By Promising not to investigate or prosecute...
-
You are predictable, if nothing else. When obfuscation fails, resort to ad hominim attacks. With each of your responses, I pity you more and respect you less.
oilFactotum wrote:
When obfuscation fails, resort to ad hominim attacks. With each of your responses, I pity you more and respect you less.
Well, shit, we agree about something... :rolleyes:
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:
Well, if Obama doesn't act according to international consensus, that would be acting unilaterally wouldn't it? So, if you don't "expect the UN to do anything", by definition, that means acting unilaterally. Or am I missing something? Is the UN a player or not?
Obama doesn't need to wait for some sort of international consensus. He doesn't need one to enforce US law. On the other hand he already has a consensus - it's called The UN Convention Against Torture.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Which one? For my part, I expect him to defend the nation.
I don't see it as an either/or choice. Prosecuting war crimes and defending the nation go hand in hand(putting aside, for the moment, the fact that his charge is to defend the Constitution, not the nation).
oilFactotum wrote:
it's called The UN Convention Against Torture.
Can I refer to that as the 'coalition of the ... feeling'?
oilFactotum wrote:
I don't see it as an either/or choice. Prosecuting war crimes and defending the nation go hand in hand(putting aside, for the moment, the fact that his charge is to defend the Constitution, not the nation).
Not ever? Our legal system is so perfect that it accounts for every imaginable scenario that might conceivably threaten the lives and liberty of American citizens? Wow! Thats pretty amazing. Too bad no one told Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and FDR about that. What a bunch of dumb fucks they were. Too bad you weren't there to set them straight.
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:
it's called The UN Convention Against Torture.
Can I refer to that as the 'coalition of the ... feeling'?
oilFactotum wrote:
I don't see it as an either/or choice. Prosecuting war crimes and defending the nation go hand in hand(putting aside, for the moment, the fact that his charge is to defend the Constitution, not the nation).
Not ever? Our legal system is so perfect that it accounts for every imaginable scenario that might conceivably threaten the lives and liberty of American citizens? Wow! Thats pretty amazing. Too bad no one told Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and FDR about that. What a bunch of dumb fucks they were. Too bad you weren't there to set them straight.
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 ever? Our legal system is so perfect that it accounts for every imaginable scenario that might conceivably threaten the lives and liberty of American citizens?
You're just being silly now. I cannot guarantee that there might be, in the unknowable future, a mythic 'Ticking Time Bomb' event that only torture could reveal in time to save lives. And you cannot guarantee that the torture and killing of 100's or even 1000's of detainees will save even a single American life. Nor can you guarantee that Americans won't die because resources that could have stopped a real plot were wasted on chasing down worthless intelligence extracted by torture.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
When obfuscation fails, resort to ad hominim attacks. With each of your responses, I pity you more and respect you less.
Well, shit, we agree about something... :rolleyes:
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 agree about something...
Yaw'l are actually a lot alike. Knowing that both of you so violently diagree with me makes me positive I am on the right track.
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
-
Obama is breaking the law. It is a violation of binding international treaty law in this case, because this is an international law convention — and it provides unequivocally that states are not merely obligated to make torture a crime, but also to prosecute any incidents of which credible evidence can be found. [^] It's still possible he could change his mind - a majority of Americans want investigations. Holder may take his independence seriously and assign a special prosecutor, irrespective of Obama's wishes. As a last resort, there is always the Spanish.
oilFactotum wrote:
Obama is breaking the law. It is a violation of binding international treaty law in this case, because this is an international law convention — and it provides unequivocally that states are not merely obligated to make torture a crime, but also to prosecute any incidents of which credible evidence can be found.
:laugh: "International law" -- the "law" which no one legislated, no one enforces, no one obeys, and the "infractions" of which NO ONE punishes. And yet, it is the one "law" most beloved by leftists and their fellow-travellers.
-
John Carson wrote:
And your point is?
Pretty much that Oily doesn't know what he's talking about.
John Carson wrote:
Are you claiming that the treaty violates the Constitution
Not at all, I was leading up to pointing out that the Constitution gives the Pres the power of chief executive - not some dink from Austria. For Obama to turn his power over to a mid-level UN official would be a breach of the Constitution in my ever so humble opinion.
John Carson wrote:
the exercise of bad faith with respect to the enforcement of United States law U.N. treaty that the U.S. is signatory to
FTFY. I would also point out that you are expressing an opinion based on what you know of what Obama did. To assume that he should release all the details surrounding his decision so you and Oily could decide whether or not you approved of his choices is presumptious, to say the least. I imagine he knew that the knee-jerk liberals wouldn't approve of anything but a firing squad and that the kneejerk conservatives wouldn't approve of anything short of giving them a Presidential commendation and discounted both sets of fanatics as not being worth paying attention to.
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:
FTFY.
No, you obfuscated. Having been passed by the legislature, the treaty is US Law.
Oakman wrote:
FTFY. I would also point out that you are expressing an opinion based on what you know of what Obama did. To assume that he should release all the details surrounding his decision so you and Oily could decide whether or not you approved of his choices is presumptious, to say the least. I imagine he knew that the knee-jerk liberals wouldn't approve of anything but a firing squad and that the kneejerk conservatives wouldn't approve of anything short of giving them a Presidential commendation and discounted both sets of fanatics as not being worth paying attention to.
From the article I cited:
He cites Article 7(2) -- which provides that "these authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State"
If you think that happened, then you believe in fairytales. As I have previously stated, I don't think prosecuting CIA officials who relied on OLC advice is reasonable. A good article on this is here: http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009/04/response-to-glenn.html[^] Those responsible for the advice and those who initiated the policy are a different matter entirely. I am pleased to see that Obama is now talking about the possibility of further action in relation to them.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
FTFY.
No, you obfuscated. Having been passed by the legislature, the treaty is US Law.
Oakman wrote:
FTFY. I would also point out that you are expressing an opinion based on what you know of what Obama did. To assume that he should release all the details surrounding his decision so you and Oily could decide whether or not you approved of his choices is presumptious, to say the least. I imagine he knew that the knee-jerk liberals wouldn't approve of anything but a firing squad and that the kneejerk conservatives wouldn't approve of anything short of giving them a Presidential commendation and discounted both sets of fanatics as not being worth paying attention to.
From the article I cited:
He cites Article 7(2) -- which provides that "these authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State"
If you think that happened, then you believe in fairytales. As I have previously stated, I don't think prosecuting CIA officials who relied on OLC advice is reasonable. A good article on this is here: http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009/04/response-to-glenn.html[^] Those responsible for the advice and those who initiated the policy are a different matter entirely. I am pleased to see that Obama is now talking about the possibility of further action in relation to them.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
If you think that happened, then you believe in fairytales.
And if you claim to know that it didn't, you are living one. My point is we don't know what he did or exactly how he did it. It would be presumptuous of me, a citizen with some contacts at the DoJ, to assume that I do and infinitely more so for you.
John Carson wrote:
Those responsible for the advice and those who initiated the policy are a different matter entirely. I am pleased to see that Obama is now talking about the possibility of further action in relation to them.
I hate to break your heart, but so am I. Once we start talking about policy, I think the matter should be settled out in the open. Not because, as Cheney claims, the methods may have proved effective (I enjoy immensely watching him sweat), but because I think that folks like you and Oily throw around words like 'warcrimes" with much too much abandon. I know, of course, that if the open investigation does not reach the same conclusions you have jumped to, both of you will speak loud and long about the evilness of American jurisprudence, and the utter stupidity of anyone who does not agree with your point of view.
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:
If you think that happened, then you believe in fairytales.
And if you claim to know that it didn't, you are living one. My point is we don't know what he did or exactly how he did it. It would be presumptuous of me, a citizen with some contacts at the DoJ, to assume that I do and infinitely more so for you.
John Carson wrote:
Those responsible for the advice and those who initiated the policy are a different matter entirely. I am pleased to see that Obama is now talking about the possibility of further action in relation to them.
I hate to break your heart, but so am I. Once we start talking about policy, I think the matter should be settled out in the open. Not because, as Cheney claims, the methods may have proved effective (I enjoy immensely watching him sweat), but because I think that folks like you and Oily throw around words like 'warcrimes" with much too much abandon. I know, of course, that if the open investigation does not reach the same conclusions you have jumped to, both of you will speak loud and long about the evilness of American jurisprudence, and the utter stupidity of anyone who does not agree with your point of view.
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:
And if you claim to know that it didn't, you are living one. My point is we don't know what he did or exactly how he did it. It would be presumptuous of me, a citizen with some contacts at the DoJ, to assume that I do and infinitely more so for you.
No, it wouldn't. This attitude of blind trust in politicians is both foolish and, in your case, selectively and insincerely applied.
Oakman wrote:
I know, of course, that if the open investigation does not reach the same conclusions you have jumped to, both of you will speak loud and long about the evilness of American jurisprudence, and the utter stupidity of anyone who does not agree with your point of view.
There is a bias toward clearing anyone in the intelligence or military service. This applies to every country. The US is probably no worse than any other Western country in this respect and better than almost all non-Western countries. But the bias exists. There is likewise a bias toward clearing police officers. We certainly have it in Australia. The public wants to be safe and is always willing to give the benefit of any doubt where abuses of authority are concerned.
John Carson
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Obama is breaking the law. It is a violation of binding international treaty law in this case, because this is an international law convention — and it provides unequivocally that states are not merely obligated to make torture a crime, but also to prosecute any incidents of which credible evidence can be found.
:laugh: "International law" -- the "law" which no one legislated, no one enforces, no one obeys, and the "infractions" of which NO ONE punishes. And yet, it is the one "law" most beloved by leftists and their fellow-travellers.
Ilíon wrote:
"International law" -- the "law" which no one legislated, no one enforces, no one obeys, and the "infractions" of which NO ONE punishes. And yet, it is the one "law" most beloved by leftists and their fellow-travellers.
You don't know what you are talking about. Under the US Constitution, treaties have the force of law within the US. The relevant treaty was signed by Reagan and ratified by Congress. As a matter of US law, the treaty legally obliges the authorities to treat torture the same as any other serious crime.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
And if you claim to know that it didn't, you are living one. My point is we don't know what he did or exactly how he did it. It would be presumptuous of me, a citizen with some contacts at the DoJ, to assume that I do and infinitely more so for you.
No, it wouldn't. This attitude of blind trust in politicians is both foolish and, in your case, selectively and insincerely applied.
Oakman wrote:
I know, of course, that if the open investigation does not reach the same conclusions you have jumped to, both of you will speak loud and long about the evilness of American jurisprudence, and the utter stupidity of anyone who does not agree with your point of view.
There is a bias toward clearing anyone in the intelligence or military service. This applies to every country. The US is probably no worse than any other Western country in this respect and better than almost all non-Western countries. But the bias exists. There is likewise a bias toward clearing police officers. We certainly have it in Australia. The public wants to be safe and is always willing to give the benefit of any doubt where abuses of authority are concerned.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
This attitude of blind trust in politicians is both foolish and, in your case, selectively and insincerely applied.
Bullshit. I don't trust Obama any more or less than I trusted Bush. To say that I don't know all the facts involved in a decision he made a few days ago is a recognition of the real world that I live in. For you to imply otherwise is living that fairytale about your omnicience to its limit.
John Carson wrote:
There is a bias toward clearing anyone in the intelligence or military service.
As there should be.
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
-
Ilíon wrote:
"International law" -- the "law" which no one legislated, no one enforces, no one obeys, and the "infractions" of which NO ONE punishes. And yet, it is the one "law" most beloved by leftists and their fellow-travellers.
You don't know what you are talking about. Under the US Constitution, treaties have the force of law within the US. The relevant treaty was signed by Reagan and ratified by Congress. As a matter of US law, the treaty legally obliges the authorities to treat torture the same as any other serious crime.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
This attitude of blind trust in politicians is both foolish and, in your case, selectively and insincerely applied.
Bullshit. I don't trust Obama any more or less than I trusted Bush. To say that I don't know all the facts involved in a decision he made a few days ago is a recognition of the real world that I live in. For you to imply otherwise is living that fairytale about your omnicience to its limit.
John Carson wrote:
There is a bias toward clearing anyone in the intelligence or military service.
As there should be.
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:
To say that I don't know all the facts involved in a decision he made a few days ago is a recognition of the real world that I live in.
Of course you don't know all the facts. You don't need to. You know that Obama or anyone under him can't possibly have done a thorough investigation because, as a result of many investigations done over the years, you know that these things take many months. You also know that there are powerful political pressures on Obama not to assess these things on their legal merits and you know that he has made many statements that reflect those political pressures. Any claim that you have any sort of sincere belief that this issue has been treated on the legal merits is pure bullshit.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
To say that I don't know all the facts involved in a decision he made a few days ago is a recognition of the real world that I live in.
Of course you don't know all the facts. You don't need to. You know that Obama or anyone under him can't possibly have done a thorough investigation because, as a result of many investigations done over the years, you know that these things take many months. You also know that there are powerful political pressures on Obama not to assess these things on their legal merits and you know that he has made many statements that reflect those political pressures. Any claim that you have any sort of sincere belief that this issue has been treated on the legal merits is pure bullshit.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
pure bullsh*t.
I'm really frustrating you, aren't I. :laugh: It doesn't matter what I believe, John. It only matters what I know.
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:
You don't know what you are talking about. Under the US Constitution, ...
And -- as per your usual habit -- you're not paying attention to what you'd like to pretend you're critiquing.
Ilíon wrote:
And -- as per your usual habit -- you're not paying attention to what you'd like to pretend you're critiquing.
Everything John said was correct and this discussion is not about what other countries do, it is about what the United States of America does. While I do make a differentiation between treaties having the force of law and law itself, it is because I know pretty much what I am talking about. I do not claim that because North Korea flouts treaties, we should start imitating them. You on the other hand imitate an eight year old making an excuse for his bad behavior by saying someone else did it first.
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