Further small victories
-
Another FOI lawsuit by the ACLU[^] has compelled the release of photos of prisoner abuse from prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan at locations other than Abu Ghraib. As torture revelations increase, the calls for criminal investigations will increase. There has also been some blowback from the Justice Department concerning the White House's inappropriate intervention in stating that there should be no investigations. Holder may very well appoint a special prosecutor and show its independence from the White House. There is also addition pressure coming from outside the US. Not only is Spain preparing war crimes indictments but also NATO Allies Preparing to Go After Bush Officials on Torture[^] This is great news for those of us who believe in the rule of law and that our politcal elites should not be considered above the law. Democratic complicity and what "politicizing justice" really means [^]
Punishing politically powerful criminals is about vindicating the rule of law. Partisan and political considerations should play no role in it. It is opponents of investigations and prosecutions who are being driven by partisan allegiances and a desire to advance their political interests. By contrast, proponents of investigations are seeking to vindicate the most apolitical yet crucial principle of our system of government: that we are a nation of laws that cannot allow extremely serious crimes to be swept under the rug for political reasons. That's true no matter what is best for Obama's political goals and no matter how many Democrats end up being implicated -- ethically, politically or even legally -- by the crimes that were committed.
oilFactotum wrote:
This is great news for those of us who believe in the rule of law and that our politcal elites should not be considered above the law.
So, how did you feel about Clinton lying under oath about blow jobs?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
This is great news for those of us who believe in the rule of law and that our politcal elites should not be considered above the law.
So, how did you feel about Clinton lying under oath about blow jobs?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Since lying in a civil case about cheating on your wife warrants investigation and sanctions, you must also agree that torture also warrents investigations and criminal sanctions.
-
Oakman wrote:
He's not interested in talking about anything - just trolling for anyone who doesn't hang out on moveon.org
I know, but I continue to hope he and his ilk get exactly what they are asking for. The sooner their radicalism becomes fully empowered, the sooner it fails.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I find it facinating that you believe the rule of law is radical. :rolleyes:
-
Since lying in a civil case about cheating on your wife warrants investigation and sanctions, you must also agree that torture also warrents investigations and criminal sanctions.
Doesn't work, I asked you your opinion.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Doesn't work, I asked you your opinion.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
I think what he did pales to insignificance when placed side by side with the war crimes of the previous administration. Now it's your turn. Should he have been investigated? If so, doesn't it follow that the previous adminstrations crimes should be investigated?
-
I think what he did pales to insignificance when placed side by side with the war crimes of the previous administration. Now it's your turn. Should he have been investigated? If so, doesn't it follow that the previous adminstrations crimes should be investigated?
oilFactotum wrote:
Should he have been investigated?
yes. but he wasn't investigated for sex he was investigated for real estate fraud, the lying about sex was a derivative, something he didn't need to do but once he lied he should have ben impeached and convicted.
oilFactotum wrote:
If, so doesn't it follow that the previous adminstrations crimes should be investigated?
Truman for crimes against humanity. but the current tempest in a teapot is dead wrong. for starters torture is ill defined and I content that waterboarding doesn't qualify because, well, look up the definition. furthermore all elements of government concurred that the techniques used were within the law. since all elements of government were involved to go after one branch or the members of the administration and not their counterparts in congress is asinine, corosive and hands our enemies a playbook. even worse in the idea of going after attorneys who were charged with interpreting the law and rendering an opinion. simply an ignorant way to proceed and one that will result in the deaths of many because we now have an enemy, radical Islam, that not only believes we're fools and paper tigers but we're now proving it.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Should he have been investigated?
yes. but he wasn't investigated for sex he was investigated for real estate fraud, the lying about sex was a derivative, something he didn't need to do but once he lied he should have ben impeached and convicted.
oilFactotum wrote:
If, so doesn't it follow that the previous adminstrations crimes should be investigated?
Truman for crimes against humanity. but the current tempest in a teapot is dead wrong. for starters torture is ill defined and I content that waterboarding doesn't qualify because, well, look up the definition. furthermore all elements of government concurred that the techniques used were within the law. since all elements of government were involved to go after one branch or the members of the administration and not their counterparts in congress is asinine, corosive and hands our enemies a playbook. even worse in the idea of going after attorneys who were charged with interpreting the law and rendering an opinion. simply an ignorant way to proceed and one that will result in the deaths of many because we now have an enemy, radical Islam, that not only believes we're fools and paper tigers but we're now proving it.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Truman for crimes against humanity.
Doesn't work. Answer the question.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
for starters torture is ill defined
Completely untrue. Plenty of precedence available.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I content that waterboarding doesn't qualify
your personal opinion is irrelevant. We have prosecuted waterboarding on numerous occasions going back over 100 years.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
one branch or the members of the administration and not their counterparts
strawman. I haven't suggested any such thing.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
hands our enemies a playbook.
What playbook is that? Obama has already removed torture from the table. Even Bush said he had stopped.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
even worse in the idea of going after attorneys who were charged with interpreting the law and rendering an opinion.
The opinions they rendered were crafted(if that word can be used, the imcompetence of these opinions is incredible) for the sole purpose of retroactively justifying what was already being done.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
result in the deaths of many
Torture has already caused American deaths. The terrorists have no better recruiting tool than GITMO and Abu Ghraib.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
that not only believes we're fools and paper tigers but we're now proving it.
So we should torture to show the rest of the world what big balls we have? I've heard you say over and over again that we shouldn't care what others think of us. Why now, suddenly? Where is the rule of law in all of this for you? Is it really you position that our politicians should be above the law(blowjobs excepted, of course)?
-
I find it facinating that you believe the rule of law is radical. :rolleyes:
oilFactotum wrote:
I find it facinating that you believe the rule of law is radical
Your committment to one radical interpretation of the law is even more fascinating. You seem to be incapable of understanding that if you succeed in your goals you will have effectively rendered this nation impotent against even the most innocuous sort of threat. You will have essentially eliminated the role of commander in chief. No one who ever again holds that office will risk facing international courts for decisions that might not have been in perfect accordance with every possible nuance of international legal interpretation. Teams of lawyers will be required before even the most simple decision are made. Generals, spies, soldiers will be incapable of acting for fear of legal reprisal from any nation on the planet. Under the rules you are about to force this nation to adher to, the Civil War could not have been fought, the Nazis could not have been fought, the USSR could not have been confronted and finally defeated. Every single one of those confrontations required breaking some interpretation of some law to be successfully waged. And when you publish to your enemies precisely what you are not willing to do, that is precisely what he will force you to do. No legal system can possibly be so carefully formulated that it cannot be forced against itself quite easily. But, believe me, Oily, for all of that, I absolutely hope you get exactly what you want. Because I am convinced that you will not be able to control your own radicalism. Your sort smells blood, you will not stop with Bush. Once this is all fully in motion, you will not be able to manage it. Just as Oakman said, this will be McCarthyism on steriods, strapped to a rocket. It will be completely out of control. And your radicalism will finally force this naton to act against you, and you will then become the victim of your own committment to inane legal codes which you find convenient for the advancement of your radical political agenda. You will have to obey your laws, the rest of us will suffer from no such sanctions.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Saturday, April 25, 2009 8:57 PM
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I find it facinating that you believe the rule of law is radical
Your committment to one radical interpretation of the law is even more fascinating. You seem to be incapable of understanding that if you succeed in your goals you will have effectively rendered this nation impotent against even the most innocuous sort of threat. You will have essentially eliminated the role of commander in chief. No one who ever again holds that office will risk facing international courts for decisions that might not have been in perfect accordance with every possible nuance of international legal interpretation. Teams of lawyers will be required before even the most simple decision are made. Generals, spies, soldiers will be incapable of acting for fear of legal reprisal from any nation on the planet. Under the rules you are about to force this nation to adher to, the Civil War could not have been fought, the Nazis could not have been fought, the USSR could not have been confronted and finally defeated. Every single one of those confrontations required breaking some interpretation of some law to be successfully waged. And when you publish to your enemies precisely what you are not willing to do, that is precisely what he will force you to do. No legal system can possibly be so carefully formulated that it cannot be forced against itself quite easily. But, believe me, Oily, for all of that, I absolutely hope you get exactly what you want. Because I am convinced that you will not be able to control your own radicalism. Your sort smells blood, you will not stop with Bush. Once this is all fully in motion, you will not be able to manage it. Just as Oakman said, this will be McCarthyism on steriods, strapped to a rocket. It will be completely out of control. And your radicalism will finally force this naton to act against you, and you will then become the victim of your own committment to inane legal codes which you find convenient for the advancement of your radical political agenda. You will have to obey your laws, the rest of us will suffer from no such sanctions.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Saturday, April 25, 2009 8:57 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
No one who ever again holds that office will risk facing international courts for decisions that might not have been in perfect accordance with every possible nuance of international legal interpretation. Teams of lawyers will be required before even the most simple decision are made. Generals, spies, soldiers will be incapable of acting for fear of legal reprisal from any nation on the planet.
It is ironic that someone who views the creative legal interpretations of the Supreme Court as one of the nation's great evils should be treating seriously bullshit legal rationalizations for clear law breaking. We are not talking legal nuance here. We are talking simple, straightforward violations of anti-torture laws, done under cover of unethical made-to-order legal advice. As is your common practice, you aggressively argue the exact opposite of the truth. The fact that there is even a debate at all on this matter shows how drastically the field is tilted in favour of defending illegal acts ostensibly done for security purposes.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No one who ever again holds that office will risk facing international courts for decisions that might not have been in perfect accordance with every possible nuance of international legal interpretation. Teams of lawyers will be required before even the most simple decision are made. Generals, spies, soldiers will be incapable of acting for fear of legal reprisal from any nation on the planet.
It is ironic that someone who views the creative legal interpretations of the Supreme Court as one of the nation's great evils should be treating seriously bullshit legal rationalizations for clear law breaking. We are not talking legal nuance here. We are talking simple, straightforward violations of anti-torture laws, done under cover of unethical made-to-order legal advice. As is your common practice, you aggressively argue the exact opposite of the truth. The fact that there is even a debate at all on this matter shows how drastically the field is tilted in favour of defending illegal acts ostensibly done for security purposes.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
It is ironic that someone who views the creative legal interpretations of the Supreme Court as one of the nation's great evils should be treating seriously bullsh*t legal rationalizations for clear law breaking.
It isn't ironic at all. Over the last 60 years, the courts have done far more damage to the relationship between the people and their constitution than all the presidents throughout American history. Judges have far more power to take rights away than any president does. That is why the left fights so hard to control them. That is what this entire debate is really all about.
John Carson wrote:
As is your common practice, you aggressively argue the exact opposite of the truth.
If the left had the slightest interest in truth rather than power, Obama would be no where near the oval office. The entire source of power of liberalism is based entirely upon lies and dishonesty and nothing else.
John Carson wrote:
The fact that there is even a debate at all on this matter shows how drastically the field is tilted in favour of defending illegal acts ostensibly done for security purposes.
The truth is that the Bush administration took actions they deemed necessary to secure the nation against terrorists who had just murdered 3000 Americans. They kept everyone necessary fully informed of their efforts and used nothing more than techniques that selected units of our own forces are routinely confronted with in training. Whatever it was they did achieved that goal. I don't give a shit if it conformed to some international legal standard or not. The existence of those standards played a large part in why we were attacked in the first fucking place. But, hey, keep making your noise. You just might wake up something that you end up wishing had stayed asleep.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
It is ironic that someone who views the creative legal interpretations of the Supreme Court as one of the nation's great evils should be treating seriously bullsh*t legal rationalizations for clear law breaking.
It isn't ironic at all. Over the last 60 years, the courts have done far more damage to the relationship between the people and their constitution than all the presidents throughout American history. Judges have far more power to take rights away than any president does. That is why the left fights so hard to control them. That is what this entire debate is really all about.
John Carson wrote:
As is your common practice, you aggressively argue the exact opposite of the truth.
If the left had the slightest interest in truth rather than power, Obama would be no where near the oval office. The entire source of power of liberalism is based entirely upon lies and dishonesty and nothing else.
John Carson wrote:
The fact that there is even a debate at all on this matter shows how drastically the field is tilted in favour of defending illegal acts ostensibly done for security purposes.
The truth is that the Bush administration took actions they deemed necessary to secure the nation against terrorists who had just murdered 3000 Americans. They kept everyone necessary fully informed of their efforts and used nothing more than techniques that selected units of our own forces are routinely confronted with in training. Whatever it was they did achieved that goal. I don't give a shit if it conformed to some international legal standard or not. The existence of those standards played a large part in why we were attacked in the first fucking place. But, hey, keep making your noise. You just might wake up something that you end up wishing had stayed asleep.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It isn't ironic at all. Over the last 60 years, the courts have done far more damage to the relationship between the people and their constitution than all the presidents throughout American history. Judges have far more power to take rights away than any president does.
Any illegitimate power they have derives from not respecting the text of the laws they interpret, which is exactly what the DOJ legal advisers did.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They kept everyone necessary fully informed of their efforts and used nothing more than techniques that selected units of our own forces are routinely confronted with in training.
The training is designed precisely to prepare troops for the eventuality that they are captured and tortured by foreign nations willing to commit war crimes. And it is nonsense to suggest that there is no difference between the controlled application of these techniques by one country against its own troops for training purposes and the application of them between enemies in an actual conflict situation. The US executed Japanese for war crimes for waterboarding. Now you claim it is OK for the US to use those torture techniques.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It isn't ironic at all. Over the last 60 years, the courts have done far more damage to the relationship between the people and their constitution than all the presidents throughout American history. Judges have far more power to take rights away than any president does.
Any illegitimate power they have derives from not respecting the text of the laws they interpret, which is exactly what the DOJ legal advisers did.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They kept everyone necessary fully informed of their efforts and used nothing more than techniques that selected units of our own forces are routinely confronted with in training.
The training is designed precisely to prepare troops for the eventuality that they are captured and tortured by foreign nations willing to commit war crimes. And it is nonsense to suggest that there is no difference between the controlled application of these techniques by one country against its own troops for training purposes and the application of them between enemies in an actual conflict situation. The US executed Japanese for war crimes for waterboarding. Now you claim it is OK for the US to use those torture techniques.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Any illegitimate power they have derives from not respecting the text of the laws they interpret, which is exactly what the DOJ legal advisers did.
Which makes it OK? Are we now to argue about who started it?
John Carson wrote:
The US executed Japanese for war crimes for waterboarding.
Actually an international tribunal that was presided over by an Australian judge did.
John Carson wrote:
Now you claim it is OK for the US to use those torture techniques.
I don't. But when I look at the issues facing the u.S. and the world today, I really have to wonder at the sanity of those who think that paralysing the U.S. government with a witchhunt is a "victory."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It isn't ironic at all. Over the last 60 years, the courts have done far more damage to the relationship between the people and their constitution than all the presidents throughout American history. Judges have far more power to take rights away than any president does.
Any illegitimate power they have derives from not respecting the text of the laws they interpret, which is exactly what the DOJ legal advisers did.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They kept everyone necessary fully informed of their efforts and used nothing more than techniques that selected units of our own forces are routinely confronted with in training.
The training is designed precisely to prepare troops for the eventuality that they are captured and tortured by foreign nations willing to commit war crimes. And it is nonsense to suggest that there is no difference between the controlled application of these techniques by one country against its own troops for training purposes and the application of them between enemies in an actual conflict situation. The US executed Japanese for war crimes for waterboarding. Now you claim it is OK for the US to use those torture techniques.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Any illegitimate power they have derives from not respecting the text of the laws they interpret, which is exactly what the DOJ legal advisers did.
I never used the word 'illegitimate'. That is the entire problem. Given the history of the US supreme court, it can create all the 'legitimatacy' it needs for what ever purposes it desires. What ever it says is legitimate, is legitimate. It can conjure up entirely new social paradigms like a magician pulling a rabbit from a hat. That is the entire point of putting judicial conservatives back into control of the federal judiciary. Not to overturn any existing decisions, but to reestablish the appropriate balance of power between the branches of government.
John Carson wrote:
Now you claim it is OK for the US to use those torture techniques.
No, I claim it is ok for the US to defend itself. That no law on any book in any nation can require the United States to not take actions which might otherwise be deemed necessary in order to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens against a foe who is restrained in no similar way. I don't give a shit if this was torture or not, I refuse to allow you to establish a precedent that puts my way of life at risk. Or, in short: Kiss my American ass, and God bless George W. Bush.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
Any illegitimate power they have derives from not respecting the text of the laws they interpret, which is exactly what the DOJ legal advisers did.
Which makes it OK? Are we now to argue about who started it?
John Carson wrote:
The US executed Japanese for war crimes for waterboarding.
Actually an international tribunal that was presided over by an Australian judge did.
John Carson wrote:
Now you claim it is OK for the US to use those torture techniques.
I don't. But when I look at the issues facing the u.S. and the world today, I really have to wonder at the sanity of those who think that paralysing the U.S. government with a witchhunt is a "victory."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I really have to wonder at the sanity of those who think that paralysing the U.S. government with a witchhunt is a "victory."
On the other hand, given the nature of the government, if it wants to paralyze itself, who cares? If this all developes Carson and Oily's way, it will turn out to be one of the most classic cases of cutting your nose off to spite your face in all of history.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
I really have to wonder at the sanity of those who think that paralysing the U.S. government with a witchhunt is a "victory."
On the other hand, given the nature of the government, if it wants to paralyze itself, who cares? If this all developes Carson and Oily's way, it will turn out to be one of the most classic cases of cutting your nose off to spite your face in all of history.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If this all developes Carson and Oily's way, it will turn out to be one of the most classic cases of cutting your nose off to spite your face in all of history.
Carson is an Australian. He cares about the results of this just about as much as you would a similar problem in Oz. Oily is at least located in the U.S. (Could be a Canuck down here on H1B) but it's obvious that he's become no more than a liberal troll running around quoting MoveOn in hopes of upsetting you. It's pretty obvious that he has no real sense of history and little ability to anticipate the future.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
Any illegitimate power they have derives from not respecting the text of the laws they interpret, which is exactly what the DOJ legal advisers did.
I never used the word 'illegitimate'. That is the entire problem. Given the history of the US supreme court, it can create all the 'legitimatacy' it needs for what ever purposes it desires. What ever it says is legitimate, is legitimate. It can conjure up entirely new social paradigms like a magician pulling a rabbit from a hat. That is the entire point of putting judicial conservatives back into control of the federal judiciary. Not to overturn any existing decisions, but to reestablish the appropriate balance of power between the branches of government.
John Carson wrote:
Now you claim it is OK for the US to use those torture techniques.
No, I claim it is ok for the US to defend itself. That no law on any book in any nation can require the United States to not take actions which might otherwise be deemed necessary in order to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens against a foe who is restrained in no similar way. I don't give a shit if this was torture or not, I refuse to allow you to establish a precedent that puts my way of life at risk. Or, in short: Kiss my American ass, and God bless George W. Bush.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Or, in short: Kiss my American ass
Now anyone who is gay thinks you want to be friends again. :omg:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
Any illegitimate power they have derives from not respecting the text of the laws they interpret, which is exactly what the DOJ legal advisers did.
Which makes it OK? Are we now to argue about who started it?
John Carson wrote:
The US executed Japanese for war crimes for waterboarding.
Actually an international tribunal that was presided over by an Australian judge did.
John Carson wrote:
Now you claim it is OK for the US to use those torture techniques.
I don't. But when I look at the issues facing the u.S. and the world today, I really have to wonder at the sanity of those who think that paralysing the U.S. government with a witchhunt is a "victory."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Which makes it OK? Are we now to argue about who started it?
I didn't say anything was OK. I was pointing out that Stan has an inconsistent position.
Oakman wrote:
Actually an international tribunal that was presided over by an Australian judge did.
Yes, it was an international tribunal convened by the Allies. As for the judge(s), see here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/18/john-mccain/history-supports-mccains-stance-on-waterboarding/[^]
Oakman wrote:
I really have to wonder at the sanity of those who think that paralysing the U.S. government with a witchhunt is a "victory."
Who said anything about a witchhunt. Let the law take its course.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If this all developes Carson and Oily's way, it will turn out to be one of the most classic cases of cutting your nose off to spite your face in all of history.
Carson is an Australian. He cares about the results of this just about as much as you would a similar problem in Oz. Oily is at least located in the U.S. (Could be a Canuck down here on H1B) but it's obvious that he's become no more than a liberal troll running around quoting MoveOn in hopes of upsetting you. It's pretty obvious that he has no real sense of history and little ability to anticipate the future.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
He cares about the results of this just about as much as you would a similar problem in Oz.
He seems to care a great deal more than I care about anything in Oz. Which indicates to me that he is a shining little clue of what this is really all about. None of this has anything to do with respect for any law. This is about forcing the US to conform to international standards and control. It is a means of a wageing a political war on the very essence of American civilization itself. This isn't an effort to get Bush, it is an effort to dismantle the political infrastructure that put him into power in the first place, and to ensure it can never be put back together again. People such as Carson feel threatened by the power of the US being in the hands of those he deems 'social conservatives' and capitalists (ie, the core of American society) and they are as committed to its elimination as we once were to the elimination of communism. Oily is just a useful idiot for their cause. And all of that is why I don't believe they will ultimately be able to control what they are starting. Once this thing has some real momentum behind it, none of them are going to be able to stay ahead of it. It will take on a life of its on that will be beyond anyone's control. The course of action they have committed themselves to is a very big deal historically. It is unprecedented. A watershed moment in human history, and they appear to have absolutely no awareness or concern for that at all. God help us all.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I find it facinating that you believe the rule of law is radical
Your committment to one radical interpretation of the law is even more fascinating. You seem to be incapable of understanding that if you succeed in your goals you will have effectively rendered this nation impotent against even the most innocuous sort of threat. You will have essentially eliminated the role of commander in chief. No one who ever again holds that office will risk facing international courts for decisions that might not have been in perfect accordance with every possible nuance of international legal interpretation. Teams of lawyers will be required before even the most simple decision are made. Generals, spies, soldiers will be incapable of acting for fear of legal reprisal from any nation on the planet. Under the rules you are about to force this nation to adher to, the Civil War could not have been fought, the Nazis could not have been fought, the USSR could not have been confronted and finally defeated. Every single one of those confrontations required breaking some interpretation of some law to be successfully waged. And when you publish to your enemies precisely what you are not willing to do, that is precisely what he will force you to do. No legal system can possibly be so carefully formulated that it cannot be forced against itself quite easily. But, believe me, Oily, for all of that, I absolutely hope you get exactly what you want. Because I am convinced that you will not be able to control your own radicalism. Your sort smells blood, you will not stop with Bush. Once this is all fully in motion, you will not be able to manage it. Just as Oakman said, this will be McCarthyism on steriods, strapped to a rocket. It will be completely out of control. And your radicalism will finally force this naton to act against you, and you will then become the victim of your own committment to inane legal codes which you find convenient for the advancement of your radical political agenda. You will have to obey your laws, the rest of us will suffer from no such sanctions.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Saturday, April 25, 2009 8:57 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
f you succeed in your goals you will have effectively rendered this nation impotent against even the most innocuous sort of threat.
I think that has already happened. Having established that Obama will not resist witch hunts or show trials, there is at this point, not one single employee of the CIA, DIA, or FBI that would risk possible retribution for anything even suggestive of risk of future (and retroactive) illegality. Already they have established that civil servants and appointees cannot rely on the statements of the justice department in determining the boundaries. I predict another successful attack on US soil within the next two years, and one more devastating than 911. And all that blood will be as much on the hands of the radical left like oily as on the hands of the terrorists who pull it off.
-
Oakman wrote:
He cares about the results of this just about as much as you would a similar problem in Oz.
He seems to care a great deal more than I care about anything in Oz. Which indicates to me that he is a shining little clue of what this is really all about. None of this has anything to do with respect for any law. This is about forcing the US to conform to international standards and control. It is a means of a wageing a political war on the very essence of American civilization itself. This isn't an effort to get Bush, it is an effort to dismantle the political infrastructure that put him into power in the first place, and to ensure it can never be put back together again. People such as Carson feel threatened by the power of the US being in the hands of those he deems 'social conservatives' and capitalists (ie, the core of American society) and they are as committed to its elimination as we once were to the elimination of communism. Oily is just a useful idiot for their cause. And all of that is why I don't believe they will ultimately be able to control what they are starting. Once this thing has some real momentum behind it, none of them are going to be able to stay ahead of it. It will take on a life of its on that will be beyond anyone's control. The course of action they have committed themselves to is a very big deal historically. It is unprecedented. A watershed moment in human history, and they appear to have absolutely no awareness or concern for that at all. God help us all.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Oily is just a useful idiot for their cause.
FTFY