Slowpro - Something I learned while finding that physicians page you mentioned, that I wasn't aware of, is about the other massacres at Mazar.
Many of the grave sites they visited were from the late nineties and were suspected to have been involved in the mass murders of civilians that took place when the Taliban took charge.
This sounds to me like a possible motive for the alledged mass killings of the Taliban soldiers by the northern alliance during the USAs route of the Taliban.
In other words a little payback (in a grissly sort of way).
The other thing that seems up in the air for me about the eyewitness reports on the physicians website is that it was not clear (I don't think?) whether any of the Taliban were still alive at the grave site, and subsequently shot, or whether it was just a hurried attempt to hide the results of a terribly botched transfer of prisoners.
In either case the USA supported, and to a large extent directed, the Northern Alliance during this incursion so it makes sense to me that America should be held at least partially responsible for any human rights abuses that may have occured.
What do you think of the prisoner shootings in Fallujah?
---------------------------------------
I mostly agree with your other assertions (and am tired of arguing about them) except to say that I think the so called "red herring" issues are different than the other issues you mentioned. I see the issue of gay marriage (for example) being about being able to marry the person you love, to possibly fall under the "pursuit of happiness" clause in the constitution and would expect the judicial branch to disagree with the legislative branch and at least attempt to over-ride them as they try to disallow this new (and long overdue) change in our society.
In other words I am far more comfortable with a strong and liberal leaning judicial branch. A progressive minded bench to balance out the other branches and make sure that the rights of minority groups of all kinds are protected.
I am afraid this strong protection will be less likely now as the federal appeals courts seem to be becoming more and more conservative, thus becoming simply a rubber stamp of the conservative legislative branches agenda. And the legislative branch seems to be becoming more and more a rubber stamp of the executive branches wishes (at least right now).
Example: I read a decision by Alberto Gonzales from his days in Texas in which he made a pretty good argument that judges (even at these high appeal levels) should attempt to stick to the "original intent" of the law that the legislature intended. A fairly narrow view that if implemented would reduce the powerful role that courts like the supreme court have played in the last 50 years or so. (to say our governement has functioned in the same way for 200 years is just not accurate)
I like the way our country has grown and changed in the last 50 years and want that trend to continue. (obviously sense I am such a liberal elitist bullsh#tter) LOL
Bush admits he has not had to veto one piece of legislation because there was total agreement between the conservative powers in congress and his office. That doesn't seem like the checks and balances are in place currently to me.
Anyway, got to get to work now.
Bam Bams turn, then T2P
Reply With Quote