has everyone signed this? [modified]

[Stan Shannon]

Please do your part for justice...[^] We have to do the right thing after all. I also think we need a petition to hang Bush if he is found guilty of water boarding the same way we hung the Japanese who did it after WWII. (I am greatly amused by by all those who are so outraged by waterboarding that they are ok with lynching people for it. In fact, I would really like to have Carson and oily comment on the moral relativism involved. Which is the most morally outrageous, waterboarding or hanging someone for waterboarding?)

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 Sunday, May 3, 2009 9:06 AM

[Brady Kelly]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I am greatly amused by by all those who are so outraged by waterboarding that they are ok with lynching people for it.

Lots of people are outraged by murder, and yet support the death penatly.

h

[Brady Kelly]

The report issued by the commission will strengthen U.S. national security and help to re-establish America’s standing in the world.

It might also motivate the forces to keep water boarding a bigger secret. :suss:

h

[Stan Shannon]

Brady Kelly wrote:

Lots of people are outraged by murder, and yet support the death penatly.

And I'm one of them. I just want the anti-waterboarding zealots to make that same moral equivalency. How about wall slamming? Is that the same as murder?

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]

Brady Kelly wrote:

It might also motivate the forces to keep water boarding a bigger secret.

There is no doubt that such techniques will continue to be used just as they have always been used, and everyone will be perfectly content to let it all stay 'secret' as long as it is done in defense of collectivism rather than conservatism.

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]

Assuming, for the moment, that the commision would be as non-partisan as possible (as was the 9/11 commission and the Iraq commission) what would be the harm in it? I'd see three problems:    1. It distracts the U.S. from far more important issues.    2. It will have a chilling effect on the U.S. Intelligence agencies - and on DOJ lawyers asked to make a case for one action or another.    3. It will have no effect on whether we or any other country continue to use torture as a method of extracting information. It will simply, as I believe Carson said first, drive it further into the shadows which is probably where it should be. Stan Shannon wrote: Which is the most morally outrageous, waterboarding or hanging someone for waterboarding?) Well, I suspect there are other crazies out there proposing to hang Bush, but you are the only crazy I have actually read saying it. Personally, I'd like to see Bush lose the right to tap the American people for three million a year in expenses. I'd also like to see Carter lose it, Bush senior lose it, and most of all: Clinton lose it.

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

[Brady Kelly]

I'm one of those funny types who considers our new president's big mistake was not to be involved in the corruption scandal, but rather that he was caught. I like transparency in government. :suss:

h

[Captain See Sharp]

Brady Kelly wrote:

Lots of people are outraged by murder, and yet support the death penatly.

Sometimes killing is justified and warranted.

[Brady Kelly]

Sometimes a murder is justified, but what makes the difference is the decision of other, fallible, human beings.

h

[Rob Graham]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Which is the most morally outrageous, waterboarding or hanging someone for waterboarding?)

First, I don't understand a notion of degree of immorality here. Something either is morally outrageous or it is not, and any comparison of two morally wrong acts for degree introduces the bizarre concept of degrees of wrongness. Both acts are morally indefensible: it is wrong to torture another (whatever the rational or expected outcome), and it is wrong to kill another (even if you are the state). What is astoundingly morally indefensible and hypocritical is to first (acting as the state) kill another for engaging in a particular treatment of prisoners, claiming the right to do that because the treatment constituted a crime worthy of capital punishment, and then to turn around (again acting as the state) and practice that same treatment of prisoners, but now claiming it is not a crime, and is justified by the expected (or actual) results achieved. The only "moral relativism" being practiced here is that practiced by the Bush administration and its defenders in attempting to justify the commission of acts that our own government had previously declared to be criminal torture deserving punishment by death. That said, I agree with Oakman that the proposed investigatory commission serves little purpose and is likely to become an expensive distraction at a time when we have much more important things to focus on. We are better served by clearly reinforcing our understanding of the law in this regard with unambiguous statutes that clearly define the limits on the government's ability to repeat this behavior and then moving on to other issues that matter.

[oilFactotum]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I would really like to have Carson and oily comment on the moral relativism involved.

??? Since I oppose the death penalty and have never advocated for it in the case of the Bush war crimes, I don't see any reason to comment on it. Having said that I have to disagree with Rob. I can't think of anything more important than clearly and emphatically stating that the President does not have permanent, universal and secret powers to detain and torture people using the full force of state power. Perhaps it will put a chill on our intelligence services, perhaps not. All they have to do is not torture. I don't see what the DOJ has to worry about. These memos were not written in good faith. They were written to provide justification for what the government was already doing. Bybee, Yoo and the others knew full well what they were "legalizing" in those memos was not legal. All the DOJ needs to do is write legally sound memos. And if it does happen that the CIA and the DOJ don't trust the president, that's just another cost imposed by the torture regime that we implemented. It was the Bush adiministration that broke the faith, not the Obama administration.

[Stan Shannon]

oilFactotum wrote:

Since I oppose the death penalty and have never advocated for it in the case of the Bush war crimes, I don't see any reason to comment on it.

No, but you, and others, have made the argument that waterboarding was considered bad enough to hang people for. Is it that bad or isn't it? If it isn't, where is your outrage over the court's treatment of the Japanese prisoner's after WWII? If it is, why shouldn't we hang Bush for it?

oilFactotum wrote:

These memos were not written in good faith. They were written to provide justification for what the government was already doing.

But that has not yet been established in a court of law, so your comment reflects a disdain for the law. They are innocent until proven guilty. Do you believe in the law or don't you?

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.

[Ilion]

Brady Kelly wrote:

Sometimes a murder [the killing of another human being] is [morally] justified [or even morally obligatory], but what makes the difference [between a morally justified killing and a murder] is [whether] the decision of other, fallible, human beings [was grounded in some objective and transcendant standard, or whether it was merely an exercise of raw power].

[oilFactotum]

Stan Shannon wrote:

you, and others, have made the argument that waterboarding was considered bad enough to hang people for.

Yes, the war crime trials after WWII did indeed hang people who tortured. Don't really see why that compels me to require that Bush be hanged, or why it should compel me to be outraged by those WWII hangings.

Stan Shannon wrote:

so your comment reflects a disdain for the law.

I don't see how the law requires me to remain mute on issues that may or may not be investigated.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Do you believe in the law or don't you?

Of course I do. I'm afraid I can't say the same for you.

[John Carson]

Stan Shannon wrote:

No, but you, and others, have made the argument that waterboarding was considered bad enough to hang people for. Is it that bad or isn't it? If it isn't, where is your outrage over the court's treatment of the Japanese prisoner's after WWII? If it is, why shouldn't we hang Bush for it?

No, it isn't bad enough to hang people for. In fact, I am opposed to capital punishment in all cases. Rob Graham summarized the issues very nicely.

What is astoundingly morally indefensible and hypocritical is to first (acting as the state) kill another for engaging in a particular treatment of prisoners, claiming the right to do that because the treatment constituted a crime worthy of capital punishment, and then to turn around (again acting as the state) and practice that same treatment of prisoners, but now claiming it is not a crime, and is justified by the expected (or actual) results achieved. The only "moral relativism" being practiced here is that practiced by the Bush administration and its defenders in attempting to justify the commission of acts that our own government had previously declared to be criminal torture deserving punishment by death.

John Carson

[Stan Shannon]

John Carson wrote:

No, it isn't bad enough to hang people for.

Fine. But which is more morally unacceptable, hanging the Japanese for waterboarding or waterboarding? Its a simple question. If Bush had just given these guys some little kangaroo court and hung them, would you be more, or less, outraged?

John Carson wrote:

The only "moral relativism" being practiced here is that practiced by the Bush administration and its defenders in attempting to justify the commission of acts that our own government had previously declared to be criminal torture deserving punishment by death.

I have no problem with that conclusion. That is precisely why I believe Bush should be hung.

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]

oilFactotum wrote:

I don't see how the law requires me to remain mute on issues that may or may not be investigated.

You are creating an enviroment which will make it impossible for the man to have a fair trial. You show no respect for the law at all. You are participating in a public lynching of the man before he has his day in court.

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]

Oakman wrote:

1. It distracts the U.S. from far more important issues. 2. It will have a chilling effect on the U.S. Intelligence agencies - and on DOJ lawyers asked to make a case for one action or another. 3. It will have no effect on whether we or any other country continue to use torture as a method of extracting information. It will simply, as I believe Carson said first, drive it further into the shadows which is probably where it should be.

1. The more distracted we keep the democrats, the better. 2) More chilling than what? Suddenly finding yourself defending a fascist nation? 3) There is absolutely nothing that will change that. People always have, and always will torture, because it works. Laws against it are stupid and should be rescended or ignored by any competent leader (until he is hung for it, of course).

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]

Assuming he ever end up in the docket(highly unlikely) I don't believe for a moment that my comments in the SB will have any impact on it. This is a laughable criticism, especially coming from you - one who believes the president is above the law.

[John Carson]

Stan Shannon wrote:

But which is more morally unacceptable, hanging the Japanese for waterboarding or waterboarding? Its a simple question.

I don't think it is simple at all. In determining the extent of culpability, one must consider context, state of mind, motivation... That is why people like me are opposed to mandatory sentences, unlike many conservatives. The detail of each case is important to forming a fair judgement.

John Carson