has everyone signed this? [modified]
-
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.
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.
-
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
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.
- 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 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.
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 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 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
-
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 wrote:
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.
Utter drivel. There is no better than an even money chance that any official responsible for the torture policy will even be charged. Those officials have the vocal support of almost the entire mainstream media. About the only place you find support for prosecutions is on left-wing blogs. The overall environment is strongly hostile to prosecution, let alone conviction.
John Carson
-
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.
- 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.
Stan Shannon wrote: 1) The more distracted we keep the democrats, the better. As long as you don't give a shit about America. Stan Shannon wrote: More chilling than what? Suddenly finding yourself defending a fascist nation? Only if they are foolish enough to take your word for it - and we've already seen that you have trouble differentiating between iconoclasts and old-style republicans so why would anyone take your word on anything?. Stan Shannon wrote: There is absolutely nothing that will change that. That was kinda my point, Stan. Glad to see you working your way towards the light.
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:
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.
Utter drivel. There is no better than an even money chance that any official responsible for the torture policy will even be charged. Those officials have the vocal support of almost the entire mainstream media. About the only place you find support for prosecutions is on left-wing blogs. The overall environment is strongly hostile to prosecution, let alone conviction.
John Carson
John Carson wrote: There is no better than an even money chance that any official responsible for the torture policy will even be charged. I wouldn't give you better than 2:5 - at worst/best we'll have a show trial or two of a couple of low-level contractors who hooked on with the CIA when they started hiring in 2001, and now wish they hadn't. John Carson wrote: The overall environment is strongly hostile to prosecution, let alone conviction. I think it depends on what media you are exposed to. Watch MSNBC for awhile, and you'll see supposedly rational humans having trouble differentiating between the murder of 13 million non-combatants and the excesses okayed by the Bush administration. Of course, I suppose they could be dismissed as a kind of left-wing blog. . .
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:
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.
Utter drivel. There is no better than an even money chance that any official responsible for the torture policy will even be charged. Those officials have the vocal support of almost the entire mainstream media. About the only place you find support for prosecutions is on left-wing blogs. The overall environment is strongly hostile to prosecution, let alone conviction.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
There is no better than an even money chance that any official responsible for the torture policy will even be charged. Those officials have the vocal support of almost the entire mainstream media. About the only place you find support for prosecutions is on left-wing blogs. The overall environment is strongly hostile to prosecution, let alone conviction.
Not if I can help it.
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:
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
John Carson wrote:
I don't think it is simple at all. In determining the extent of culpability, one must consider context, state of mind, motivation...
So, precisely what state of mind and motivation on Bush's part do you think would be sufficeint to exonerate him?
John Carson wrote:
The detail of each case is important to forming a fair judgement.
Except, apparetnly, when trying to expunge your society of politics you disagree with.
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: 1) The more distracted we keep the democrats, the better. As long as you don't give a shit about America. Stan Shannon wrote: More chilling than what? Suddenly finding yourself defending a fascist nation? Only if they are foolish enough to take your word for it - and we've already seen that you have trouble differentiating between iconoclasts and old-style republicans so why would anyone take your word on anything?. Stan Shannon wrote: There is absolutely nothing that will change that. That was kinda my point, Stan. Glad to see you working your way towards the light.
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:
As long as you don't give a sh*t about America.
There is no America left to give a shit about.
Oakman wrote:
Only if they are foolish enough to take your word for it - and we've already seen that you have trouble differentiating between iconoclasts and old-style republicans so why would anyone take your word on anything?.
We are currently a full blown fascist society which will degenerate into socialism and finally communism and then it will die unless something happens to short circuit the entire process.
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:
As long as you don't give a sh*t about America.
There is no America left to give a shit about.
Oakman wrote:
Only if they are foolish enough to take your word for it - and we've already seen that you have trouble differentiating between iconoclasts and old-style republicans so why would anyone take your word on anything?.
We are currently a full blown fascist society which will degenerate into socialism and finally communism and then it will die unless something happens to short circuit the entire process.
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: There is no America left to give a sh*t about. I believe that's the point of view of an ostrich. Stan Shannon wrote: We are currently a full blown fascist society which will degenerate into socialism and finally communism and then it will die unless something happens to short circuit the entire process. Apparently, you have no idea what a full-blown fascist society would be like.
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:
There is no better than an even money chance that any official responsible for the torture policy will even be charged. Those officials have the vocal support of almost the entire mainstream media. About the only place you find support for prosecutions is on left-wing blogs. The overall environment is strongly hostile to prosecution, let alone conviction.
Not if I can help it.
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 if I can help it. You are powerless, Stan. Just concentrate on keeping your job or you'll end up like Troy, on the dole and posting links.
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: There is no America left to give a sh*t about. I believe that's the point of view of an ostrich. Stan Shannon wrote: We are currently a full blown fascist society which will degenerate into socialism and finally communism and then it will die unless something happens to short circuit the entire process. Apparently, you have no idea what a full-blown fascist society would be like.
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:
Apparently, you have no idea what a full-blown fascist society would be like.
He knows exactly what it's like. He just doesn't want to call Stanutopia what it really is.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Oakman wrote:
Apparently, you have no idea what a full-blown fascist society would be like.
He knows exactly what it's like. He just doesn't want to call Stanutopia what it really is.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
what it really is
from Webster: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition Stan may be wrong, but only by a degree or so. then again, he may hit the nail on the head[^].
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.
-
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
John Carson wrote:
The detail of each case is important to forming a fair judgement.
so, what happened to your, "rule of law" argument? to be valid in this context a law would have to incorporate every possible ramification / nuance of circumstance in order to meld the two concepts.
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.
-
John Carson wrote: There is no better than an even money chance that any official responsible for the torture policy will even be charged. I wouldn't give you better than 2:5 - at worst/best we'll have a show trial or two of a couple of low-level contractors who hooked on with the CIA when they started hiring in 2001, and now wish they hadn't. John Carson wrote: The overall environment is strongly hostile to prosecution, let alone conviction. I think it depends on what media you are exposed to. Watch MSNBC for awhile, and you'll see supposedly rational humans having trouble differentiating between the murder of 13 million non-combatants and the excesses okayed by the Bush administration. Of course, I suppose they could be dismissed as a kind of left-wing blog. . .
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 wouldn't give you better than 2:5 - at worst/best we'll have a show trial or two of a couple of low-level contractors who hooked on with the CIA when they started hiring in 2001, and now wish they hadn't.
Someone has already got 10 years over Abu Graib. So I agree that some low level people may very well get charged. I was referring to those responsible for formulating the policy.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
I don't think it is simple at all. In determining the extent of culpability, one must consider context, state of mind, motivation...
So, precisely what state of mind and motivation on Bush's part do you think would be sufficeint to exonerate him?
John Carson wrote:
The detail of each case is important to forming a fair judgement.
Except, apparetnly, when trying to expunge your society of politics you disagree with.
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:
So, precisely what state of mind and motivation on Bush's part do you think would be sufficeint to exonerate him?
Well, insanity is a standard defence. In any event, the issue isn't necessarily about exoneration. You were asking for a comparison of the extent of wrongdoing involved in two things: waterboarding or hanging for waterboarding. That would normally go to the issue of relative sentences rather than of exoneration.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Except, apparetnly, when trying to expunge your society of politics you disagree with.
Please cite an instance in which I advocated a specific criminal penalty independently of the merits of the particular case.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
The detail of each case is important to forming a fair judgement.
so, what happened to your, "rule of law" argument? to be valid in this context a law would have to incorporate every possible ramification / nuance of circumstance in order to meld the two concepts.
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:
so, what happened to your, "rule of law" argument? to be valid in this context a law would have to incorporate every possible ramification / nuance of circumstance in order to meld the two concepts.
The rule of law as understood by me (and almost everyone else) includes both prosecutorial discretion (regarding whether and with what a person is to be charged) and judicial discretion (regarding sentencing). Of course, both must be impartially exercised, based soley on legally relevant facts and having regard to precedent. The law normally provides for a range of sentences for any given crime, it being precisely the intent of the law that the exact sentence will reflect the detailed circumstances of the case.
John Carson
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
so, what happened to your, "rule of law" argument? to be valid in this context a law would have to incorporate every possible ramification / nuance of circumstance in order to meld the two concepts.
The rule of law as understood by me (and almost everyone else) includes both prosecutorial discretion (regarding whether and with what a person is to be charged) and judicial discretion (regarding sentencing). Of course, both must be impartially exercised, based soley on legally relevant facts and having regard to precedent. The law normally provides for a range of sentences for any given crime, it being precisely the intent of the law that the exact sentence will reflect the detailed circumstances of the case.
John Carson
from earlier: I don't think it is simple at all. In determining the extent of culpability, one must consider context, state of mind, motivation... plus:
John Carson wrote:
The rule of law as understood ...
is a whimiscal application of law. money, color and background can impact a sentence and should not. a law broken is a law broken, pretty black and white approach.
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.
-
from earlier: I don't think it is simple at all. In determining the extent of culpability, one must consider context, state of mind, motivation... plus:
John Carson wrote:
The rule of law as understood ...
is a whimiscal application of law. money, color and background can impact a sentence and should not. a law broken is a law broken, pretty black and white approach.
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:
is a whimiscal application of law. money, color and background can impact a sentence and should not. a law broken is a law broken, pretty black and white approach
Case A. Man is embezzling funds. A colleague discovers what he is up to. The embezzler buys a gun and lies in wait for the colleague, killing him in order to prevent discovery. Case B. A man's daughter is abducted, raped, tortured and killed. Trying to find his daughter, the father acts on a hunch and comes across the killer, standing over the mutilated body of his daughter. In a blind rage, the father kills him. Pretty black and white. A murder has been committed by the embezzler and by the father. The same sentence is applicable in both cases wouldn't you say?
John Carson