There are myriad reasons for urgently holding the Bush regime to account, ranging from preventing unchallenged executive action from setting legal precedent to providing a compelling rationale for the immediate cessation of bombing civilians in the escalating Afghan war. The long history of aggressive war, illegal occupation and torture, from the Philippines to Iraq, has given the American people a moral education that encourages us to countenance war crimes. If we allow those who initiated and justified the illegal conquest and occupation of Iraq and the use of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo to go unsanctioned, we teach the world and ourselves what’s OK and legal. As countries like Chile, Turkey and Argentina can attest, restoration of democracy, civic morality and the rule of law is often a slow but necessary process, requiring far more than simply voting a new party into office. - Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith, the Nation
If it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that war crimes were committed, and from what I know I do not think they were, then the U.S. Attorney’s Offices obviously ought to prosecute those responsible. But the effort by the New York Times and others to criminalize politics by casually urging the criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials that the Times disagreed with is reprehensible. This question ought to be left up to career prosecutors, as was done when some wondered whether Bill Clinton should have been prosecuted for his handing out of last-minute pardons to donors to his presidential library. Come Jan. 20, Obama administration officials ought to be able to do their jobs without wondering whether the next administration will try to bring politically motivated prosecutions. - Steven Calabresi, Northwestern University law professor, for Politico.com
326 Comments
War crimes were committed, the Bush regime admitted to doing so, they should be prosecuted. Republicans are weak on crime so naturally they think those crimes, which America executed Japanese soldiers for, should be excused.
yes
“If it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that war crimes were committed, and from what I know I do not think they were, then the U.S. Attorney’s Offices obviously ought to prosecute those responsible. But the effort by the New York Times and others to criminalize politics by casually urging the criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials that the Times disagreed with is reprehensible.”
————
What he said.
To prosecute based on politics would be to fan the flames of the partisan divide. That is the last thing we need.
No Prosecution.
Duh Libs always want to criminalize something until they are the ones that are doing it, then suddenly it’s not a crime.
Who cares what swishy pants reporter think?
“But the effort by the New York Times and others to criminalize politics by casually urging the criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials that the Times disagreed with is reprehensible”
I found this one curious, is it a crime or is it not? Whether it was a committed by an individual or the State. To say the deciding factor is the politics is to cloud the issue.
Water boarding has long been held as torture by the majority of countries including the United States. As such done during a war is a war crime and also done without the cause of a war to hide behind it is a crime anyway. Those are facts and has nothing to do with politics.
“Whether it was a committed”
should have been “whether it was committed”
Sorry
#
outlander
Posted December 30, 2008 at 7:47 am | Permalink
What he said.
To prosecute based on politics would be to fan the flames of the partisan divide. That is the last thing we need.
________________________________________________
Ditto.
To prosecute the Bush administration would drag out for years and draw away attention that should be on more important issues, like repairing a damaged economy.
We don’t need another circus like we had with the Clinton impeachment.
An incredibly dumb idea; especially if the Obama Justice Department is carrying the ball in doing so. It will be seen for exactly what it is: using the criminal law to punish your political opponents. Once you unsheath that sword, it will cut both ways.
Be careful what you wish for. Once that particular Pandora’s box is opened, there is no closing it.
And it’s not gonna happen, Obama is much smarter than that.
“An incredibly dumb idea; especially if the Obama Justice Department is carrying the ball in doing so. It will be seen for exactly what it is: using the criminal law to punish your political opponents. Once you unsheath that sword, it will cut both ways. ” — drives a shitty truck
That sword was drawn during the bush admin.
“War crimes were committed, the Bush regime admitted to doing so, they should be prosecuted.”
So stop talkin’ and start chalkin’. All you people have is yak yak yak. Your congress did nothing. That’s what they do best.
I’m torn on this one…yes, we need to hold people responsible when they break the law, ignore the Constitution, or disregard the Geneva Convention..but like so many others, I’m sick to death of the Bush administration and I desperately want the country to put this horrible chapter behind us and move toward repairing the damage. To keep it in the limelight would be a huge destraction to the work that we need to focus on.
XXX that is one of the reasons I see as why nothing will be done, it would tear the country a part. There would be the partisan camps, both for and against and their only basis for their siding would be partisan’s politics. The evidence or the lack of it would not matter. For some there could be sworn documentation and video of the Administration ordering the acts. And it would not faze them or convince them that Bush&Co. have committed crimes. The other side of that coin is there would be those that a total lack of any evidence would not convince them that no crimes were committed it just that is was a Conservative was accused.
There would be those whom choose their side based solely on wanting to ignore the reality. One side not wanting their country to be guilty of such crimes and then falling into the same lot as the most hated countries in history. Such things are not suppose to happen in my country and to deny and ignore is easier on the mind then facing the guilt.
The other being weighting the issues and deciding that to focus on this would allow the country to be destroyed by a un-choose-able issue. It would be too much a distraction for the country.
And then there are those whom often use a similar argument to the one my oldest son used when he hit his little brother. When confronted about the action, his explained it was not a crime. “I did not hit him I touched him really hard!”. “No crimes were committed because we were not torturing them. We were using aggressive interrogation techniques!”.
One using such a defense was 12 years old and the other to be given the credit of being rational thinking adults. The dividing line of the rest of us would be this: This is a war and therefore anything done in that cause is not a crime as long as it was done to the bad guys! The others would be that we have to be better then the enemies else we lose any right to claim to be better then the enemy! The Terrorists are a bunch of amoral, soulless criminals but we are Americans! The beheading of their defenseless prisoner’s show they are amoral. Our torturing of our prisoner is an act in the defense of this nation and therefore moral.
That sword was drawn during the bush admin.
Assuming that is so, it was a disaster.
Now: do you want to institutionalize the action, and make it normal for succeeding administrations to use the criminal law to punish the previous administration or his potential political adversaries for offenses, real or imagined; or do you want to sheath that sword NOW, before such use becomes a regular part of the political arsenal?
Think very carefully before you answer. And be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.
And BTW beber: I’ll appreciate it if you’d use my nic, or a reasonable shortening of it, rather than bastardizing it. I don’t and won’t play that game; basic civil discourse requires same. That assumes you’re interested in civil discourse, if you’re interested, as so many here are, in just throwing bombs, well, I’ll note same and treat you accordingly.
What war crimes? I’ve just seen a lot of ‘blather blogging’ going on, but I haven’t seen a formal indictment. I haven’t read anything from the UN that indicates a concern about ‘war crimes.’ Show me something that names names, places, dates and times and specific descriptions of offenses and then I’ll give you my opinion. Until then, it’s just a bunch od extremist democrats blathering about to (supposedly) forward thir concept of a democrat political agenda.
“yes, we need to hold people responsible when they break the law, ignore the Constitution, or disregard the Geneva Convention..”
If all that is true, then you people should do something about it. This crap of “To keep it in the limelight would be a huge destraction to the work that we need to focus on.” is a coward’s way out. You get to keep the charge but don’t have to prove it. Cowards!
“And BTW beber: I’ll appreciate it if you’d use my nic, or a reasonable shortening of it, rather than bastardizing it. I don’t and won’t play that game; basic civil discourse requires same. That assumes you’re interested in civil discourse, if you’re interested, as so many here are, in just throwing bombs, well, I’ll note same and treat you accordingly.” — drives a shitty pickup.
You don’t have any ammo.
Is morality an issue that depends on relevant outcome? Are we a moral people because we believe in morality or because we like to pretend to be moral? In all the time I was a jailer, I never met one criminal that thought what they did was not justifiable. Is morality a matter of convenience? We are a moral people only when it does not cause a inconvenience. Prosecuting anyone is an inconvenience, the time and money often does not yield a soul soothing sentence. But we do it because to not do it means we as a society condone the act. It means social order and offsets the need for mob rule.
GMC70 days would be filled with boredom if we no longer believed in social order.
And went back to the likes old English common law when children were hung for minor offenses. So the real question is it in our best interest to allow crimes committed by those in power to go ignored. Or to do the hard things and be a moral people? Which world would you want your children to grow up in?
GMC70
Posted December 30, 2008 at 9:11 am | Permalink
Now: do you want to institutionalize the action, and make it normal for succeeding administrations to use the criminal law to punish the previous administration or his potential political adversaries for offenses, real or imagined; or do you want to sheath that sword NOW, before such use becomes a regular part of the political arsenal?
________________________________________________
GMC70,
I’m for “putting away the sword”. Now. It’s time for good Americans on both sides to say ENOUGH! It’s time for all of us to remember that we’re Americans before we’re Democrats or Republicans.
Put away the petty squabbles and for once, do what’s in all our best interests.
This question ought to be left up to career prosecutors, as was done when some wondered whether Bill Clinton should have been prosecuted for his handing out of last-minute pardons to donors to his presidential library. - Steven Calabresi, Northwestern University law professor, for Politico.com
—
Handing out last-minute pardons to donors is not on the same level as torture - but who am I to argue with the great Politico law professor? This argument alone makes Calabresi quite laughable.
As for prosecuting Bush and Gang for war crimes - I tend to agree that our country does not need anything of this magnitude as a distraction for years to come. The country is in a deep hole and we have multiple problems that need addressed. Obama, and even presidents after Obama, will be cleaning up the mess Bush and Gang have made in the last 8 years.
But what if other countries want to take Bush and Gang to a World Court for war crimes? And if they feel that strongly about their case, then that is one option they could and should follow. They only need to provide evidence. And let Bush and Gang defend themselves with their own money - since they will no longer be the US government’s representatives.
screw the world court. Quit trying to pass the buck. Either do it here, in our system, or drop it. One way or the other. Personally, I would be against it, for the reasons mentioned above. But, if the people think there is enought evidence, then bring on the charges. Here. Have the balls do do it yourself, or shut up. The whole NIMBY thing gets so frickin old.
MOM, the Bush administration has already stated they do not recognize the power or legitimacy of the World court. Our Vice President already can not travel to some countries else he faces arrest. Now would that not be a interesting thing? Certainly a cause that would warrant an invasion and occupation!
“Is morality an issue that depends on relevant outcome? Are we a moral people because we believe in morality or because we like to pretend to be moral?”
Writerdog, a very good question. BUt first, we must define morality, and from where it comes before we can decide if we are a moral people. Most likely the better question, are we a people of LAW, or not.
“Pro-con: Should Justice Department prosecute Bush officials for torture”
Absolutely.
“I’m for “putting away the sword”. Now. It’s time for good Americans on both sides to say ENOUGH! It’s time for all of us to remember that we’re Americans before we’re Democrats or Republicans.”
My friend?
With rare exception, there ARE no good people among the cons. Ya don’t get anywhere making nice with them. They don’t do “nice”. They understand a smack in the mouth or a kick in the pants is the limit to reaching them.
Littlejohn I do agree, this is giving me the same feels I had the day the Challenger exploded! Half way though the day I felt if I saw the video one more time I would just puke. There is evidence in fact many in this administration have admitted to the accusations. They argue they did not hit their brother they just touched him really hard!
By calling them enemy combatants instead of POW the Geneva convention does not apply. By calling it intense interrogation instead of torture as defined by many country including our own it is not a crime.
Yes it is our place to either seek justice or allow injustice it really is our choice as to which we want to be.
The total disregard for decency here….frustrates me.
They did horrible, illegal things but we gotta give ‘em a pass and say “can’t we all just get along?”?
?
I don’t abandon my principles that easy.
“With rare exception, there ARE no good people among the cons. Ya don’t get anywhere making nice with them. They don’t do “nice”. They understand a smack in the mouth or a kick in the pants is the limit to reaching them.”
I don’t think you get anywhere with them with the attitude you just expressed either, BJ. You’re just the flip side to the same coin.
It’s time to come together and fix our country.
But what if other countries want to take Bush and Gang to a World Court for war crimes? And if they feel that strongly about their case, then that is one option they could and should follow. They only need to provide evidence. And let Bush and Gang defend themselves with their own money - since they will no longer be the US government’s representatives.
———–
That would be worse. A lot worse. What LJ said. Screw the world court.
And with that comment, I bow from this inane thread. Prosecution isn’t on the table and there is zero chance it could happen.
Writerdog-
That is at least part of my point about being a moral people. Is
“By calling them enemy combatants instead of POW the Geneva convention does not apply.” Is that possibly legally true and still morally repugnant?
If so, then it is still not a crime.
And I do not know the answer to my just posted question.
Can we really afford to spend the money, time and effort to try and bring these jerks to justice? Or do we spend the time, money, and effort trying to fix what they broke?
Like I said before, I really don’t know. On one hand I want justice, on the other I want to move past the whole mess.
Why is it I notice that otherwise good people wanting to work with the cons just ALSO happen to be folks who aint hurting?
We either HAVE a country that stands for something or we do not.
Enough with the mulligans for the sake of getting along.
It’s ironic to me that your “screw the bad guys, punch them in the face, no mercy” attitude is the same that has led to the allegations against the Administration.
bluejay. you are an absolute dumba$$ and do not deserve to live in this country. you hate it so much that you should leave..
“We either HAVE a country that stands for something or we do not”
Since you have stated that :
This is “not so much” your country
That you wouldn;t walk across the street to help a poster here if their house was on fire
that you wouldn’t care if terrorists came to this country beause “they weren’t after me”
that you hoped I got taken out by a terrorist,
I hope our country never stands what you want it to. Period.
I agree, Kia…and what makes you think I’m “not hurting”, BJ? You know nothing of my life.
I don’t think it’s wise to assume things about people you don’t really know.
How is more divisive politics the anwer to our problems? It’s what we’ve all put up with for over 8 years and where has it got us?
It’s time to go in another direction.
and bluejay, you have no principles, just hate
LOL twice in the same day, yes I agree again. I have often stated that obeying the law is truly voluntary. If the majority of the people of Wichita awoke to thinking that murder was a acceptable course of diplomacy. There would not be enough law enforcement in the State of Kansas to enforce a law against murder.
It has been mentioned above about drawing that sword, but there is another sword to be contended with. Does not drawing that sword mean that we have no sword to draw?
I am one of those that believes that the Bush Administration has committed offenses that is against many laws and the supreme law of this country. As troubling as it would be, to not hold them accountable would mean that we have no right to hold others accountable.
AND if we are not the first and foremost to hold them accountable means we are not the greatest country in the world and one that is a guiding light any longer in the world.
We would be a sham and posers the country has died and can not be resuscitated.
In a real sense Bin Laden will have won, his desire was to bring down this nation.
And the most effective weapon is the American people themselves. He is willing to die for his faith and believes in what is the right things to live his life. If we do not stand up for the same then he wins.
The CIA is known to have used waterboarding on at least three Al-Qaida suspects: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Wiki
Big deal…
Three incidences…
Mountain out of mole hills anyone?
“bluejay. you are an absolute dumba$$ and do not deserve to live in this country. you hate it so much that you should leave..”
It’s people like BJ that make America what it’s supposed to be. Diverse thoughts, opinions, and ideology. This is what makes Americans who we are.
Granted, I don’t think negative attitudes are helpful for the work ahead…but the right to express them is uniquely American..and the freedom to endure the consequences of one’s attitude is also what we’re all about.
LOOK at all the cons lined up to be your pal Mary!
Do ya think that is some sea change in them? They got visited by three ghosts or something?
What it IS, is they know the boot is on THEIR throat now.
We let them up does do good I promise you.
Good point, Dog.
no good I meant.
“What it IS, is they know the boot is on THEIR throat now.”
“We let them up does do good I promise you.” ???
———
BJ is getting excited.
Oh please, BJ…I try to be friends with eveyone. I don’t see people who disagree with me as a threat to my freedom or my way of life. I have many cons in my life that I have love..I’ve just learned how to be patient and accepting.
I’m not at war with anyone.
No, the DOJ shoud not prosecute Bushco. We don’t need a political trial. Let Obama make it perfectly clear that we will cooperate in any investigations or actions the World Court wishes to take.
Good for you Mary - that is the definition of Tolerance in my opinion, not the one that is being thrown around more in society today.
Besides..The old saying, you get more flys with honey than vinegar, is true. When I take the time to listen respectfully to others, I find they often do the same for me, and they often consider what I have to say…you reap what you sow and all that.
mary, while I agree with your premise, BJ does not meet those requirements. he/she simply has hate. not ideology, not different opinions, and no thoughts other than hate. period.
“. I have many cons in my life that I have love..”
And you ADMIT it even.
I aim a little higher myself.
“Let Obama make it perfectly clear that we will cooperate in any investigations or actions the World Court wishes to take.”
Cowards!
WriterDog-
If there is evidence that US Officials broke US Law, then they should be prosecuted, by the US. We should indeed do so. Whether they have been moral or immoral, is up to each to decide, and according to many posters here, they have no right to decide whether or not one person’s actions is “moral” or not. I disagree with that part, but laws are, or are supoosed to be, a reflection of the general population’s “morality”
at the time. Constitutional issues aside. We must be a nation of laws. Sentiment aside. It is interesting that someone that breaks the law in a course of action we (whichever side) believes in, it is okay, or at least better. THe other guy, dammnit, must uphold the law.
War crimes? Against who, exactly?
The simple truth is that all these examples you liberals keep using have to do specifically with the treatment of POW’s who are protected under the Geneva convention.
Terrorists are afforded no such protection under any internationally recognized law.
You can all scream war crimes at the top of your lungs, but can you actually present us with a rational argument for them?
That is why this is nothing but politics. Only the most liberal leftwing nitwits are sitting around saying that the Bush administration should be prosecuted for war crimes.
Then you have the audacity, like writerdog does, to say that Bin Laden wins if we don’t?
What absurdity!
Then this idea of us bombing civilians in Afghanistan as a war crime?
It is a war. We do not, have not, and continue to not purposefully target civilians. They are collateral damage. Accidents and the enemy purposefully hiding amoung civilians doesn’t equal war crimes.
Nope, this is and continues to be nothing but the worst kind of politics played out by you liberals who have a hard on for prosecuting Bush because you never agreed with the Iraq war to begin with.
Grow up. You now have your Obama savior soon to be in office and it still isn’t good enough for you.
“I aim a little higher myself.”
Well, my bother and sister are die hard conservatives who still support Bush after the last 8 disasterous years…I guess they have been my true test of practicing unconditional love for my family! But I admit I celebrated with them separately this Xmas..because my kids are die hard liberals who won’t back down from any political discussions. All in all, it was a very successful holiday!
“It is a war.”
Link please Nathan?
War is declared by Congress.
I guess it’s all how you label it, Nathan. When the American government santions torture, we’ve lost our way. We can no longer hold ourselves up as the world’s example for human rights.
“Jed” suggests –
“Let Obama make it perfectly clear that we will cooperate in any investigations or actions the World Court wishes to take.”
Or even better, let the World Court bring Shrub and Cheney up on charges of war crimes and send them a strongly-worded letter of “objection.”
And let George WMD Bush spend the rest of his life in a dank old European cell block as Slobodan Milosevic’s girlfriend.
“Well, my bother and sister are die hard conservatives.”
I have an aunt similarly afflicted.
SHE even shook bush’s hand!
Rather, I should say I HAD an aunt like that. We are not on speaking terms.
BlueJay,
So you agree that there were no war crimes, well, because this is not a war then?
Ultimately my opinion on this conflict and others is that the enemy sets the rules.
We’re just playing by them.
Mary,
When did the American government sanction torture?
Who was tortured?
What exactly was the “torture?”
Now, if you can answer any of those, what law was it that was broken?
Nice squirm Nathan.
And MonkeyHawk only proves how absurd you liberals are.
Comparing Bush to Slobodan Milosevic?
It doesn’t even deserve an argument it is such a dumb statement.
“Now, if you can answer any of those, what law was it that was broken?”
If it were true, the Libs would have done something about it.
#
BlueJay
Posted December 30, 2008 at 10:02 am | Permalink
Why is it I notice that otherwise good people wanting to work with the cons just ALSO happen to be folks who aint hurting?
_________________________________________________
BlueJay, I call foul. While I appreciate your situation, you’re not the only person that knows what it’s like to hurt.
So with all of the issues that we face, where would you rank the need for revenge? Revenge is what we’re talking about, right? Should we put the need for revenge before the economy? Before the wars?
and mary, my son in laws are liberals, and want income redistribution,put themselves first, are irresponsible, and believe all of michael moores movies, and so on. but i don’t hate them
No! There should be no prosecution! Furthermore, anyone who pushes for prosecution should be tried for treason in aiding and abetting the enemy. War crimes per say, are for violations against the articles laid out by the Geneva convention. This pertains to a war with a country with a uniformed military. We are not fighting a country and they darn sure aren’t wearing uniforms (itself a violation of the Geneva code). The sooner you bleeding heart liberals quit coddling the enemy the safer we will all be. I refuse to die or lose my country because of a bunch of stupid uninformed pansies, that should be exiled.
I think Junior got excited from Mary’s comment. He needs to clean up that dribble running down his leg.
Should we ignore or abandon justice in the interests of getting along X?
Thanks to “Nathaniel” we have the CONs’ defense of Shrub and Cheney’s war crimes –
“He’s not as bad as Slobodan Milosevic!”
Good luck with that strategy.
JR -
You are, once again, demonstrating the small, petty, hateful little man you are.
You’ve become a parody of yourself, a baffoon no one takes seriously, a poster even whose ‘allies’ must cringe and sigh when they see you posting again, all worked up in a pointless lather.
Get help. For your son’s sake, who you claim to love. Love - given your writing here, I’m not sure you know the meaning of the word.
Once you grow up, you will learn that those who disagree with you are not the enemy; they are just those who disagree with you. They, like you, work hard, love their kids, enjoy hobbies and interests, etc. This forum is just a political blog, a place to exchange ideas, a place for (hopefully) civil discourse. Nothing more. At some point, you may yet understand and appreciate that the most enjoyable interaction and exchange can be from those who you disagree with the most. But that takes mutual respect, an ability to step outside your worldview to listen to and understand another, and willingness at the end of the day to appreciate the disagreement, even as you enjoy the company.
There are a number of posters here who I disagree with. Some I have a great deal of respect for, for they engage in a genuine exchange of ideas with mutual respect. Some are merely bomb-throwers; unfortunately, a couple of the bomb-throwers are gifted writers who are capable of being much more. All, however, are deserving of respect when it is given. You, however, respect no one, and appear to have no interests at heart except your own.
Why? Because as trite as it may seem, in your heart of hearts, you don’t respect yourself.
Interestingly, I have no doubt that many on the other side of the political divide here would go to the mat to protect your right to express yourself, even as they disagree with you. It’s clear that you would not do same in return.
way to go bluejay. disown your aunt because she doesn’t agree with you….look i’m bluejay and i’m all that matters……… i hate everyone else.
Steven Calabresi needs to make up his mind. Do he want to US attorneys to prosecute those responsible, or not?
I suppose there’s a school of thought that says it is better to leave serious crimes unprosecuted, as to put it all behind us. But so long as there are plently of people willing to mischaracterize such as “criminalizing politics,” we have a problem. It sets a terrible precedent.
I’ll say it again: let the Justice Department do its job. The law is the law. US attorneys should consider the facts, such as they exist, and decide to prosecute or not on those grounds and those alone.
Duh.
MonkeyHawk,
What war crimes?
Since 9-11 President Bush has kept us safe from additional terror attacks. You morons should be thankful for that. Barry won’t make it six months before we are attacked, and he will be looking for the ‘corner’ of the oval office to have a sit and suck his thumb while crying for his mommy.
X?
I was no great fan of Bill Clinton.
It COULD be argued that part of the reason 911 happened is that Clinton was SO distracted by the absolute assassination of his Presidency.
Over hanky panky.
NOW we ignore the highest of human rights abuses and the TOTAL disregard for international relations in the interests of getting along?
I don’t sell that cheap.
wichhick
Posted December 30, 2008 at 10:59 am | Permalink
and mary, my son in laws are liberals, and want income redistribution,put themselves first, are irresponsible, and believe all of michael moores movies, and so on. but i don’t hate them.
—
lol
Translation: I fear losing my relationships with my daughters too much to admit even to perfect (online) strangers that I hate their husbands.
You might as well get it out in the open. My guess is that your daughters are stuck miserably smack-dab in the middle of your family’s passive-aggressive hate fest now. Why not at least remove the “passive” part for their benefit?
You’ll never grow past your hate otherwise.
–Aunty Pedant
Do your homework, Nathan…if you really don’t understand who got tortured, how, when, and by whom…there are plenty of newspapers and internet links out there that will provide you with info.
I’ll not waste time splitting hairs with you anymore.
bj you would sell for anything as long as the seller said you were right…..probably even talk to you aunt again
BlueJay
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:00 am | Permalink
Should we ignore or abandon justice in the interests of getting along X?
—————————————————-
BlueJay
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:05 am | Permalink
Over hanky panky.
—————————————————-
Again the Irony.
You’re a parody of yourself, keep it up.
You know, the real irony as is the Bush and Rove “criminalized politics” but making any criminal act acceptable if it was in the service of politics.
you=your
Wide-eyed widdle Nathan asks:
When did the American government sanction torture?
When they engaged in waterboarding in prisons like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. In fact, Congress has seen evidence of women and children being raped under American government supervision, according to Sydney
Who was tortured? See above.
What exactly was the “torture?” Rape. Waterboarding. String tied and pulled to one’s genitals. Fingers and toes crushed. etc. etc.
Now, if you can answer any of those, what law was it that was broken?
See The Bill of Rights–”cruel and unusual punishment”; also “right to a speedy trial”; UN Declarations; “The US doesn’t torture,” Dick Cheney; Geneva Conventions
I suppose I should start previewing my posts, but I have other things to do. :)
Wichhick–
Your content-free post proves once again that the CONs got nothing.
My kids are liberal…but they aren’t lazy, irresponsible, or looking for a handout. They are independant, thoughtful, educated, and very intelligent. They are wonderful parents. I’m very proud of them. To me, being labeled a “liberal” is a compliment.
redandgoldroom
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:05 am | Permalink
Since 9-11 President Bush has kept us safe from additional terror attacks.
—
Not necessarily true. For example, weren’t there some anthrax attacks after 9/11.
Oh, you mean no more additional terror attacks on the scale of the 9/11 attacks.
All that you can truthfully say is that we citizens know of no additional terror attacks of the same scale as those of 9/11.
No matter how much you’d like to make the logical leap, you cannot attribute this conclusion to any actions on the part of Bush.
Mary,
Translation:
You can’t support your claims nor can you engage in a logical argument beyond making simpleton claims.
“Nathaniel” –
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
Here’s a snippet from that article:
“…in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
“Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor,”
How ’bout you stop posting on issues you know nothing about, “Nathaniel?”
We’ll miss you, of course.
pedant.i don’t hate, never have,never will, don’t believe in it and i have tons of battles with them. sounds like you must have a lot of hate relationships based on your sound advice
CapnAmerica,
Bush never sanctioned those activities. Those were the actions of demented army soldiers who were prosecuted for their actions.
That is not the status quo or something we tolerate.
If you’d like, Nathan I can e-mail you a picture of American soldiers raping an Iraqi woman. I guess it isn’t really a crime, though…afterall, she was probably a suspected terrorist.
Correction–the source for the child-rape charge comes from Seymour Hersh:
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:24 am
Judge Orders Release of Abu Ghraib Child Rape Photos
By Greg Mitchell,
http://www.editorandpublisher.com
NEW YORK A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America’s image. Last year a Republican senator conceded that they contained scenes of “rape and murder” and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said they included acts that were “blatantly sadistic.”
U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ordered the release of certain pictures in a 50-page decision that said terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven they “do not need pretexts for their barbarism.”
The ACLU has sought the release of 87 photographs and four videotapes taken at the prison as part of an October 2003 lawsuit demanding information on the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody and the transfer of prisoners to countries known to use torture.
*****
Even though this was some two years ago, this photographic proof has never been shown to the American people, although I read that Congress has had access to it.
MonkeyHawk,
Again, that was a Japanese soldier doing something to a civilian.
You are the one who can’t grasp legalities, not me.
You are the one making absurd comparisons, not me.
What gets lost on the cons.
Because their agenda is intent on GETTING it lost…
Is that Government has a JOB to do beyond politics.
If high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed, it is Government JOB to vigorously pursue the matter.
Cries of “politics!” pettty revenge!” from the other side are rank with hypocrisy.
Maybe Bush didn’t “sanction” those actions…but Cheney, Bush, and Rice turned a blind eye when they knew it was going on.
capn…i’m sure much more than you….nothing good in your life to hear you talk.there are to many positives in life to always dwell on the negative. grow up
Mary,
What does that have to do with Bush santioning torture?
Those individual soldiers should be held accountable for thier actions.
How is it Bush’s fault that some very few soldiers are sick and sadisitc idiots?
wichhick
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:13 am | Permalink
pedant.i don’t hate, never have,never will, don’t believe in it and i have tons of battles with them. sounds like you must have a lot of hate relationships based on your sound advice
—
lol
If your daughters’ husbands are truly irresponsible, then you’d be perfectly normal if you felt hate for them.
See, even strangers see that much. It’s also the root of my oh-so deadon description of your relationship with them as passive-aggressive.
Mary,
You have absolutley no proof of that total Bullshit.
When/If a soldier is found to be doing such things there are processes in place to deal with them.
That doesn’t prove that Bush was condoning those actions nor that he was turning a blind eye to them.
Bush never sanctioned those activities.
So . . . you’re saying that in a prison which is monitored 24-7, the guards just run wild and do whatever they want?
Yeah, good one, Nathan.
The “demented” guards wanted to call to the stand in their defense Donald Rumsfeld to prove that the treatment was indeed sanctioned from the top down.
The military court — surprise! — would not force the Secretary of the Military to defend himself.
Monkeyhawk
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:13 am | Permalink
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
Here’s a snippet from that article:
“…in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
————————————————–
This is interesting as it’s a country bringing the charges.
The combatants that are being spoken of are without a country.
Even though this was some two years ago, this photographic proof has never been shown to the American people, although I read that Congress has had access to it.
And it’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. We know just a tiny bit about the poor souls who survived extraordinary rendition.
Also, one of the crimes Nazi Germany was charged with at Nuremberg was preemptive war.
Think about it.
Nathaniel
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:17 am | Permalink
How is it Bush’s fault that some very few soldiers are sick and sadisitc idiots?
—
If the Defense Department condoned activities related directly to the actions taken by these soldiers, would the Secretary of Defense bear any fault?
If so, would Bush then bear any?
Are you that naive? You honestly believe Cheney, Rice, and Bush were in the dark about what methods were being used to extract info from detainees? If that’s true (and it isn’t) then they were certainly asleep at the wheel, wouldn’t you say?
Actually, there’s considerable evidence that Cheney and Rumsfeld knew exactly what was going on. Bush? I dunno–I suspect he was only in charge when it came time to sign laws.
pedant…….i don’t hate.you must as you are so dead on…….
The Bill of Rights, and the Articles of the Geneva convention do not have any precedence here. The bill of rights are for citizens and legal guests of the United States. Not scumbag terrorist. They should not be for those who coddle them either. The truth is that the prisoners in Gitmo are treated better than the prisoners in the USA. Of course no self respecting lib would ever admit that. Personally I am tired of defending all the libs. Let them defend themselves. Which they will not. Instead they will try to coddle the terrorist while trying to befriend them, and consequently get beheaded. Good riddance.
Donald Rumsfeld began talking about “doing” Iraq in the days following 911.
If that aint conspiracy, I’ll want to read the Justice Departments treatment on it.
Monkeyhawk
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:13 am | Permalink
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
Here’s a snippet from that article:
“…in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
————————————————–
Mr_Kia
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:20 am | Permalink
This is interesting as it’s a country bringing the charges.
The combatants that are being spoken of are without a country.
—
wtf? What, these combatants don’t have passports?
They are certainly citizens of some country.
This is feeble reasoning even by normally feeble Bush supporter standards.
This is rich.
“Nathaniel” tries the reverse-Nazi excuse for Bush:
“I vas only givink orders.”
wichhick
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:24 am | Permalink
pedant…….i don’t hate.you must as you are so dead on…….
—
That makes me accurate, not a hater.
“The truth is that the prisoners in Gitmo are treated better than the prisoners in the USA.”
How so?
pedant…makes you an idiot…………..who do you hate?
wichhick
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:29 am | Permalink
pedant…makes you an idiot…………..who do you hate?
—
lol
Somebody is getting vewwy, vewwy angwee.
You sure you don’t feel just a squidge of hate? Not ever?
pedant.hate is not normal except perhaps for you and bluejay
not at all angry..just feel sorry for you and your limited thoughts
Me, I think calling somebody an idiot when they are in fact deadon, that’s a very good definition of passive aggression.
I’m sure your daughters have never connected the dots, though.
lol
Once again: the Bill of Rights applies to all persons under U.S. jurisdiction. This is clear both from the history of the Constitution and longstanding judicial precedents. Duh. To conclude otherwise would make it Constitutionally possible to shoot resident aliens for sport.
The Geneva Conventions apply to prisoners of war. If they’re not prisoners of war, there needs to be some other legal basis for holding them–simply declaring them legal nonpersons–”enemy combatants”–won’t do. See the Magna Carta (1215).
This administration didn’t just dis the Bill of Rights and international law. It dissed a fundamental principle of Western justice of the past 800 years.
“redandgoldroom” asserts –
“The bill of rights are for citizens and legal guests of the United States. Not scumbag terrorist.”
Uhm, no.
The Bill of Rights — indeed all constitutional protections — are limitations on government’s power to deprive “certain unalienable rights” from people.
There’s no “They had it comin’!” get-out-of-jail-free card.
If governments are allowed to deprive anyone’s basic human rights, they’ll come up with ways to deprive everyone’s unalienable rights.
pedant=idiot……….what other sound advice and facts do you have to offer…who do you hate?
“redandgoldroom”
Are you going to answer my question? How are American prisoners treated worse than the Gitmo detainees? Are you claiming that torture rountine in American prisons?
If the DOJ finds enough evidence to prosecute, let them do so. But let’s not turn this into a political witch hunt.
__________________________________________________
#
BlueJay
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:00 am | Permalink
Should we ignore or abandon justice in the interests of getting along X?
_________________________________________________
No. But neither should we pursue revenge masked as “justice”.
No. But neither should we pursue revenge masked as “justice”.
And your basis for concluding this would happen is. . . . ?
Redandgold and wichhick are drive-by posters.
Nothing there except wind . . .
WORST case X? The bush administration will get a far better shot at justice than it has traded in.
They’ll get FAR better than what it is they deserve.
Revenge? Our system of government does not make much room for it. Even if it is deserved.
Cons TRY to make Government not work. It’s time to FIX that. If this finds some of theirs under the wheels so be it.
Rage
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:33 am | Permalink
This administration didn’t just dis the Bill of Rights and international law. It dissed a fundamental principle of Western justice of the past 800 years.
—
Spot on.
For way too many supporters of torture, waterboarding another human is right or wrong based apparently on no more than what they’re wearing or if they’re carrying a passport.
If we’re in Iraq to change the hearts and minds of young people in the Middle East, then waterboarding is NEVER right because as Rage notes it violates everything the West has stood for the past 800 years.
You’d like to think the administration would understand a kindergarten concept like “honey attracts more ants than vinegar,” but of course we were disappointed.
Mary,
How/why would Bush, Cheney, or let alone Rice know that those Soldiers were doing those things?
Lets not forget about the perverted sex orgies they were also running in there as well.
The point is that, what actual proof do any of you have that Bush, Cheney, Rice, or Rumsfield were any part of that?
CapnAmerica,
What proof do you have linking Rumsfield to any of that?
The mere fact that the defense wanted to call him doesn’t prove anything other than there desperation. There is no need to call the Secretart of Defense unless there is some proof that he was involved. As there is none, the Secretary of Defense need not be called to testify anytime a criminal demands it.
Innocent until proven guilty. Due process. Assistance of counsel. Lawyer-client privilege. Sworn testimony. Rules of evidence. Habeas corpus.
All concepts absent from Bush’s “justice.”
It’ll be nice to see a comeback.
The Left gets all bent out of shape over our treatment of terrorists and “enemy combatants” and get all worried about applying the Bill of Rights to these people overseas who’d like to see us fry.
To bad we never saw this kind of outrage from the left over the murders of U.S. citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Not one prosecution.
Not so much as one demotion for those in charge.
Not only no outrage but HELL, lets nominate one of the men responsible for suppressing evidence and procecutions in both cases for U.S. Attorney General!!!!
Kind of hard to take most of you lefties seriously. Your’ve got strange standards regarding when you get all worried about the Bill of Rights
#
Mary_Caruso
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:27 am | Permalink
“The truth is that the prisoners in Gitmo are treated better than the prisoners in the USA.”
How so?
——————
Examples would be;
The military pay chefs to prepare the meals for the detainees, so they get their home dishes prepared the way they like them. They also get the best health care that the military can buy.
The prisons here have prisoners cooking the grub and the grub is questionable to say the least. the prisoners here only get what ever health care that keeps them alive and as pain free as possible. Nothing more. There are many others. Do your own research.
Nathaniel
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:45 am | Permalink
Mary,
How/why would Bush, Cheney, or let alone Rice know that those Soldiers were doing those things?
Lets not forget about the perverted sex orgies they were also running in there as well.
The point is that, what actual proof do any of you have that Bush, Cheney, Rice, or Rumsfield were any part of that?
CapnAmerica,
What proof do you have linking Rumsfield to any of that?
The mere fact that the defense wanted to call him doesn’t prove anything other than there desperation. There is no need to call the Secretart of Defense unless there is some proof that he was involved. As there is none, the Secretary of Defense need not be called to testify anytime a criminal demands it.
—
The only way this makes sense to me, and I mean the ONLY way, is if our penultimate goal is to protect the Bush administration.
For example. If we’re in the Iraq for the reasons the administration states we’re in Iraq — to reorder the fundamental social contract between the governed and the governing in the Middle East — then don’t we as Americans have every right to ask about who was truly responsible for waterboarding, rendition, and Abu Graib?
Isn’t getting the antiseptism of transparency a GOOD thing here? And covering up by the adminstration the WORST thing here?
Americans deserve to know exactly, and I mean EXACTLY, what the administration said and did throughout its term with respect to nation-building in Iraq.
How is this ever a bad question for US taxpayers to ask of their government?
To bad we never saw this kind of outrage from the left over the murders of U.S. citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Quick, LOOK OVER THERE!—–>
Nice try, dork.
Mary_Caruso
Posted December 30, 2008 at 10:01 am | Permalink
Can we really afford to spend the money, time and effort to try and bring these jerks to justice?
* * * * *
Can we afford not to? Every person in the U.S. is subject to our laws. We don’t have monarchs who are not accountable to the rule of law. We can’t afford not prosecute every last one of the bastards. It is necessary part of our healing process.
If Obama feels that it is important for Bush, Cheney, et al. to avoid an accounting for their crimes, he has the power of executive pardon.
Pardon or prosecution. Doing nothing should not be an option.
So would you agree, Nathan..that if Cheney, Rice, and Bush truly didn’t know about the torture and atrocities at Gitmo..then they were asleep at the wheel? Why would they NOT be invested in what happened to the detainees?
However it happens, we must ensure bushco never happens again.
It isn’t America any longer when a gang of thugs who think they are above the law are the ones on charge.
Is that possibly legally true and still morally repugnant?
If so, then it is still not a crime
Littlejohn that was the argument in the memo that A.G. Gonzales gave when he was the President’s attorney.
Wow while reviewing the memo I came across another double edged sword, in the memo Gonzales
points out that by declaring the Taliban and Al-Qaeda not covered by the convention in these actions.
It opens up to other recognized States that the convention will not apply to our own soldiers if they become involved in this fight. Otherwise saying that if a signatory to the Geneva Convention were to side with the Taliban and sent troops to help them. They could torture and mistreat any U.S. Soldier captured and the convention was not apply since Bush has already said that it does not!
sadly yes in my life time I have seen many examples of things that were morally repugnant yet legal.
Gonzales approves the official decision to declare that U.S. opponents in Afghanistan are “illegal combatants,” saying: “Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that [the War Crimes Act] does not apply, which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution.”
I have the memo in a pdf file and I am looking for a link to provide else it would be printing the whole thing here.
I wonder if getting a colonic is reverse water boarding?
Gitmo AND Abu Graib is what I mean.
Okay, Nathan, have it your way.
Rumsfailed didn’t have any knowledge of what was going on in places like Abu Ghraib.
So . . . instead of being criminally responsible, he was criminally negligant.
If you go out on patrol and you routinely grease Iraqi civilians just for the hell of it, you’re telling me that your superiors are entirely blameless?
Okay, Nathan. Thanks for redefining “chain of command” for me and the rest of the world.
“I wonder if getting a colonic is reverse water boarding?”
I know you’d feel much better after one than the other!
Exactly, Capn.
Source: AP
MIAMI (AP) — U.S. prosecutors want a Miami judge to sentence the son of former Liberian President Charles Taylor to 147 years in prison for torturing people when he was chief of a brutal paramilitary unit during his father’s reign.
Charles McArthur Emmanuel, also known as Charles “Chuckie” Taylor Jr. is scheduled to be sentenced Jan. 9 by U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. His conviction was the first use of a 1994 law allowing prosecution in the U.S. for acts of torture committed overseas.
A recent Justice Department court filing describes torture — which the U.S. has been accused of in the war on terror — as a “flagrant and pernicious abuse of power and authority” that warrants severe punishment of Taylor.
“It undermines respect for and trust in authority, government and a rule of law,” wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Caroline Heck Miller in last week’s filing. “The gravity of the offense of torture is beyond dispute.”
Mary,
You lost me there. Are we talking about Gitmo, Abu Gharib, or other battlefield atrocities?
Because to my knowledge there has been no “torture” or any “atrocities” at Gitmo.
Care to explain what torture or atrocities you think took place there?
Who did it?
What proof you have of it?
“The military pay chefs to prepare the meals for the detainees, so they get their home dishes prepared the way they like them. They also get the best health care that the military can buy.
The prisons here have prisoners cooking the grub and the grub is questionable to say the least. the prisoners here only get what ever health care that keeps them alive and as pain free as possible. Nothing more. There are many others. Do your own research.”
At least American prisoners here have due process and are (almost all) being incarcerated for committing crimes against society…no such right exists at Gitmo. I’d rather have due process than my favorite food. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
CapnAmerica,
Well, I would have to accept your typical anti-military smear and lie of saying that we “routinely” go out and “grease” civilians.
You continue to show that you have no concept or understanding of how the military works.
Capn America and Mary Caruso are drive by morons. There is nothing there but Air……
Mary,
The claim was that the prisoners in Gitmo are treated well, which as shown, they are.
I’m talking mostly about Abu Gharib, but the fact that there is no due process at Gitmo is another example of how the current administration no longer champions human rights. And battlefield atrocites have few consequences for soldiers…those like you give tend to give it a pass because war is hell and all that BS. My point is that either Iraqi detainees have been tortured with the blessing or with the incompetance of the Bush administration.
CapnAmerica
Posted December 30, 2008 at 12:04 pm | Permalink
Source: AP
MIAMI (AP) — U.S. prosecutors want a Miami judge to sentence the son of former Liberian President Charles Taylor to 147 years in prison for torturing people when he was chief of a brutal paramilitary unit during his father’s reign.
Charles McArthur Emmanuel, also known as Charles “Chuckie” Taylor Jr. is scheduled to be sentenced Jan. 9 by U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. His conviction was the first use of a 1994 law allowing prosecution in the U.S. for acts of torture committed overseas.
A recent Justice Department court filing describes torture — which the U.S. has been accused of in the war on terror — as a “flagrant and pernicious abuse of power and authority” that warrants severe punishment of Taylor.
“It undermines respect for and trust in authority, government and a rule of law,” wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Caroline Heck Miller in last week’s filing. “The gravity of the offense of torture is beyond dispute.”
—
This is exactly why we deserve to know exactly what went on and when, who ordered what and when, and whether information or revenge was extracted at Gitmo, Abu Graib, and rendition sites anywhere else in the world.
The USA will never ever again be able to regain the moral high ground unless we do so. Never again will the US be justified in judging other nations with respect to torture.
What’s at stake is literally the role of US world leadership going forward. Believe it or not, I agree that the USA has been by far the one shining light when it comes to world leadership for the past 60 years.
Many of you seem to advocate a trade here: the Bush administration gets a free pass, in trade for the US as world leader.
Ladies and gentlemen, we can have one or the other — the Bush administration is given a free pass or the US as world leader — but not both.
At the very high price of gelding US foreign policy in the 21st century and beyond, an investigation is not only warranted but is NECESSARY.
Mary,
And you can neither prove that Bush was blessing any such activity or that he was incompetant.
The simple fact is that there is no proof he tolerated any such activities. When they were found out, those involved were punished and the actions condemned.
And the only thing you can do is sit in your nice lakeside home and claim that Bush knew about it or was incompetant like the typical arm chair liberal general.
You can’t take the actions of a very few bad apples and then claim it is part of a policy or incompetance without PROOF.
I do believe those at Abu Ghrarib were punished IAW with the USMJ.
Next?
Or do we keep punishing people regardless whether they were involved or not?
Sounds too vigilante to me Libs.
How do you consider it “being treated well” when your freedom has been thrown away, you’ve been ripped from your family, and you’re locked up indefinately without due process? Trade places and see if you think you’re being “treated well”.
“For there is no good tree which produces corrupt fruit, nor a corrupt tree which produces good fruit.”
Nathan–
Concentrate real hard this time.
It was a hypothetical. Sound it out. I’m sure you can do it.
Hy-po-the-tic-al.
You’re saying that commanders have no responsibility for routine abuses that occur in their subordinates.
Gee, I wonder if Himmler had any knowledge of what was going on a Triblinka . . .
Nathaniel - Dick Cheney himself has stated that he does not consider waterboarding as torture - so that pretty much sums it up that Cheney supports torture when waterboarding IS considered torture by many other countries.
redandgoldroom - I worked for a prominent neurosurgeon for a few years and we routinely saw prisoners from the Kansas prisons for consultations and even did some surgeries - so your assertion that prisoners only get basic health care to keep them alive and nothing more is false. You might want to do some real research and not just drink the Rush koolaid.
…and Miller is in bold because I meant to make a snarky comment about how Bush supporters just seem to circle the wagons by knee-jerk response when it comes to the Bush administration.
As has been noted here many times, for some of y’all American standards just can’t be drive lower faster if means Bush is not a disaster for the USA.
MILLER IS A DEMOCRAT!
I see the argument that just a few being water boarded does not make war crimes. OK then here is a question dealing with the rights and wrong of a term. How many people must be killed before it is fitting to be called a “murder”?
Re-reading the Gonzales memo is a paradox of distorted points of view and I am seeing them here too. Gonzales argued that the Taliban was not a real governing body because they did not have total control of every part of Afghanistan. Though whenever the U.S. wanted to deal with the governing body in Afghanistan they contacted the Taliban.
Gonzales argued it both ways, that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were not an organized force such as an army to defend Afghanistan. They were not covered by the G.C. But then argued that they were the forces of Afghanistan and therefore were justifiable to be declaring war against.
He points out that by deciding to say that in the war on terror that the enemy combatants are not covered by the G.C. It will free up any actions the Bush Administration takes and preclude them from charges of war crimes. But that it also frees up any other country from being bound by the G.C. in their treatment of U.S. military. But that is a fair trade off in his mind. (Baby out with the bath water but hey at least we don’t have that bath water anymore huh?)
The best defense is to not call some one what they are therefore the laws covering them does not apply.
But then the part of the G.C. that does cover their treatment is not valid because they are not civilians.
If Alice went through the looking glass then Gonzales went through a cracked looking glass!
Whatever, Nathan..you maganged to get off the subject again. And why do you always bring up where I live? What does that have to do with anything? I don’t understand why you always have to attack me or personally or call me names when you post.
In liberal la la land Bush should be held accountable for every little thing that anyone in the military does wrong.
A Marine shoots himself in the foot? It must have been because Bush is incompetant!
An Airforce pilot drops a bomb on a house with suspected terrorists in it and there happened to also be women and children inside?
WAR CRIME! BUSH MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!
Army PFC stole something from the PX?
Why isn’t Rumsfield being put on the stand to testify for th defense! Rumsfield must have known about this criminal activity and condoned it!
I wonder if getting a colonic is reverse water boarding?
I guess it depends on which end your brain is on!
You made me laugh…
“Nathaniel
Posted December 30, 2008 at 12:22 pm | Permalink
…A Marine shoots himself in the foot? It must have been because Bush is incompetant!
An Airforce pilot drops a bomb on a house with suspected terrorists in it and there happened to also be women and children inside?
WAR CRIME! BUSH MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!
…”
Little drama queen today, eh?
Mary,
It has never stopped you saying personal things about me in the past.
Now all of a sudden you don’t like it?
Oh my.
I’ll make you a deal, from this day forward I will say nothing about you personally. If you can do the same for me.
Lets see how long you can last.
Every liberal I have made a deal like this with always breaks it first.
I guess we really shouldn’t expect the Commander in Chief to know what’s going on inside America’s military…there we go with those stupid expectations again! Why should we hold Bush responsible for anything that happened on his watch?
See this excellent video, it is called “Torturing Democracy”.
http://torturingdemocracy.org/
The short version, David Addington, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush made Alberto Gonzalez their bitch. They politicized the Justice Department. Alberto would have gladly offered the opinion that night was day, if Addington, Cheney, or Bush asked him to.
So, it is okay to politicize the Justice Dept., but we must not criminalize politics. This would make sense if the said politics were not criminal.
I am coming to the opinion that Obama should pardon the Bush criminals. To clean up the mess left by Bush is going to be so politically unpopular, he can only be a one term president, so what does Obama have to lose?
#
Rage
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:41 am | Permalink
No. But neither should we pursue revenge masked as “justice”.
And your basis for concluding this would happen is. . . . ?
__________________________________________________
Rage, I offer no conclusion, just an opinion. I don’t claim to have any answers. I just don’t want to see this country bogged down in another circus like we saw in the 90s.
Personally, I’d like to see Bush, Cheney, et al in prison, but I think we have other issues to deal with that are much more important right now.
Nathan,
One of the responsibilities of being a leader is being accountable for the actions of one’s subordinates.
In reality, leaders cannot know every action of every subordinate, especially in an organization as large as the US Armed Forces. Notwithstanding that, the head of every organization still has responsibility for the actions of subordinates in cases where they should reasonably have know or had cause to suspect that illegal activies were occuring. They are also responsible for actions of subordinates in cases where they failed to put in place reasonable controls that would have prevented or detected illegal activies.
The only way to make a final determination if a leader should be held accountable for the actions of a subordinate is to do an official investigation.
“It has never stopped you saying personal things about me in the past.”
Like what? The only time I called you a name was when you made fun of my nephew who was killed in a gun accident. You call me names anytime I join the discussion. I could post many personal things about you..but I’m not that kind of person.
I’m asking you to refrain from shouting to the world about where I live. At least have that much respect.
XXX
Posted December 30, 2008 at 12:27 pm | Permalink
…I think we have other issues to deal with that are much more important right now.
—
And you may be right. I can’t make any claims on a needs hierarchy for the US right now.
This is a big one, though.
If we don’t bother to investigate the Bush administration over torture, then I guarantee we’ll become a laughingstock in world opinion. What we say going forward will be heavily discounted, even among our friends.
People around the world will say the US was a great nation once, but no longer.
“Army PFC stole something from the PX?
“Why isn’t Rumsfield being put on the stand to testify for th defense! Rumsfield must have known about this criminal activity and condoned it!”
*****
Nathan uses reductio ad absurdium as an argument.
If pilfering from the PX was routine and ignored by the people in charge, then, yes, Rumsfailed would be responsible.
He can’t stop every infraction, but it’s his responsiblity to stop routine and egregious infractions . . . like child prison rape for instance.
*****
One big problem that Rumsfailed et al. created was “outsourcing” military duties — like interrogation — to private contractors (see CACI).
This set up a situation in which atrocities were almost a given, since they were not part of the chain of command and not really subject to any law (Iraq or US).
Mary,
There must be a hundred different lake communities around Wichita.
I didn’t post you address you drama queen.
So no deal then?
You may not have called me names, but that has not stopped you in the past from making posts personal.
If you can’t own up to it, that is fine. Just don’t sit here crying because I said you lived on a lake.
“One big problem that Rumsfailed et al. created was “outsourcing” military duties — like interrogation — to private contractors (see CACI).
This set up a situation in which atrocities were almost a given, since they were not part of the chain of command and not really subject to any law (Iraq or US).”
And that’s exactly what the Bush adminstration wanted. Then they didn’t have to deal with those pesky things like human rights.
CapnAmerica,
You are blind you can’t even see the double standard in your own post.
Just as stealing from the PX is not a “routine and egregious infraction” neither is child rape at prisons under military control.
Pedant
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:26 am | Permalink
Mr_Kia
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:20 am | Permalink
This is interesting as it’s a country bringing the charges.
The combatants that are being spoken of are without a country.
—
wtf? What, these combatants don’t have passports?
They are certainly citizens of some country.
This is feeble reasoning even by normally feeble Bush supporter standards.
————————————————–
Certainly they are citizens of some country, but in most cases not one that is a battleground. They fight for a belief system, not a flag. And a belief system can’t bring charges against US Officials nor would it.
“Nathaniel
Posted December 30, 2008 at 12:38 pm | Permalink
…Just as stealing from the PX is not a “routine and egregious infraction” neither is child rape at prisons under military control.”
How do you know?
How do I know?
You always get personal, Nathan..it’s your MO. Why don’t you just try to stick to a respectful discussion rather than always trying to distract with the personal put downs, insults, and namecalling? You’re calling me a drama queen…I’m calling you on your imaturity and asking you to grow up a little.
This is a memo where the Gonalez Justice Department is attempting to define the word torture into a concept that essentially has no meaning:
http://www.torturingdemocracy.org/documents/20020801-1.pdf
For a comprehensive list of Bush Administration’s mental acrobatics on the subject of torture, see this list:
http://torturingdemocracy.org/
The USA has held itself out as an exceptional nation for a century now. Americans believe that we ARE exceptional, that we are a “shining beacon.”
But unfortunately too many of us don’t way to pay the price of being exceptional, not any more.
Too many Americans would prefer to coast on America’s past, and apparently believe that the US can be exceptional AND maintain double standards.
We can’t do both. This is as obvious at the nose on your face to anybody two steps outside our borders.
In defense of pardoning Bush, Cheney, et al. this would have the effect of formally acknowledging their criminality, but would also not waste time/resources on them. A win/win. Also, they would not be afforded secret service protection - another savings.
StevenEDavis
Posted December 30, 2008 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
In defense of pardoning Bush, Cheney, et al. this would have the effect of formally acknowledging their criminality, but would also not waste time/resources on them. A win/win. Also, they would not be afforded secret service protection - another savings.
—
Interesting. It would also put the burden of proof on Bush, Cheney, et al, if they chose to forego or not accept a pardon. Both in domestic opinion and in the world court.
Hmmm…
Pedant
Posted December 30, 2008 at 12:34 pm | Permalink
XXX
Posted December 30, 2008 at 12:27 pm | Permalink
…I think we have other issues to deal with that are much more important right now.
—
And you may be right. I can’t make any claims on a needs hierarchy for the US right now.
This is a big one, though.
________________________________________________
How right you are. It’s huge and it’s done a lot of damage to our image. As I’ve said before, let DOJ do their job.
I’d also like to see regulators in SEC, OSHA, and EPA (along with others) prosecuted for some of the crap they’ve pulled.
How much time should we devote to prosecuting the multitude of Bush political hacks who so richly deserve to do the frog walk?
How much money?
And is this just symptomatic of what ails American Government generally?
“An investigation is not only warranted but is NECESSARY.”
Apparently the Bush administration felt like it was warranted but necessary to invaded a foreign country and topple over its then formal government on false premises.
With only 60+ years of persecuting Nazis, it is only fair and justifiable that we participate and continue with the world justice court system.
The Republican pols are likely to use any prosecutions politically, distracting attention with puffed-up outrage, to block legislation. We’re already seeing some of that (i.e. the BS above about “criminalizing politics”).
The question is whether such a move would backfire.
If it’s still America, it should. But it’s certainly a concern. Of course, any such investigation and prosecutions would have to be careful, fair, and beyond reproach. That should be true even if there were no political repurcussions.
If we can’t even do that, we would at the very least need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, like in South Africa. Implicitly comparing the US to a defunct aparheid regime is another matter.
But abandoning the very principles that were abandoned in such alleged crimes would hardly help our standing in the world.
How does a pre-emptive pardon by the President cover the World Court?
How does a pardon exempt a President or Vice President from their lifetime secret service protection?
Mary,
I am merely pointing out that you have also made things personal between you and I.
Merely because you are not in this thread today you act like you are all high and mighty.
Why don’t you act your age and own up to your own actions on this blog towards me instead of crying about my saying you live on a lake.
You hypocritical idiot.
I offered you the deal, do you want it or not?
Interesting. It would also put the burden of proof on Bush, Cheney, et al, if they chose to forego or not accept a pardon.
I’ve always been of a view that you shouldn’t accept a pardon if you haven’t been convicted of anything. Looks bad, hehe!
Interesting idea, indeed.
How does a pre-emptive pardon by the President cover the World Court?
It doesn’t. That’s their problem.
“You hypocritical idiot.”
I have nothing more to say to you.
Rage,
Except, imagine this.
You are not guilty. You didn’t do what people are accusing you of. However, there is an angry lynch mob on your front porch demanding that you be prosecuted for the very things you know you are innocent of.
Someone then offers you a pardon for something you are innocent of, but could easily be lynched for by the mob on your front porch regardless of your being innocent or not.
Now, do you take the pardon?
Or do you hope that irrational mob on your front porch will leave you alone?
Mary,
So what happened to that being mature part? Where you own up to your own infranctions on this blog?
You are indeed a hypocritical idiot.
One who lives on a lake no less.
“Nathaniel
Posted December 30, 2008 at 1:02 pm | Permalink
Rage,
Except, imagine this.
You are not guilty. You didn’t do what people are accusing you of. However, there is an angry lynch mob on your front porch demanding that you be prosecuted for the very things you know you are innocent of.
Someone then offers you a pardon for something you are innocent of, but could easily be lynched for by the mob on your front porch regardless of your being innocent or not.
Now, do you take the pardon?
Or do you hope that irrational mob on your front porch will leave you alone?”
That is where men with integrity, honor and balls get separated from those who do not.
Hey, I live on a lake.
Cool.
Lakes are great.
Now, do you take the pardon?
Or do you hope that irrational mob on your front porch will leave you alone?
Neither. I would call 911.
And, by the way, lynch mobs generally don’t care about such legal niceties. A pardon would just anger them more.
Nathaniel
Posted December 30, 2008 at 1:02 pm | Permalink
Rage,
Except, imagine this.
You are not guilty. You didn’t do what people are accusing you of.
—
But there’s good evidence that Bush and Cheney may be guilty. This is hardly a baseless accusation. And the stakes are enormous: literally America’s status as world leader is what’s at risk.
In that case, wouldn’t an investigation be helpful?
Why fight so hard to block one?
Rage,
Exactly.
It is obvious by this conversation that the liberals do not care about the law.
Has anyone here yet offered a logical argument well reasoned for how Bush is guilty of war crimes yet?
Nope.
All I see is liberal after liberal demanding Bush be held accountable.
Brian,
How dare you. Now I know exactly where you live. Why did you make things so personal by saying you lived on a lake?
GASP
Mary, Nathan,
You both need to go to your rooms, LOL!
Well, I’m calling for an investigation, not a lynch party.
What’s wrong with that?
“It is obvious by this conversation that the liberals do not care about the law.
Has anyone here yet offered a logical argument well reasoned for how Bush is guilty of war crimes yet?”
{pointing and laughing at Nathan}–>
“Nathaniel
Posted December 30, 2008 at 1:10 pm | Permalink
Has anyone here yet offered a logical argument well reasoned for how Bush is guilty of war crimes yet?”
That is what investigations are for…
I think a formal investigation should be launched to find out if Bush and Cheney are complicit in any war crimes committed by or on behalf of the US Armed Forces.
21 days, 16 hours, and 44 minutes…43…42..
Our national nightmare is almost over!!
“That is what investigations are for…
I think a formal investigation should be launched to find out if Bush and Cheney are complicit in any war crimes committed by or on behalf of the US Armed Forces.”
Amen!
I’d like to invite everyone to a celebration when Obama is sworn in. We need to party!!!!
Will the party be at the lake?
lol
If we can’t even do that, we would at the very least need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, like in South Africa. Implicitly comparing the US to a defunct aparheid regime is another matter.
* * * * *
This would be a reasonable alternative to prosecution and/or pardon.
I have faith that Obama could do what was right for the country even if it had great political costs for him personally. Think: Gerald Ford.
Mary,
Will you invite BlueJay over to your home on the lake?
Brian,
What cause or motive do you have for the investigations?
What proof is there that there needs to be an investigation?
“Will the party be at the lake?
lol”
Sure…then you all can come out and see that I’m not the rich bitch that Nathan loves to portray me as!
But bring your sleeping bags…if we get really drunk I’ll take your keys!
home on the lake
===============
Mary your home must float or you lake has some really thick ice!!
“Mary_Caruso
Posted December 30, 2008 at 1:23 pm | Permalink
“Will the party be at the lake?
lol”
Sure…then you all can come out and see that I’m not the rich bitch that Nathan loves to portray me as!
But bring your sleeping bags…if we get really drunk I’ll take your keys!”
Can I sleep in the back of your Maybach?
If I remember, BJ has been to my place before. Of course he’s invited…what would a celebration party be without our biggest Bush hater?
you=your
Mary,
Now I never called you a bitch. Feeling guilty?
Mary_Caruso
Posted December 30, 2008 at 1:15 pm | Permalink
21 days, 16 hours, and 44 minutes…43…42..
Our national nightmare is almost over!!
————————-
Mary what the left has done is leave itself wide open for Obama to be hamstringed by the radical right. Many will remember how Bush has been lambasted from the very beginning of his first term by the radical left. People like BJ and Linda. I hope this isn’t the case but am afraid it is.
As for being conservative or liberal in your political leaning - well this is what I think but it isn’t what I am. I come from a family of 8 girls. We are evenly divided - 4 liberals and 4 conservatives. We get together at least 4 times a year. For a week in Branson every summer and many of our kids and grandkids come in for a few days at different times. You know one thing that never comes up is politics. It just that important to our family reunions.
I hope we as a country can put behind us the division the radical left is hoping will continue. I have said from day one after the election that Obama is my prez and as such deserves my allegiance. Respect I won’t give so easily but hope he earns that. Whatever happens If I start to sound like the flipside of BJ please tell me kindly so I can stop that.
They should just turn them over to the World Court for war crimes and keep politics out of it.
I saw a headline that the Israel aggression is, wait for it, Obama’s first test. The guy hasn’t even took office yet and our ‘friends’ are testing him.
Brian..I’ll clean out the back of my Toyota for you!
“Nathaniel
Posted December 30, 2008 at 1:23 pm | Permalink
Brian,
What cause or motive do you have for the investigations?
What proof is there that there needs to be an investigation?”
Multiple cases of practices performed by or on behalf of the military.
That is all the is needed to begin investigating.
The main goal of the investigation should be whether or not Bust et.al. knew or should have known about the instances and practices in question.
If so, as Commander in Chief he is ultimately responsible. If not, those that should be held accountable will be determined in the investigation, and hopefully controls will be put in place to prevent things like that in the future.
Brian,
What activities have gone without investigation?
Last I checked, the activities mentioned here so far were investigated and those involved have been punished to some extent.
Why is there need for further investigation?
I’d like to invite everyone to a celebration when Obama is sworn in. We need to party!!!! — Mary_Caruso
—
Count me in! Since HLP often talks about you being his neighbor and identifies the lake, we all know exactly where to come for the party. What a party it should be!
Seriously, it’s like coming out of a dark and dismal period in our grat country’s history. I will celebrate!
okobserver
I and most like me honestly gave Bush the benfit of the doubt, until he proved to be the huge disaster that he was.
It won’t matter what the “radical” right or the “radical” left think or say..Obama will be judged by his actions, just like Bush was.
To my knowledge, it was never investigated whether the Executive office knew or should have known about those activities.
Like it says in the Bible, “For there is no good tree which produces corrupt fruit, nor a corrupt tree which produces good fruit.”
Brian,
Why should that be investigated? Is there any proof or indication that an ivestigation should be launched?
What is that proof?
Nathaniel
Posted December 30, 2008 at 1:30 pm | Permalink
Last I checked, the activities mentioned here so far were investigated and those involved have been punished to some extent.
Why is there need for further investigation?
—
There have been no investigations as to whether the CinC did or should have known what happened.
Nada. Zip. Zilch.
If it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that war crimes were committed, and from what I know I do not think they were, then the U.S. Attorney’s Offices obviously ought to prosecute those responsible.
From the OP.
Pedant,
Why should there be any investigations?
Nathaniel
Posted December 30, 2008 at 1:41 pm | Permalink
Pedant,
Why should there be any investigations?
—
One last time.
Because what’s at stake is America’s future as a world leader.
Hey Nathan good to see you posting again. My husband and I enjoyed lunch with you. We left there and went to Iowa and landed in the middle of a snowstorm. I think that is all they have up there. Grandson was shoveling 3 feet of snow on Christmas. He didn’t get to come home. Coaches wife cooked for the team.
Nathan would you be adopting your same stance if rather than the Military, the organization in question was a large corporation?
Do you think the CEO of AIG should be held responsible for the actions of investment officers putting money in high risk mortgage-backed securities that led to the company’s crash? Should the CEO be fired or punished for the actions of people way down his chain of command?
It is an analogous situation where the head of a large organization is accountable (or not) for actions within the organization that he knew about or should have known about.
Mary I don’t excuse everything Bush has done and have admitted that on here. I do think that he was in office at a very troubled time in our nations history and did some very good things to protect us. He made mistakes in this as any human being would have.
Obama is coming into the same challenges as he takes office. I just hope and pray that the nation will be behind him and not try to pick him apart for every mistake ever made.
To even think that the prez can know everything that every member of the military does is mind bogling. This whole thread is a red herring thrown out as fodder for the BJs among us.
I hardly think the “World Court” is waiting for Bush and Cheney’s terms to end.
If there are charges to be brought, they could have just as easily over the past 5 years.
“okobserver
Posted December 30, 2008 at 1:48 pm | Permalink
…I do think that he was in office at a very troubled time in our nations history and did some very good things to protect us. He made mistakes in this as any human being would have…I just hope and pray that the nation will be behind him and not try to pick him apart for every mistake ever made.”
A man’s good deeds do not excuse him from accepting responsibility for and being held accountable for his misdeeds.
Brian I’m not Nathan but the comparison between the CEO of AIg and prez is like comparing apples to oranges.
As CEO you call the shots of your corporation because your bottom line is affected. Your bonus depends on what the company does. When a course of action that is questionable happens because it increases the bottom line the CEO signs off on this course. The prez has a much broader prespective and has many things going on all at the same time. Not so the CEO who has one objective - to make money.
okobserver,
Thanks! I didn’t have access to the internet which allowed me to post here while I was in Quantico.
I also had a great time at lunch. I wish we had snow like that here. I like snow.
Hope you still had a great Christmas though.
Pedant,
Ok. Now what does investigating Bush for war crimes have to do with America’s future and our status as a world leader?
“okobserver
Posted December 30, 2008 at 1:48 pm | Permalink
…To even think that the prez can know everything that every member of the military does is mind bogling…”
That is why leaders, those at the very top of an organization, get the highest rewards - because they have the highest responsibility.
Realistically they cannot know everything that happens in their organization, but they are ultimately accountable for everything that happens in their organization.
And indeed, the person at the top of an organization (CEO, President, King, whatever) often ends up being the scapegoat and getting punished for actions of their subordinates of which they knew nothing. That is just something that comes with the territory.
Risk vs Reward.
Brian,
I think the key is “actions he knew about or should have known about”
Now how does that apply to Bush and what is your proof?
#
Mary_Caruso
Posted December 30, 2008 at 1:16 pm | Permalink
I’d like to invite everyone to a celebration when Obama is sworn in. We need to party!!!!
__________________________________________________
Super idea, Mary. After what we’ve been through this past 8 years, we need to set a different tone. Count me in; I’d love for Mrs XXX to meet you. (she’s waaay more liberal than I am).
‘A man’s good deeds do not excuse him from accepting responsibility for and being held accountable for his misdeeds.’
Brian I don’t think that is what I said. I said that what you see as misdeeds I see as the after affectives of decisions he made for the good of the nation. Not one of us can say what will happen when we take a course of action. Sometimes the results aren’t so good. This is what you are calling misdeeds.
The left needs to get over the idea that Iraq was just Bush’s idea. Do your homework. From Bill Clinton on down the top demos advocated this. Were the actions Bush took in Iraq after the fall of Saddam right. Only history will tell us this. But to say that Bush set out to break laws and harm innocent people is the height of arrogance.
Nathaniel
Posted December 30, 2008 at 1:54 pm | Permalink
Pedant,
Ok. Now what does investigating Bush for war crimes have to do with America’s future and our status as a world leader?
—
Read my comments above.
okobserver
Posted December 30, 2008 at 1:57 pm | Permalink
But to say that Bush set out to break laws and harm innocent people is the height of arrogance.
—
Nobody is saying that.
What people are saying is that the World Court may indict Bush et al for war crimes, and mightn’t it be a good idea for us to investigate the likelihood first?
There is good evidence that war crimes have have been committed. There is no proof of them, not that I know of.
“okobserver
Posted December 30, 2008 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
Brian I’m not Nathan but the comparison between the CEO of AIg and prez is like comparing apples to oranges.
As CEO you call the shots of your corporation because your bottom line is affected. Your bonus depends on what the company does. When a course of action that is questionable happens because it increases the bottom line the CEO signs off on this course. The prez has a much broader prespective and has many things going on all at the same time. Not so the CEO who has one objective - to make money.”
You are wrong, they are very similar.
A CEO defintiely does not sign off on every decision made within their company (even on decisions that would seem huge to outsiders). The objective of the CEO is to increase shareholder value. Companies give CEO’s considerable amounts of stock as part of their pay so their personal interests are in line with their fiduciary duty to the company.
The CEO of a large multinational corporation certainly has to have a very broad perspective, granted not as broad as that of President. However, the breadth of a persons perspective is irrelevant. Have you ever heard an excuse of “I had a lot of other things going on” hold up in court (or anywhere else that matters)?
Pedant,
What is this good evidence that war crimes were committed and that Bush had anything to do with them?
Would you guys like to make it a dinner in town, and/or just a meet up at a bar? We can do it at my house, I live out by Lake Afton. I’d prefer we meet in town if that means more bloggers will show up, some may not want to drive so far. Either way, I’d love it if we could celebrate together.
Even the cons could come if they promise to behave themselves!
Pedant,
What proof do you have that the World Court is going after Bush?
What proof do they have?
What jurisdiction do they have?
Mary,
Don’t invite the cons or let me know where it is.
There are far too many bed wetting liberals that would never show up if there was a chance I would be there.
On that note, better not have it at your house either.
Mary, I think a meet up leaves room for everyone to celebrate for as short or long a time as they want / can, and absolves everyone of hosting responsibilities. Maybe a central location would be fair?
“okobserver
Posted December 30, 2008 at 1:57 pm | Permalink
…I see as the after affectives of decisions he made for the good of the nation. Not one of us can say what will happen when we take a course of action. Sometimes the results aren’t so good. This is what you are calling misdeeds…But to say that Bush set out to break laws and harm innocent people is the height of arrogance.”
Are you giving the “You want the truth, you can’t handle the truth” defense?
The intended purpose of his actions and the scope of his job does not matter. I do not think that Bush malevolently set out to harm America. Sometimes we all do things that end up being wrong when we did not intend to.
However, if it is found his decisions and policies directly or reasonably indirectly lead to illegal activies he must be held accountable for that.
Brian,
So, once again, what proof do you have to bring forth any type of investigation of Bush for War Crimes?
What reason is there for any investigation other than you liberals wanting one?
Mary_Caruso
Posted December 30, 2008 at 2:03 pm | Permalink
Would you guys like to make it a dinner in town, and/or just a meet up at a bar?
__________________________________________________
Probably be better in town. Cleanup/pickup after a party kind of takes the fun out of it.
Just my input.
Mary,
as one who is not a progressive liberal, if I were to show up, would I, or anybody else, be subject to:
“Ya don’t get anywhere making nice with them. They don’t do “nice”. They understand a smack in the mouth or a kick in the pants”
I do not know if I could make it even if invited, but it might be nice to try. And, although he did not get my vote, I wish Obama great success in turning this country around in many different ways.
Because, see, he is my president, like this is my country.
“Nathaniel
Posted December 30, 2008 at 1:55 pm | Permalink
Brian,
I think the key is “actions he knew about or should have known about”
Now how does that apply to Bush and what is your proof?”
Events occurred while he was CinC (that is how it applies to him, nothing further needed)
I need no proof. Investigations do not need proof to begin. Convictions need proof and that is what the investigation would provide (or not provide)
1. Investigate
2. Decide if their is enough evidence to prosecute
3. Hold trial and present evidence
4. Convict
I am still at step 1.
Unless their is an investigation, there will always be an asterisk next to Bush’s name (metaphorically)
Brian,
Investigations do require proof of some type.
Should the Wichtia PD start investigating you for crimes just because?
What reason or cause is there for an investigation beyond a bunch of liberals wanting one?
Nathaniel
Posted December 30, 2008 at 2:03 pm | Permalink
Pedant,
What proof do you have that the World Court is going after Bush?
What proof do they have?
What jurisdiction do they have?
—
It was a summary of what’s been posted here so far.
As far as I know, the World Court hasn’t even convened on this matter, so i’m unsure what evidence they might have now. Obviously they have no proof yet.
I am unsure of their jurisdiction.
Now your turn. Do you see any value in clearing Bush et al of war crimes?
Is this totally without value?
“Nathaniel
Posted December 30, 2008 at 2:05 pm | Permalink
…There are far too many bed wetting liberals that would never show up if there was a chance I would be there.”
lmao
ego much?
WASHINGTON — Both President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are leaving office with a spate of nostalgic interviews but no mea culpas.
As they leave, they are passing on to President-elect Barack Obama, two wars involving thousands of American troops and a tanking economy, with no remorse, no regrets.
Both men admit to signing off on tactics against captives that most of the world considers torture and a violation of national and international law. The result has been the tarnishing of the U.S. ethical reputation.
In an interview with The Washington Times, Cheney –citing the need for “good intelligence” in wartime — said about 33 suspects were subjected to “enhanced interrogation.”
He added that the administration put “only three” suspects through waterboarding, a condemned technique simulating drowning.
Acknowledging that he signed off on it, Cheney said, “I don’t believe it was torture.”
“I was in the loop,” Cheney said. “I thought it was the absolutely right thing to do.”
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/394001_helenonline30.html
littlejohn,
I’ve met many from this blog and found none to be less than pleasant and polite, many to be very interesting and fun.
There is ONE America. All Americans can make a difference too.
Pedant,
So you don’t know, but you have no problems making claims about the World Court you can’t back up. Got it.
Bush doesn’t need to be cleared of something there is no proof of.
what value is there in a witch hunt of Bush for political reasons desired by liberals?
Nathaniel
Posted December 30, 2008 at 2:05 pm | Permalink
Mary,
Don’t invite the cons or let me know where it is.
There are far too many bed wetting liberals that would never show up if there was a chance I would be there.
_________________________________________________
Nathan, you want to attend a party to celebrate Obama’s inauguration? I find that a little surprising.
There there, it’ll be alright.
“Nathaniel
Posted December 30, 2008 at 2:14 pm | Permalink
…Investigations do require proof of some type.”
Ummm…no they don’t.
“Should the Wichtia PD start investigating you for crimes just because?”
Most WPD investigations begin with a reasonable tip or accusation(s). Then it is the judgement of the investigating officer whether or not to investigate.
Imagine this, Nathan:
“Yes I paid that guy to stick a gun in the clerk’s face, and demand money. I don’t believe it was robbery. I was in the loop. I thought it was the absolutely right thing to do.”
Mary I won’t be able to make the meetup because I will be in St Louis that night but want only the best for Obama. Hoping he fails would be like wishing failure on me and mine.
“However, if it is found his decisions and policies directly or reasonably indirectly lead to illegal activies he must be held accountable for that.”
Even in a court of law unintended consequences are not necessarily prosecutable. A drunk who injures someone while driving drunk is certainly responsible but a driver that is following all of the laws, isn’t affected by drugs or drink and hits a pedestrian who steps out in front of him wouldn’t be liable.
What exactly are you saying Bush and Cheney did that is prosecutable? I guess I am not following your logic. The Geneva Convention wouldn’t be used in your logic because the ememy combatants were not in uniform and hadn’t declared a war.
Maybe downtown at one of the bars/restaurants would be good. There are plenty of good places to choose from.
I hope everyone will come, it’s amazing how nice people can be when not hiding behind the facade of a computer. There hasn’t been any blood shed at any of the meetups as far as I know.
I’m looking forward to it..and I plan to PARTY!!!!
“okobserver
Posted December 30, 2008 at 2:19 pm | Permalink
…The Geneva Convention wouldn’t be used in your logic because the ememy combatants were not in uniform and hadn’t declared a war.”
Oh don’t even bring up the Geneva Convention!
Nathaniel
Posted December 30, 2008 at 2:16 pm | Permalink
Bush doesn’t need to be cleared of something there is no proof of.
—
We’re not going to be able to carry on this discussion civilly unless you demonstrate a better grasp of “proof” and its burden.
An investigation would not require proof. It would establish evidence instead.
Now, do you think the rest of the world is made up of “liberals,” and if so then why do you think we should waste our time trying to convince them that while we can talk the talk we can also walk the walk when it comes to justice?
“brian_nuevo
Posted December 30, 2008 at 2:22 pm | Permalink
“okobserver
Posted December 30, 2008 at 2:19 pm | Permalink
…The Geneva Convention wouldn’t be used in your logic because the ememy combatants were not in uniform and hadn’t declared a war.”
Oh don’t even bring up the Geneva Convention!”
If the only thing separating right from wrong for you is whether or not they were wearing the official uniform of a country that had officially declared war on us, then I have respected your thoughts more than I should have.
Rage who can say what they would do if given the saftey of an entire nation as their responsibility. I am making no excuses for Cheney or Bush but think that small minds sometimes can’t grasp the entire picture.
Three waterboarded. How many beheaded by the enemy. How many gunned downed. We lost a family friend, Fern Holland. Look up her story. Just a compassionate young woman from Oklahoma that wanted to make a difference.
Who do we punish for her death?
“There are far too many bed wetting liberals that would never show up if there was a chance I would be there.”
LOL! You really think you’re that powerful? I don’t think anyone is scared of you, Nathan.
Annoyed maybe, but not scared.
Is this a morning thing during the inaugural?
Rage who can say what they would do if given the saftey of an entire nation as their responsibility.
That is precisely why what they did was stupid, immoral, and inexcusable. Instead of putting the safety of the nation first, they decided it was time to be the biggest bully on the block. Justice took a back seat to accumulating power.
Maybe in some warped fashion, the PNAC people believed we could create an untouchable empire, frighten the entire world, and everyone would fall in line.
But that’s not how it works. The Romans found that out the hard way.
“okobserver
Posted December 30, 2008 at 2:26 pm | Permalink
Rage who can say what they would do if given the saftey of an entire nation as their responsibility. I am making no excuses for Cheney or Bush but think that small minds sometimes can’t grasp the entire picture.
Three waterboarded. How many beheaded by the enemy. How many gunned downed. We lost a family friend, Fern Holland. Look up her story. Just a compassionate young woman from Oklahoma that wanted to make a difference.
Who do we punish for her death?”
Lowering our nations standards of right and wrong will do nothing to bring back or honor the deaths of people like Fern Holland. (I did Google her, it was sad that she died like that.)
Not everything requires punishment or retribution. It is often harder and more reflective of a great person (or in this case Nation) to ‘turn the other cheek’.
“Is this a morning thing during the inaugural?”
No, we want to PARTY!!! It needs to be on a weekend night..so we can get crazy and dance on the tables!!!!
By the way, here’s the NYT editorial piece that Calabresi objects to in the OP:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/opinion/18thu1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
“One page of the [a bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee]report lists the repeated objections that President Bush and his aides so blithely and arrogantly ignored: The Air Force had “serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques”; the chief legal adviser to the military’s criminal investigative task force said they were of dubious value and may subject soldiers to prosecution; one of the Army’s top lawyers said some techniques that stopped well short of the horrifying practice of waterboarding “may violate the torture statute.” The Marines said they “arguably violate federal law.” The Navy pleaded for a real review.”
—
If the techniques that were well short of waterboarding were also in violation of federal law, then what wouldn’t waterboarding itself be in violation of federal law?
If you’re paying attention, these are the kinds of reports that merit an investigation.
Not a witch hunt, not a lynch mob. An investigation.
Rage
Posted December 30, 2008 at 2:34 pm | Permalink
Maybe in some warped fashion, the PNAC people believed we could create an untouchable empire, frighten the entire world, and everyone would fall in line.
But that’s not how it works. The Romans found that out the hard way.
—
It’s not just the Romans who found this out. It wasn’t just the evil parts of Rome that the barbarians were vengeful of. The great parts were also wiped out. The engineering, the medical advances, the libraries, capital markets, culture: it was all destroyed.
The Western world paid a harsh price for Rome’s hubris: the Dark Ages.
Under George W Bush the US has veered ominously close to the edge of Roman hubris. As things are now I believe we’ve lost a great deal of influence in world affairs. Hopefully we haven’t engendered the obsession for vengeance that Rome engendered in the waves of tribes who plundered her for centuries after Rome fell.
To my mind, this is the biggest more important justification for this investigation: to put “exceptional” back in the pack of adjectives the world uses without thinking to describe us.
Three waterboarded. How many beheaded by the enemy. How many gunned downed. We lost a family friend, Fern Holland. Look up her story.
*****
Talk to a CON long enough, and she’ll trot out the good old “they’re worse than we are” argument.
In other words, two wrongs do make a right.
We agree that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are terrorists of the worst ilk. The true test of our beliefs however is whether we will let them drag us down to their level.
The CONs are all for that, apparently.
Good post, Pedant.
That completely undercuts Nathan’s disingenuous “there’s no proof that Bush knew anything.”
As easy as it is to believe that Bush knows nothing about anything, that still doesn’t let him off the hook . . .
No but capn I don’t believe in fighting a forest fire with a water pistol either.
“okobserver
Posted December 30, 2008 at 3:04 pm | Permalink
No but capn I don’t believe in fighting a forest fire with a water pistol either.”
I beleive in proper land management to prevent forest fires.
Brian I absolutely agree.
“okobserver
Posted December 30, 2008 at 3:17 pm | Permalink
Brian I absolutely agree.”
At least there is something we can come together on
I think there are probably a lot of things we all agree on. We just happen to focus on the differences.
Maybe we should all just have a big hug and a perhaps a hearty handshake the next time we meet :)
Nothing like a good huggin’ to bring people together (just keep your hands above the belt line)
Or we could bring some of those Sumo suits and let our aggressions flow safely
(http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Sumo%20suits&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)
“As things are now I believe we’ve lost a great deal of influence in world affairs.”
Suddenly libs are for world expansion? Are we going global with world domination?
What happened to bringing the troops home worry about the US and not the rest of the world?
Or do we now worry about the rest of the world?
Is the a movement toward one world government?
Do you really think the rest of the world gives a damn about us? They are all out for their own countries - and however much MONEY and military equipment they can get from us.
Sorta like democrats.
Well I say for the New Year that we should play nice. Not hold old grudges. Realize that political differences are just skin deep and aren’t who we are. We will be better for it and the blog will be around when we want to air our gripes but we won’t let them sink to personal attacks. Just one of my resolutions.
my resolution is to beat up a stranger at a New Year’s Eve party.
(just kidding)
Happy New Year!
“American_Way
Posted December 30, 2008 at 3:56 pm | Permalink
…”
My goodness, it seems that you have a lot of unanswered questions.
Suddenly libs are for world expansion? Are we going global with world domination?
So. . . “influence in world affairs” = “world expansion” or “world domination” or “one world government.” O. . .kay.
Or maybe it just means “influence in world affairs.”
“Rage
Posted December 30, 2008 at 4:06 pm | Permalink
….
So. . . “influence in world affairs” = “world expansion” or “world domination” or “one world government.” O. . .kay.
Or maybe it just means “influence in world affairs.””
{sarcasm} So now you libs are all about affairs? Bunch of sex feinds I say. Just look at that Clinton, he was all about the affairs and look where it got him {/sarcasm}
Suddenly libs are for world expansion? Are we going global with world domination?
———
This lib thinks diplomacy should be a high priority in world affairs! Respect for differences a very close second.
capn..just been busy.grow up
Does anybody else looking over this thread on war crimes prosecutions think that Nathan doth protest way too much? It makes me wonder how he spent his time in Iraq.
Ahh as for proof and self confession is considered proof in a court of law.
Bush has stated he did attend several meeting where the intense interrogation technique gone over and he approved of them. Recently Cheney said he knew of the techniques and approved of them then said “So what?”. The hubris is overwhelming in the administration but as I said it is not going to lead to their downfall. It will to this country’s downfall but Bush &Co will escape it.
The world court has one problem with Bush&Co. it means it would be indicting the United States of America. Though our diplomacy power has been eroded our military strength has not. You don’t piss off the only guy in the bar with a gun if you do not want to have the shooting started. Unless the world wants to back up the indictment with military force. It is wise if you intent to piss off the guy with a gun that you better also have a gun. The world has the same problem we have, the need to weight which is easier to swallow the effects of seeking justice or allowing an injustice to go unpunished?
intense interrogation technique gone over
should be “intense interrogation techiques were gone over”.
Littlejohn, I have been at several meet-up where Bluejay attended. He does respect the Republicans whom show some sense of common sense. As many times as I have agreed with you today. You seem to show common sense. You and I are not unique in the Conservative group we just seem to have few that speak up.
And do not tote the party line, I make it clear I am still a Republican but before that I am a thinking person too. Yes sometimes things are said in a partisan way that offenses me but for the most part the same things that offend the liberals also offends me about the Bush Administration. In that we have common ground along with some other things like health care to me in a modern society it is a right and not something that should be dictated by if you can afford it.
But anyway, the difference is smaller in person then on a blind blog. I wish all of us could share in the meet up. I have found several on both sides have many attributes that are worth admiring. If Mary and Nathan had true differences they are close enough to stand on the porch and throw rocks at the other’s house. But though they are a thousand miles a part in ideology I have never heard of any windows getting busted! And before it is said I do not think that Nathan has bullet proof glass in his bedroom windows!
I speak for myself in this but I think you would be welcome at any meet-up.
I have this really nice Obama T-shirt coming from Move-on.org that would be perfect for the 01-20-09 date - that would be a Tuesday. Will attend with T-shirt then, otherwise, maybe not…
“I have this really nice Obama T-shirt coming from Move-on.org…”
Of course you do. Will you be wearing democratundrground pants with a huffington hat and NARAL socks. PETA shoes?
“Of course you do. Will you be wearing democratundrground pants with a huffington hat and NARAL socks. PETA shoes?”
At your ideological funeral, I will be wearing all of those - Asshole. Night, night, punk…
“At your ideological funeral, I will be wearing all of those - Asshole. Night, night, punk…”
MY ideoligical funeral?? I don’t wear website crap.
Illegal combatants are those who fight outside the rules of war. The presence of a uniform, dress or badges, a chain of command, obedience to a civil authority, tactics etc., are some of the areas Geneva, the Hague and prior conventions have used to define just who is a legal combatant. Without these parameters people were to be thought to be lawless criminals and treated as such. The French resistance and other national resiting groups during Nazi occupation were treated much harsher than regular army POW’s and the Allies did the same. Otto Skorzenys commandoes caught in American uniforms during the “Bulge”, were shot while those in German uniform sent to POW camps. If you do not fight by the rules governing warfare you cannot be protected by them and even Eisenhower treated the captured sans uniform much, much rougher than those taken in uniform. I think nations can refuse, to those taken in the field and do not fall into the internationally accepted definition of a soldier, any rights governing warfare. America however does not have the right to do unto others what we would protest if done unto us, ie torture in any form.
Only if NObama unseals his fake birth certificate
MY ideoligical funeral?? I don’t wear website crap.
* * * * *
No, I suppose not. Your brain is just completely full of website/talk radio crap.
We beat you. Nah, Nah, Nah…, Nah, Nah. Goodbye…
Fleetwood if you were any dumber you’d require a designation of BDP. I think you are asking for that again.
Let’s give that title back to this uniquely stupid dumbass.
And as vice-dumbass, I nominate his friend the SolVB guy from Michigan.
A perfect ticket…
“The presence of a uniform, dress or badges,…”
Or a MoveOn.org T-Shirt with DU pants. Classy.
You see that guy on the waterboard? What if he were one of the three terrorist master minds who was actually waterboarded. If so, he wants very much to kill your family, you infidel dog. And he has been working hard to find a way to do it. He would love to inflict massive casualties on your country.
So, you are telling me that you are going to condemn our country’s security forces for pouring a little water in his face to get him to talk?
I don’t get it.
SED:
That was pitiful. Weak.
aggressive war?
What on earth other kind of war would you wage?
Liberals would do what? Wage pussy war?
“I think you are asking for that again.”
Bring it. I know what it means. When you people got nothing, you bring out the insults. It’s a badge of honor.
Liberal warrior:
“Uuuuuuuuuuuuuu who!?”
“Oh bad guy, are you THERE?”
“Please go away, or I might have to (sniffle sniffle) pull out this gun and shoot in your direction.”
“Please just surrender?”
Liberal Warrior:
“Uuuuuuu Whoooooooooooooo?”
“Oh bad guy!”
“I really hate to use these uranium depleted rounds, as they are bad for the environment.
“Won’t you please just drop your guns?”
Liberal Warrior:
“Uuuuuuu Whoooooooooooooo?”
“Oh bad guy!”
“I really detest dropping these land mine cannisters on your person - won’t you please just put your hands up?” “These land mines are terrible weapons”
Liberal Warrior:
“Uuuuuuu Whoooooooooooooo?”
“Oh bad guy!”
“If I’m real sweet and nice to you, and don’t blow up your house, wife, and kids, will you tell me where Mr. Osama Bin Laden is hiding?” “Pretty please, with sugar on top?”
“Come onnnnnnnnn!” I’m waging NICE nonaggressive war on you!”
Ample illustration here of why we no longer invite cons to the meetups.
JR, ample THIS up your wise crackin behind.
Whe cares about your silly “meet up’s”? A few liberals in a sea of red. Chump change.
Still waiting for you to save the world……
Respectfully, JR. That is. Me being ordained and all that……
Whatever Hank.
Good night! God’s blessings on all of you!
There is plenty to go around.
May you prosper and be of good health, and live life more than abundantly!
Chas you are forgiven by the precious blood of Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ got off easy! A day on the cross, a weekend in hell, and all the hallelujahs of the legioned angels for eternity!
I lived 10 years in friggin’ Wichita. Try that, Jay Cee!
For those who prefer not to remain pathetically ignorant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/testimony/t0806a/final.pdf
Without these parameters people were to be thought to be lawless criminals and treated as such.
Precisely. I would add that making decisions on the battlefield in one thing, while making decisions in secure US facilities thousands of miles away is something completely different.
P.S. Abu Gariab and Bagram were, of course, not battlefields either.
#
Rage
Posted December 31, 2008 at 12:45 am | Permalink
Without these parameters people were to be thought to be lawless criminals and treated as such.
Precisely. I would add that making decisions on the battlefield in one thing, while making decisions in secure US facilities thousands of miles away is something completely different.
——————————————–
Yes, they have a Mr. Coffee and sprinkled doughnuts in the break room to make it much more accommodating for the interrogators.
We were founded as a nation not of men but of laws. Now we’ve suffered eight long years under a government that’s convinced that it is above the law of the land, and that the Constitution of the United States of America is “just a scrap of paper.” In the name of National Security, they have undone 232 years of effort by the Real Americans to keep our nation a nation of laws. I’d posit that if we cannot protect our nation from those who would sacrfice our traditional American ideals in the face of a few suicidal maniacs, “terrorists” are the least of our problems.
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
- Lenin