Further small victories
-
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
-
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:
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 sh*t if this was torture or not, I refuse to allow you to establish a precedent that puts my way of life at risk.
US law makes torture illegal. Apparently you don't think that the rule of law is an important part of your way of life. That is a pity.
John Carson
-
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.
Rob Graham wrote:
think that has already happened.
Or consider the recent incident with the pirates. The reason it took so long for an entire naval task force to deal with one little boat with four pirates is because the entire episode was being micromanaged by Obama's legal advisors. Earlier opportunities to end the situation were missed because people were still checking legal statutes for the appropriate course of action.
Rob Graham wrote:
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.
I agree completely. You cannot purposefully return to a status quo that existed prior to an earlier attack, and then not take repsonsibility for a repeat of that attack. Obama's primary responsibility is to provide for the physical security of this nation, and not to ensure we are in conformance with every possible nuance of every single international law. Dead Americans are a much more profound violation of the constitution than is roughing up the leadership of those responsible for the deaths.
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:
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:
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.
Curious thing is: the relevant anti-torture treaty was signed by Ronald Reagan. There was a time when Republicans were against torture too. The State Department issued reports year after year for decades condemning it when practised by other nations. I think people need to think carefully about whether they want the US to walk away from positions it has held for a very long time.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
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 sh*t if this was torture or not, I refuse to allow you to establish a precedent that puts my way of life at risk.
US law makes torture illegal. Apparently you don't think that the rule of law is an important part of your way of life. That is a pity.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Apparently you don't think that the rule of law is an important part of your way of life.
Not at all. Its just that I think 'life' is even more important to my way of life than the law is. Sorry. But, hey, if you want to die for some arcane legal code, be my guest.
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:
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.
Rob Graham wrote:
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.
This is hysterical nonsense: 1. Obama has said that CIA agents who relied on and acted in accordance with DOJ advice will not be prosecuted. 2. Where does following the law translate into "witch hunts or show trials"? It is now emerging that one of the main reasons that torture was instituted was because the Bush Administration was trying to establish links between Al Quaeda and Iraq. Since conventional methods weren't giving the answers they wanted, they got them by torture, just as the torturers down through history have extracted false confessions. That false intelligence linking Al Quaeda and Iraq became part of the basis for launching the Iraq war. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/opinion/26rich.html?_r=1[^] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/torture/torturing-for-propaganda-purpo.html[^] Tortured people may give information, just as people interrogated by conventional means may give information. One problem with torture is that the information given is less reliable than that extracted by other methods. Republican deadheads who are so sure of the efficacy of information acquired through torture, and who are willing to torture people to get them to say what they want, are a danger to the nation, and have already proved themselves to be so.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
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.
Curious thing is: the relevant anti-torture treaty was signed by Ronald Reagan. There was a time when Republicans were against torture too. The State Department issued reports year after year for decades condemning it when practised by other nations. I think people need to think carefully about whether they want the US to walk away from positions it has held for a very long time.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
There was a time when Republicans were against torture too.
We still are.
John Carson wrote:
I think people need to think carefully about whether they want the US to walk away from positions it has held for a very long time.
No one is walking away from anything. But it is simply rationale to consider that there might be a connection between the laws as they exist and the possibility that those laws make us unnecessarily vulnerable to certain kinds of threats. The rational response to all this would be to simply re-write the law so that it only applies to nations which have actually signed on to the concept. Stateless terrorist entities and those who serve them should not be considered protected by such agreements between civilized societies.
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:
Apparently you don't think that the rule of law is an important part of your way of life.
Not at all. Its just that I think 'life' is even more important to my way of life than the law is. Sorry. But, hey, if you want to die for some arcane legal code, be my guest.
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:
Not at all. Its just that I think 'life' is even more important to my way of life than the law is. Sorry. But, hey, if you want to die for some arcane legal code, be my guest.
There is nothing about the law that is arcane, and the rule of law doesn't exist if it can be suspended whenever politicians judge it convenient. A lot of people did die --- in Europe, the United States and elsewhere --- in pursuit of the ideal that everyone, ruler and ruled alike, is governed by the law.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
There was a time when Republicans were against torture too.
We still are.
John Carson wrote:
I think people need to think carefully about whether they want the US to walk away from positions it has held for a very long time.
No one is walking away from anything. But it is simply rationale to consider that there might be a connection between the laws as they exist and the possibility that those laws make us unnecessarily vulnerable to certain kinds of threats. The rational response to all this would be to simply re-write the law so that it only applies to nations which have actually signed on to the concept. Stateless terrorist entities and those who serve them should not be considered protected by such agreements between civilized societies.
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:
We still are.
Bullshit.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No one is walking away from anything.
Bullshit.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The rational response to all this would be to simply re-write the law so that it only applies to nations which have actually signed on to the concept. Stateless terrorist entities and those who serve them should not be considered protected by such agreements between civilized societies.
That is a complete crock and you know it. In war, the other side is trying to kill you, no matter how "civilised" they may be. And you and those like you will want to throw away the rule book every time.
John Carson
-
Rob Graham wrote:
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.
This is hysterical nonsense: 1. Obama has said that CIA agents who relied on and acted in accordance with DOJ advice will not be prosecuted. 2. Where does following the law translate into "witch hunts or show trials"? It is now emerging that one of the main reasons that torture was instituted was because the Bush Administration was trying to establish links between Al Quaeda and Iraq. Since conventional methods weren't giving the answers they wanted, they got them by torture, just as the torturers down through history have extracted false confessions. That false intelligence linking Al Quaeda and Iraq became part of the basis for launching the Iraq war. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/opinion/26rich.html?_r=1[^] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/torture/torturing-for-propaganda-purpo.html[^] Tortured people may give information, just as people interrogated by conventional means may give information. One problem with torture is that the information given is less reliable than that extracted by other methods. Republican deadheads who are so sure of the efficacy of information acquired through torture, and who are willing to torture people to get them to say what they want, are a danger to the nation, and have already proved themselves to be so.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Obama has said that CIA agents who relied on and acted in accordance with DOJ advice will not be prosecuted.
1. Obama has already waffled on the issue of trying the authors of the legal advice, creating little reason to be confident that he will not change his position on the CIA agents responsible later. This alone has created a climate of fear and distrust within those organizations. 2. If the Democratic Congress decides to investigate and try, there is precious little Obama can do to stop them. And it sounds like that's precisely what they intend to do, and are being strongly urged to do by MoveOn and other "fans of the rule of law".
-
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:
Your committment to one radical interpretation of the law
Again with the rule of law being radical. It gives me chills to read that!
Stan Shannon wrote:
You will have essentially eliminated the role of commander in chief.
Seriously? You're telling me that the only job of commander in chief is to decide which laws he wants to break today?
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.
Hysterical nonsense. None of that is true. You don't need teams of lawyers to tell you that torture is illegal.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Under the rules you are about to force this nation to adher to,...the Nazis could not have been fought,
What laws were absolutely essential that Roosevelt violate to ensure the defeat of the Nazis. Why could the laws not be altered to provide Roosevelt with the necessary authority to do what was needed?
Stan Shannon wrote:
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.
How do you figure? The law has always been that we don't torture. Al-Queda did not force us to torture, we chose to torture. Quite simply we cannot be compelled to torture.
Stan Shannon wrote:
this will be McCarthyism on steriods
Now you think McCarthy was a bad guy?