likely to do so. In fact, each of them is likely to continue to call Gitmo a concentration camp, and continue to send their annual donation to the ACLU.

As such, one can only speculate, once again, as to whether the actual motiviation is anything other than the latest round in the game of "blame Bush."




Willie Horton

Bow ties are coool.