Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Holder Makes Lindsey Graham Smile and Civil Libertarians Cringe
At his confirmation hearing yesterday, Eric Holder, Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general, said some reassuring things about the rule of law and the separation of powers:
I will use every available tactic to defeat our adversaries, and I will do so within the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.
Adherence to the rule of law strengthens security by depriving terrorist organizations of their prime recruiting tools. America must remain a beacon to the world....
President-elect Obama and I respect Congress and we respect the federal judiciary. We will carry out our constitutional duties within the framework set forth by the founders and with the humility to recognize that congressional oversight and judicial review are necessary.
All that could be dismissed as boilerplate, except that Holder backed it up with several specific positions. Like Attorney General Michael Mukasey (and unlike John Yoo), he said the president is obligated to obey laws regulating the treatment of suspected terrorists, including the ban on torture. But unlike Mukasey, who bent over backward to avoid answering the question during his confirmation hearing, Holder unambiguously stated that "waterboarding is torture" and therefore illegal.
Also unlike Mukasey, who dodged this question too, Holder said President Bush had no right to ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's warrant requirement for monitoring communications between Americans and people in other countries. Although he deemed Bush's so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program "useful," he said the president should have asked Congress to revise the statute instead of secretly breaking the law. That is pretty much the position taken by Obama, who voted to change FISA so executive branch officials can unliterally authorize surveillance of communications involving people in the U.S. if the ostensible target is believed to be located abroad.
Holder said the Bush administration's military tribunals for suspected terrorists do not provide due process but left open the possibility that they could be tweaked to address that concern. According to A.P., "Holder said the administration was considering prosecuting the detainees in civilian courts, military courts or in some new hybrid court." Is that what we need? Yet another newfangled justice system, bound to be portrayed (probably correctly) as rigged against defendants and guaranteed to be challenged for years?
Another troubling sign: Holder's declaration that "we are at war" with terrorists. Unless it is simply empty rhetoric, the whole point of that formulation is to justify legal short cuts and limits on civil liberties. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was delighted by Holder's martial metaphor, declaring, "I'm almost ready to vote for you right now." If you worry about perpetual war as an excuse for perpetual constitutional compromises, you may have a different reaction.
The hearing continues today.
|1.16.09 @ 1:08PM|#
When do we get to the really important stuff?
Like Elian Gonzalez and Marc Rich?
Other Matt|1.16.09 @ 1:23PM|#
Like Elian Gonzalez
Why is he important? It's not like he was taken out at gunpoint or
anything. Holder said so, so it must be true.
MikeB|1.16.09 @ 1:27PM|#
This is completely off topic. I noticed the love for sea kittens
around here and I thought the news of their site being hacked would
interest everyone here.
http://seakittens.com/
Check it out before it is fixed.
|1.16.09 @ 1:28PM|#
There you go, Other Matt.
All lovers of liberty must rise up and make sure that the
Republicans in Congress spend as much time as possible talking
about the things that really pissed them off during the Clinton
administration.
And also too, I do not wish to be thrown into a briar patch.
|1.16.09 @ 1:29PM|#
Any DOJ stooge is going to be an asshole; it comes with the
territory. Holder is no different.
They should just ask him when he stopped beating his underage
illegal immigrant Guatemalan bang-maid and get things really
rolling.
Other Matt|1.16.09 @ 1:32PM|#
All lovers of liberty must rise up and make sure that the
Republicans in Congress spend as much time as possible talking
about the things that really pissed them off during the Clinton
administration.
Not at all joe, they should simply ignore past positions, past
statements, past actions, and past decisions, shout "Change!" and
apply Vaseline liberally.
|1.16.09 @ 1:34PM|#
...a pony, a Red Rider Air Rifle, and a Republican caucus as
easy to manipulate as Other Matt.
And a bicycle for my sister.
|1.16.09 @ 1:34PM|#
When do we get to talk about Whitewater?
Oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please.
BDB|1.16.09 @ 1:37PM|#
It won't be a real 90s nostalgia trip unless someone brings up fundraising in Buddhist Temples.
|1.16.09 @ 1:39PM|#
Split up, guys! Split up!
You'd better check the basement. In your underwear.
A noise behind you? Turn to face it, then back away slowly!
|1.16.09 @ 1:40PM|#
Bill Clinton and all the Dhimmicrats will go to hell for sending those thugs to Waco.
Kolohe|1.16.09 @ 1:41PM|#
joe-
The blogs on your ideological side are itching for prosecutions of
the Bush administration. The more extreme wouldn't mind at all
senior officials extradited and put before the Hauge. The only
difference between the left and right as far as 'justice' is
concerned is that on the left the politically tone deaf are not
actually running their party.
BDB|1.16.09 @ 1:42PM|#
Kolohe, I think that's partly because as long as the blogosphere has existed the Democrats haven't been in the White House, and the Kossack morons don't know what to do without Bush to blog about. So a prosecution drags this out.
|1.16.09 @ 1:44PM|#
The blogs on your ideological side are itching for
prosecutions of the Bush administration.
Yet another reason what I've made them "my side."
Prosecuting Bush administration officials? Oh, my, people would
HATE that!
Lefiti|1.16.09 @ 1:45PM|#
Imagine what we would be dealing with if some horrible twist of fate brought Ron Paul or Bob Barr and their ilk to power. Personally, I happy when libertarians cringe.
|1.16.09 @ 1:46PM|#
I'm against the death penalty, BDB.
And also too, Kolohe wrote "extradited." That's something
different.
BDB|1.16.09 @ 1:47PM|#
Well, at least your consistent.
It's very funny to see liberals who are anti-death penalty write
about hanging Bush and how awesome it would be.
BDB|1.16.09 @ 1:48PM|#
BTW--no one will be prosecuted, let alone Bush or Cheney. Just get that fantasy out of your head now.
|1.16.09 @ 1:55PM|#
BDB | January 16, 2009, 1:48pm | #
BTW--no one will be prosecuted, let alone Bush or Cheney. Just get
that fantasy out of your head now.
Hillary owns the Democratic Party. And also too, a black man named
Hussein Osama will never win North Carolina against a war hero. Get
your head out of the clouds!
BDB|1.16.09 @ 1:56PM|#
Dude, joe, most of the country just wants to move on from the last eight years rather than re-live them in trials, regardless of how they feel about Bush and Cheney.
BDB|1.16.09 @ 1:57PM|#
Then of course if Obama leaves office to a Republican successor in 2013 or 2017, the Republican is going to try to investigate and prosecute Obama as revenge...and so on.
Kolohe|1.16.09 @ 2:01PM|#
Prosecuting Bush administration officials? Oh, my, people
would HATE that!
Some people would love it. Some people would hate it. The marginal
voter would likely find it distasteful. And it would serve both as
a distraction to suck all the oxygen out of the room that Obama
needs, while simuataneously giving the 41st republican the spine to
fillbuster anything the Democrats want to do.
Clinton caught a bit of a break by having the Iran Contra pardons
just before he took office, and having the Ollie North prosecution
botched. He could be 'troubled by these developments', but not
actually have to spend any political capital on the battle, and
more importantly wouldn't have to 'stop thinking about tomorrow'
Yesterday wouldn't be gone, it would be re-lived. (of course, he
wound up generating his own distractions in those first two
years)
This was also the wisdom of Ford's Nixon pardon. It cost him
re-election - although if WIN would have won, it may not have, but
in any case allowed the country to 'move on'. Otoh, an overiding
desire to make people pay , like radical recontruction for example,
while more sucessful and satisfying in the short term, wind up not
working in the long term.
|1.16.09 @ 2:01PM|#
The only think more important than getting to the bottom of who let that commie have custody of Elian Gonzalez would be to determine Eric Holder's opinion about forensic testing of head-like objects.
|1.16.09 @ 2:04PM|#
Drawn out Bush administration trials: bad
Spontaneous combustion of key officials: good
BDB|1.16.09 @ 2:04PM|#
I would find prosecutions distasteful and distracting, and I dislike Bush. It would look like cheap political revenge. Only a Republican President would have had the cover to do that.
|1.16.09 @ 2:06PM|#
Kolohe,
Some people would love it. Some people would hate it. The
marginal voter would likely find it distasteful.
Don't you think that would depend on what information comes out
about the crimes that were committed?
If maintaining the rule of law of making sure that future
Presidents won't dare order human beings tortured for information
means the Democrats have to take a hit, like when they backed
desegregation and lost their majority for a generation, so be it.
There are more important things than partisan politics.
The next president, and the one after him, and the one after her,
need to be able to look back and see that they will suffer personal
consequences if they commit human rights violations.
BDB|1.16.09 @ 2:07PM|#
It also begs the question: why was impeachment "off the table" if Bush was such a big criminal, enough to warrant investigation after he leaves office?
|1.16.09 @ 2:08PM|#
Personally, I would find prosecutions of Bush admin people
wonderful. Washington would be a fucking circus, nothing would get
done (excellent!), it would steal Obama's thunder, and it would
make the DC crowd even more unpopular. Plus, there is always the
possibility of Bush and Co actually paying for their deeds.
Where's the down side?
|1.16.09 @ 2:09PM|#
It would look like cheap political revenge. Only a
Republican President would have had the cover to do that..."to do
that" means to investigate Bush.
It could, depending on how it was done.
It would probably be best to begin with investigations and hearings
to bring out all of the facts, and go slow on prosecutions. Making
Bush, Cheney, Tenet, Myers, Gonzo et al have to scratch a whole
bunch of countries off their future vacation plans, like Pinochet,
would be nice.
|1.16.09 @ 2:10PM|#
Where's the down side?
Increase TV presence of Paul Begala.
"Paul Begala! You look like a fetus!"
Elemenope|1.16.09 @ 2:10PM|#
If maintaining the rule of law of making sure that future
Presidents won't dare order human beings tortured for information
means the Democrats have to take a hit, like when they backed
desegregation and lost their majority for a generation, so be it.
There are more important things than partisan politics.
The next president, and the one after him, and the one after her,
need to be able to look back and see that they will suffer personal
consequences if they commit human rights violations.
This. There will never be a perfect time to pick these sorts of
scabs. Somethings you should do even if it costs you
politically.
BDB|1.16.09 @ 2:12PM|#
I also expect him to issue a blanket pardon on his last day in office, FWIW, if there's even a HINT this might happen.
|1.16.09 @ 2:12PM|#
Don't worry, Elemenope, Harry Reid's on the case.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!
I will send that prick's primary challenger and his Republican
opponent $50 each if there's any chance of booting him.
|1.16.09 @ 2:13PM|#
BDB,
...if there's even a HINT this might happen.
But remember, the only possible explanation for why Obama and
Holder are talking in vague terms about the subject is their
commitment to do nothing. There can be no other reason.
BDB|1.16.09 @ 2:17PM|#
Re:, Harry Reid:
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3049418&pagenumber=3
BDB|1.16.09 @ 2:17PM|#
So joe, why was impeachment "off the table" if Democrats are so into prosecuting Bush?
|1.16.09 @ 2:19PM|#
BDB,
Who said Democrats were "so into" prosecuting Bush?
Which Democrats do you mean, anyway?
Sheldon Whitehouse? Eric Holder? Dawn Johnson?
|1.16.09 @ 2:20PM|#
Where's the quote where Obama or Holder says that investigations and prosecutions are off the table?
Kolohe|1.16.09 @ 2:21PM|#
Don't you think that would depend on what information comes
out about the crimes that were committed?
Forget it joe, it's Chinatown D.C.
|1.16.09 @ 2:22PM|#
All this talk of clapping the Bushites in irons reminds me of
this corollary to RC'z Law No. 5:
Anything the government does to your enemies today, it will do to
your friends tomorrow.
Seeing as Obama shows absolutely no signs of doing anything
materially different than Bush on the national security front, I
doubt he will have any interest whatsoever in criminalizing
practices and policies that he intends to continue himself.
This time, I am happy to deliver the epitaph:
Aint. Gonna. Happen.
|1.16.09 @ 2:23PM|#
Nancy Pelosi.
Not part of the administration. Never addressed the subject of
investigations and prosecutions after Bush leaves office - not that
I've seen, anyway.
Remember the outcry over Obama's first nominee for CIA Director -
the one whose name was withdrawn? That guy didn't even authorize
any torture.
There's a great quote from FDR going around the left blogosphere.
Some groups approached them about a policy they wanted, and he said
"I like this idea. I want to do it. Now make me."
TofuSushi|1.16.09 @ 2:24PM|#
Also unlike Mukasey, who dodged this question too, Holder
said President Bush had no right to ignore the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act's warrant requirement for monitoring
communications between Americans and people in other
countries.
I thought some Bush kangaroo court just ruled that this was legal
some how?
|1.16.09 @ 2:24PM|#
Holder said the Bush administration's military tribunals for
suspected terrorists do not provide due process but left open the
possibility that they could be tweaked to address that
concern.
I'm not sure its entirely accurate to call those the Bush
administration military tribunals, as if no one else had anything
to do with them. Wasn't there Congressional action on this?
|1.16.09 @ 2:28PM|#
Anything the government does to your enemies today, it will
do to your friends tomorrow.
Exactly why we can't let the government get away with saying "But
we only tortured terrorists."
Seeing as Obama shows absolutely no signs of doing anything
materially different than Bush on the national security
front...
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...
*gasp gasp gasp*
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA!!!!
RC Dean, January 2009: I'm in my happy place. I'm in my happy
place. George Bush was going to shut down Guantanamo, ban torture,
and withdraw from Iraq on a strict timeline irrespective of
conditions on the ground, too! Happy place, happy place oh my God
this can't be happening....
|1.16.09 @ 2:30PM|#
I thought some Bush kangaroo court just ruled that this was
legal some how?
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Appeals ruled that
the law Congress passed, allowing the interception of international
phone calls, was constitutional. They did not rule on, and were not
asked about, the Bush administration's illegal wiretaps during the
period before this law was passed.
BDB|1.16.09 @ 2:31PM|#
Joe, do you really want to take two hated and unpopular people
(Bush and Cheney) and trasform them into War on Terror martyrs?
Cause that's what putting them in jail would do.
"They kept us safe, but it wasn't good enough for those
Democrats..."
BDB|1.16.09 @ 2:32PM|#
The martyrdom issue was a big reason why we never really prosecuted former Confederates.
|1.16.09 @ 2:32PM|#
BDB,
Have you ever looked at any polling about torture?
It's worth checking out.
|1.16.09 @ 2:33PM|#
There was a meaningful chunk of the populace that still supported the Confederates' cause, and their leaders.
|1.16.09 @ 2:35PM|#
They would deny it's torture and call it
"discomfort".
That hasn't worked yet. But people would find that line MORE
credible when investigators, and not people seeking to defend and
justify the torture, were presenting the information about what
happened?
Maybe, but I wouldn't count on it.
Elemenope|1.16.09 @ 2:35PM|#
Anything the government does to your enemies today, it will
do to your friends tomorrow.
If my "friends" had committed war crimes, I wouldn't have a problem
with them being hauled off in chains.
Would you?
BDB|1.16.09 @ 2:36PM|#
So joe believes Barack Obama is going to blow all his political
capital on prosecuting the outgoing administration, even if it
means the destruction of the majority the Democrats have carefully
built up since 2004?
Ok, I don't think so.
|1.16.09 @ 2:36PM|#
BDB,
Why haven't Obama and Holder publicly ruled out investigating and
prosecuting torture by government officials?
Why hasn't there been an outcry insisting that they do so?
Elemenope|1.16.09 @ 2:36PM|#
I agree somewhat with BDB that there is risk of creating martyrs. On the other hand, if it is handled properly (i.e. Nuremberg trials) that sort of shit can be kept to a minimum.
|1.16.09 @ 2:37PM|#
So joe believes Barack Obama is going to blow all his
political capital on prosecuting the outgoing administration, even
if it means the destruction of the majority the Democrats have
carefully built up since 2004?
Actually, joe doesn't think it would blow his political
capital.
Elemenope|1.16.09 @ 2:37PM|#
Ok, I don't think so.
I don't either. But that has no bearing on whether or not it is the
right thing to do.
|1.16.09 @ 2:38PM|#
Actually, joe doesn't think it would blow his political
capital...
if done right.
BDB|1.16.09 @ 2:40PM|#
You know who would have had the perfect amount of political
cover to prosecute Bush if he wanted to?
John McCain. Not that he was going to, but if he had done it there
would be no downside for him.
BDB|1.16.09 @ 2:42PM|#
Oh, and I really like to know how he figures Obama is doing the same exact things on national security Bush did. What?
Elemenope|1.16.09 @ 2:46PM|#
Not that he was going to, but if he had done it there would
be no downside for him.
Are you kidding? Not like the GOP is very together these days, but
that would have precipitated the most spectacular and violent
destruction of a major political party...ever. Cats and dogs,
living together, and Republicans would have eaten their Young
Republican spawn. Mass hysteria.
BDB|1.16.09 @ 2:48PM|#
Elemenope not only was he a victim of torture himself, but he would have been a one-term President so he wouldn't have cared. Again, he probably wouldn't have done it, but if he wanted to...
Stretch|1.16.09 @ 2:49PM|#
Uh, isn't there a possibility that a serious investigation would
also touch more than a few high-ranking congressional
Democrats?
Personally, I'd love to see it, but somehow I think it's off the
table. And of course Obama shouldn't rule it out, regardless of
whether or not he ever intends to move forward with an
investigation. It's like a get out of jail free card for the first
year of his administration.
|1.16.09 @ 2:49PM|#
President McCain, upon being chastised by his former Republican colleagues for...well, for anything, would have dropped more F-bombs that Mrs. Blagojevich.
|1.16.09 @ 2:53PM|#
Republicans would have eaten their Young Republican
spawn
They're called "pollywogs," you under-educated buffoon. And a
clutch of them is known as a "Haldeman."
BDB|1.16.09 @ 2:53PM|#
Anybody wanna put the odds on a blanket self-pardon on Bush's last day in office? Anyone?
|1.16.09 @ 2:53PM|#
Oh, and I really like to know how he figures Obama is doing
the same exact things on national security Bush did.
What?
No problem. Let's go off joe's list of the Change We Can Believe
In.
George Bush was going to shut down Guantanamo,
Obama will pay lip service to doing so, but I doubt it gets shut
down anytime soon, unless they do something purely symbolic like
transfer the prisoners to military bases elsewhere.
It seems to me that, if you are looking for material change rather
than purely symbolic gestures, transferring prisoners from one
military holding cell to another won't cut it.
ban torture,
Obama is proving remarkably elusive on just what interrogation
practices will be banned under his administration, with the sole
exception of waterboarding, which hasn't been used for years.
Again, no material change has even been committed to on this front,
although I'm sure the weak-minded, for whom purely symbolic
gestures are sufficient, will be delighted with whatever loop-hole
filled evasions the Obama team puts out on this issue.
and withdraw from Iraq on a strict timeline irrespective of
conditions on the ground, too!
Bush never said he would do that, and Obama has joined him in this
position. Obama = Bush does not add up to a material change.
About the only real change Obama has signalled is a desire to put
more troops at war in Afghanistan.
While that may be Change I Can Believe In, but I'm a
little surprised that more war would give an anti-warrior like joe
the happy pants, especially since it doesn't really fit his
professed template of humanitarian wars, but only where we don't
have any national security interests, and only if it doesn't look
too hard.
|1.16.09 @ 2:55PM|#
Uh, isn't there a possibility that a serious investigation
would also touch more than a few high-ranking congressional
Democrats?
You betcha. They were briefed and nodding in unison on nearly
everything that Bush should be strung up for.
bubba|1.16.09 @ 2:55PM|#
We routinely kill al qaeda members with missiles in foreign
lands. Without trial.
How is that not "war"?
|1.16.09 @ 2:59PM|#
There WILL NOT be impeachment proceedings against Bush and pals.
I'd love to be wrong, so if I am, feel free to point to this
post.
But the people at the top don't go after each other like that. It's
too close to home and could one day bite them personally on the
ass.
If Bush was actually going down, don't you think he'd take as many
Congressional scumbags down with him as possible? They can't risk
that.
|1.16.09 @ 3:00PM|#
Pollywogs, of course, need a lot of wiggle room.
...I doubt it gets shut down anytime
soon
... unless they do something purely symbolic like transfer the
prisoners to military bases elsewhere
...Obama is proving remarkably elusive on just what
interrogation practices will be banned under his administration,
with the sole exception of... the only one he has been
specifically asked about.
Bush never said he would (withdraw from Iraq on a strict
timeline irrespective of conditions on the ground) except for
that one time he signed a Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi
government committing to withdrawing forces from Iraq on a fixed
timeline regardless of conditions on the ground. And that was when
he was drinking again.
While that may be Change I Can Believe In, but I'm a little
surprised that more war would give an anti-warrior like joe the
happy pants
That's odd, since I've been saying we needed to do that for a good
five years, frequently, on these very threads, including ones
you've read and commented on.
TofuSushi|1.16.09 @ 3:01PM|#
Obama is proving remarkably elusive on just what
interrogation practices will be banned under his administration,
with the sole exception of waterboarding, which hasn't been used
for years.
He is just going to keep the things that are ok and stop the things
that are bad. DUH!
|1.16.09 @ 3:01PM|#
If my "friends" had committed war crimes, I wouldn't have a
problem with them being hauled off in chains.
Would you?
Probably not, but consider this:
(1)An administration full of consciousless thugs who kill babies
for sport (that is, the Bush administration and its inevitable
war-crime-committing successors), is unlikely to leave office
peacefully if doing so exposes it to prosecution and jail. Jailing,
etc., former government officials is a hallmark of banana
republics, and places orderly transitions in grave danger.
(2) But we really aren't talking about prosecuting Bush for war
crimes, so much as we are talking about criminalizing policy
differences. And that, especially, is a precedent that we should be
very, very wary of setting.
|1.16.09 @ 3:02PM|#
They were briefed and nodding in unison on nearly everything
that Bush should be strung up for.
And had no command authority or legal exposure.
There WILL NOT be impeachment proceedings against Bush and
pals. You mean between now and Tuesday? I agree. George Bush
will not be impeached.
|1.16.09 @ 3:04PM|#
But we really aren't talking about prosecuting Bush for war
crimes, so much as we are talking about criminalizing policy
differences.
See, some people think government officials should be bound by the
law, and some don't. Policy differences!
Some people think that the government can torture people in
violation of federal statutes and international treaties, and some
people don't. Policy differences!
TofuSushi|1.16.09 @ 3:05PM|#
And had no command authority or legal exposure.
Take that! They could not even vote against funding it or
investigate it because the unitard executive was watching their
children.
Bush = Evil
Congressional Democrats = VICTIMS!
|1.16.09 @ 3:12PM|#
Bush never said he would (withdraw from Iraq on a strict
timeline irrespective of conditions on the ground) except for that
one time he signed a Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi
government committing to withdrawing forces from Iraq on a fixed
timeline regardless of conditions on the ground.
Point taken. More accurately, Bush always said that he would
withdraw as and when requested/agreed to by the Iraqis. Obama, on
the other hand, started out with a unilateral withdrawal, and has
since indicated he will abide by the Bush SOFA agreement.
Either way, Obama = Bush on Iraq, so my original point stands, even
if the cranky and tendentious defense of it has been, shall we way,
refined.
|1.16.09 @ 3:15PM|#
More accurately, Bush always said that he would withdraw as
and when requested/agreed to by the Iraqis.
Huh. All of this time, I've been using the term "accurately" wrong.
I never knew it meant "in Bizarro World."
Let me try: MORE ACCURATELY, George Bush never, ever intended to,
said he intended to, or took actions to, establish permanent bases
in Iraq to replace those we left in Saudi Arabia, so as to provide
for the permanent stationing of American forces there.
|1.16.09 @ 3:17PM|#
They were briefed and nodding in unison on nearly everything
that Bush should be strung up for.
And had no command authority or legal exposure.
They do have plenty of political exposure, though, and if we are
talking about Crimes Against Humanity, then should we really be
sticking at whether someone had "legal exposure", or should we be
looking at whether they were in a position of power, had knowledge
of the Crimes Against Humanity, and did nothing? Are they not
accomplices?
|1.16.09 @ 3:19PM|#
Obama, on the other hand, started out with a unilateral
withdrawal, and has since indicated he will abide by the Bush SOFA
agreement.
See, when Bush realizes he's beat and capitulates to the Iraqis'
demands, it's no longer "unilateral."
Which is true: when Bush was forced to adopt Obama's position on
Iraq - leaving on a timeline with a date certain, without
stationing American combat forces there permanently, like they were
in Saudi Arabia before the Iraq War - it ceased to be the
"unilateral" policy of the Iraqis, and became the muliti-lateral
policy of the United States and the Iraqis.
|1.16.09 @ 3:21PM|#
C'mon, joe. Use your famous linking skillz to take me to a
pronouncement by Bush that contradicts my characterization of his
position.
Saying we would like permanent bases in Iraq is perfectly
consistent with also saying we will withdraw as and when
requested/agreed to by the Iraqis. Especially considering that the
SOFA agreed to by Bush calls for, you guessed it, no permanent
bases.
But, again, regardless. The discussion was about whether Obama was
signalling any material change from Bush on national security.
Obama has said he will stick to the Bush SOFA, rather than his
original unilateral withdrawal plan, and so I think my point
stands
|1.16.09 @ 3:21PM|#
You mean between now and Tuesday? I agree. George Bush will
not be impeached.
Whoops, prosecuted. You knew what I meant.
|1.16.09 @ 3:24PM|#
They do have plenty of political exposure,
though...
One of the best things about this new Department of Justice will be
watching "political exposure" become much less of a concern. "Right
Thinking Americans (RTAs)" be damned.
...and if we are talking about Crimes Against Humanity, then
should we really be sticking at whether someone had "legal
exposure"... Yes. Actions by the legal system should be based
on legality.
Are they not accomplices? Not legally.
I love that word. Legal legally illegal illegally. I HOPE things
CHANGE, and it becomes a much more important part of how the
Justice Department works.
|1.16.09 @ 3:33PM|#
C'mon, joe. Use your famous linking skillz to take me to a
pronouncement by Bush that contradicts my characterization of his
position.
I trust that you can find the funding bills for the Iraq War as
easily as I can.
Saying we would like permanent bases in Iraq is perfectly
consistent with also saying we will withdraw as and when
requested/agreed to by the Iraqis. You forgot to write "MORE
ACCURATELY" at the beginning of that sentence.
Especially considering that the SOFA agreed to by Bush calls
for, you guessed it, no permanent bases. You mean the one that
he fought against agreeing to, tried repeatedly to renegotiate, and
eventually was forced to capitulate to? His agreement to which
codified his abandonment of his previous position of maintaining a
permanent military presence in Iraq to replace the one we left in
Saudi Arabia, in order to allow us to project power more easily
througout the Middle East?
The discussion was about whether Obama was signalling any
material change from Bush on national security. Actually, on
this particular point, the discussion was whether the shared
position (as of August) of withdrawing from Iraq according to a
strict timeline, including a date certain for the removal of
American combat troops, represents Barack Obama adopting Bush's
position, or Bush adopting Obama's.
Personally, I'm just glad that we finally sent the message to the
terrorists that we are going to cut and run, and let them know our
movements, so that they can wait us out. Inshallah, the
liberal/Islamist dream of seeing Iraq taken over by an al
Qaeda-linked group will come to pass, now that Bush has agreed to
surrender to the terrorists.
Episiarch,
You knew what I meant. Aw, Ep, if I can't indluge in
pointless smartassery with you, then where will I turn?
Kolohe|1.16.09 @ 3:55PM|#
They do have plenty of political exposure, though...
One of the best things about this new Department of Justice will be watching "political exposure" become much less of a concern. "Right Thinking Americans (RTAs)" be damned.
If you mean by this that the Obama justice department, and the
Obama administration in general, won't weigh the political downside
of their decisions, there's an airplane at Battery Park I'd like to
sell you.
|1.16.09 @ 3:59PM|#
Kolohe,
I chose my words carefully, including the ones between "become" and
"a concern."
The Angry Optimist|1.16.09 @ 4:05PM|#
Not to be nitpicky, but going after Bush for torture probably
will not work because the entire administration can claim that Yoo
and Gonzales advised them it was legal...and has waterboarding
ACTUALLY been declared torture? I mean, I think it is, but what
does or do the relevant statutes and/or treaties say?
Also, war crimes? Like what?
Kolohe|1.16.09 @ 4:08PM|#
joe-
I'd say they'll be equally concerned with poltical exposure. But
having a favorable political climate in the medium term gives them
the opportunity to take on some more downside risk in their
calcuations.
BDB|1.16.09 @ 4:08PM|#
TAO, we did try Japanese soldiers for war crimes for waterboarding our prisoners after WWII. Just sayin'.
|1.16.09 @ 4:18PM|#
TAO,
During the Nuremberg Trials, the "we were advised it was legal by
lawyers" defense was attempted, and rejected.
Also, convictions for waterboarding, in which it was declared to be
torture, have been won in both international (post-WW2 war crimes
trials of Japanese officers) and domestic (police officers using
waterboarding to get convictions) trials.
Kolohe,
Good point about political conditions.
The Angry Optimist|1.16.09 @ 4:37PM|#
But who would prosecute? Americans prosecuting an American president for waterboarding the so-called "enemy"?
|1.16.09 @ 5:41PM|#
This thread shows what a dangerous person Joe really would be if were to ever have any authority. Congress was briefed and aproved of everything that happened but somehow are not to be held responsible for any of these "crimes against humanity". Yeah, that defense is real valid. The bottonline is that Joe would imprison anyone who disagreed with him if he could. Thank God he is only a small minded clown who can't really affect much. But if you want to know how tragedies happen, just imagine Joe with unchecked authority.
|1.16.09 @ 8:43PM|#
Congress not only was kept informed of *everything* that went
on, there were various members of Congress (in both parties) that
proposed allowing more to be done to prisoners.
I know, because I'm in the business. Unlike the google-foo
moron.
Enjoy your even more statist, but still empire-loving overlords -
idiots.
|1.17.09 @ 11:51AM|#
Yeah, that defense is real valid.
You mean the one you can't even explain beyond the word
"somehow?"
"Somehow," John, I'm not going lose any sleep over whether your
partisan hack self considers the "defense" I, supposedly, offered
to be valid.
But what is hilarious is that, on the question of whether TORTURE
by the government should or should not be investigated and
prosecuted, the fact that I say it should be, while you've spent
years insisting that this TORTURE is perfectly valid, means that it
would be frightening if I were to come to power.
The bottonline is that Joe would imprison anyone who disagreed
with him if he could. You think the government should be
allowed to TORTURE people the imprison, and do so without a trial;
who the fuck cares what you have to say?
Thank God he is only a small minded clown who can't really
affect much. You think the government should be allowed to
TORTURE people; who the fuck cares what you have to say?
But if you want to know how tragedies happen, just imagine Joe
with unchecked authority. You think the government should be
able to TORTURE people without any checks at all; who the fuck
cares what you have to say?
|1.17.09 @ 11:58AM|#
John's little outburst if what we have to look forward to as the
net closes tighter around the war criminals he's been sucking up to
for the last eight years.
Wingnuts like him, who've been assuring us that having the
government disappear and torture people isn't the slightest bit
disturbing, are going to discuss holding government officials
responsible for committing crimes as some sort of frightening
totalitarianism.
But that's the liberty-loving Right for you: deeply committed to
preventing infringements on the freedom of high government
officials to abuse people and violate laws with impunity.
|1.17.09 @ 12:06PM|#
I'm allegedly a dangerous totalitarian for wanting the people
who ordered and carried out government torture to face
consequences, because I wrote that people who weren't in the chain
of command would have political, but not legal, exposure.
John, on the other hand, hasn't written a single word about
government torture being wrong, nor about holding anyone -
including those who directly ordered the torture -
responsible.
RC Dean describes the question of whether it is appropriate for the
government to torture people as "policy difference," and says that
punishing government officials who torture, as opposed to torture
itself, is the sign of a "banana republic." Not a word from
John.
No, of course not. It's not torture that bothers Republicans; it's
holding Republicans responsible for their actions.
B|1.17.09 @ 12:11PM|#
"Is that what we need? Yet another newfangled justice system,
bound to be portrayed (probably correctly) as rigged against
defendants and guaranteed to be challenged for years?"
Are you honestly arguing that individuals who were caught on the
field of battle trying to kill American troops deserve access to
the American court system?
B|1.17.09 @ 12:13PM|#
"John, on the other hand, hasn't written a single word about
government torture being wrong, nor about holding anyone -
including those who directly ordered the torture -
responsible."
Show me the statute(s) that define waterboarding as torture and
show me the statute(s) that define which "harsh interrogation
techniques" are torture. I would be willing to bet you can't do
it.
The Angry Optimist|1.17.09 @ 12:14PM|#
B - this is what happens when you cloak a police action under
the mantle of war (without declaring war). In other words, yes, I
do think that, because the so-called "War on Terror" is a war
without end, without objectives, and it is incomprehensible for
anyone to think that we should be able to detain people FOREVER
based on the slipshod standards of evidence that are legitimate in
real wars.
This is not a real war. Don't call it the "field of battle"; that
just makes you a tool.
The Angry Optimist|1.17.09 @ 12:18PM|#
Show me the statute(s) that define waterboarding as
torture
Precedent is still valid to draw legal analogies in this country.
This is not Europe; not everything needs to be in a statute.
|1.17.09 @ 12:26PM|#
B,
Are you honestly arguing that individuals who were caught on
the field of battle trying to kill American troops deserve access
to the American court system? He's honestly arguing that
people dragged out of their homes in raids or captured and turned
in for bounty deserve access to a legitimate court system.
Show me the statute(s) that define waterboarding as torture and
show me the statute(s) that define which "harsh interrogation
techniques" are torture.
I'll show you that statute, just as soon as you show me the statute
defining electrocution as torture. I'll bet you can't.
Because, you see, they don't actually cut your meat for your as if
you were a two-year-old in torture statutes.
I can show you plenty of cases where people have been convicted of
torture for using waterboarding, from Japanese officers in WW2 to
American soldiers in Vietnam to police in the United States; would
that count?
God, I'm glad people like you are now out of power.
B|1.17.09 @ 12:29PM|#
"This is not a real war. Don't call it the "field of battle";
that just makes you a tool"
So the individuals at Guantanamo who were captured in Afghanistan
fighting American troops were not on the field of battle? Yeah,
okay. Who is the tool here?
"Precedent is still valid to draw legal analogies in this country.
This is not Europe; not everything needs to be in a statute."
In other words, the fact that there may be no law clarifying what
constitutes torture and what constitutes permissible harsh
interrogation techniques should offer no impediment to prosecuting
people for something that may not have even been defined as a
crime.
B|1.17.09 @ 12:37PM|#
"I can show you plenty of cases where people have been convicted
of torture for using waterboarding, from Japanese officers in WW2
to American soldiers in Vietnam to police in the United States;
would that count"
Then show me then smart guy.
"God, I'm glad people like you are now out of power"
People like me were not in power; you don't know my political
leanings, nor how I voted. And you have no idea whether I am
justifying torture or not. I am asking you to provide me with
clarification as to what are permissible harsh interrogation
techniques and what is torture. You can either do that or go on
acting like the shrill prima donna you are.
The Angry Optimist|1.17.09 @ 12:40PM|#
So the individuals at Guantanamo who were captured in
Afghanistan fighting American troops were not on the field of
battle? Yeah, okay. Who is the tool here?
You are. Here are the bare facts as best I can lay them out for
you: 9/11 happened. The United States invaded Afghanistan to get
the terrorists and their supporters and consequently decided to
rebuild the failed state of Afghanistan in order to make sure that
terrorism never flourished there again (this is what is partially
known as the "Bush Doctrine"). Now, part of what is involved in
rebuilding a nation is rebuilding its court system.
However, instead of properly declaring War in Afghanistan because
of 9/11, Bush and Co declared a War on Terror (a nonsensical term
if there ever was one) and, instead of detaining POWs in
Afghanistan until the war was over, he decided to ship them to
Cuba. You see, in actual, declared wars with objectives and
endings, you can figure out what to do with
EPWs/POWs...unfortunately, when you declare a fictitious worldwide
"war", no one has any idea what to do. The best thing in that
scenario is to either figure out when the war is going to end so
these people have some chance or release, or charge them with
crimes and put them through the judicial system. If these people
are as so guilty as to deserve indefinite and possibly-neverending
detention, what the hell are you so afraid of?
Regardless, you are the tool: there is no field of battle in the
War on Terror because there cannot be a War on Terror.
Period...forever and ever amen. Neocons such as yourself have been
fucking around with language long enough. Please stop.
The Angry Optimist|1.17.09 @ 12:44PM|#
In other words, the fact that there may be no law clarifying
what constitutes torture
No. In other words, read what I wrote: "If we have precedentally
prosecuted people for analogous interrogation procedures, we almost
have a common-law principle for doing it again."
And, again, like I said, not everything has to be statutory. Did
you ever stop to think why it is that, given that there is no
statute, the Bush Administration invested so much time, effort and
energy into denying this was torture? I mean, according to your
logic, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want to,
because hey, we need statutes to cover everything in this country.
Fuck the precedents.
The Angry Optimist|1.17.09 @ 12:47PM|#
Oh well, looky here: The
Soldiers in the second photograph were court-martialled for
waterboarding.
I'll be damned.
|1.17.09 @ 1:33PM|#
So the individuals at Guantanamo who were captured in
Afghanistan fighting American troops were not on the field of
battle?
This describes almost none of them. You either know this are being
dishonest, or you don't know enough to offer a worthwhile opinion
on the subject.
Then show me then smart guy. OK, I'll do that.
People like me were not in power; you don't know my political
leanings, nor how I voted. I know that you defend the use of
torture of illegal detention, and then use weasel words and feigned
ignorance of commonly known facts to defend the indefensible. I
don't have to know how you voted to say that people like you have
been in power.
|1.17.09 @ 1:35PM|#
I am asking you to provide me with clarification as to what
are permissible harsh interrogation techniques and what is torture.
You can either do that or go on acting like the shrill prima donna
you are.
Aw, crap, TAO pwned you before I did.
So, there you go: cases of people imprisoned under our legal system
for use the controlled-drowning torture.
You may begin apologizing profusely, both for your ignorance, and
your completely uncalled-for rudeness.
|1.17.09 @ 1:38PM|#
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=waterboarding+conviction&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
Read 'em and weep.
|1.17.09 @ 1:39PM|#
I agree with John; pursuing former heads of state for crimes committed in office is unseemly.
B|1.17.09 @ 1:50PM|#
"I mean, according to your logic, they should be able to do
whatever the hell they want to, because hey, we need statutes to
cover everything in this country. Fuck the precedents."
Hahahaha, that is not what I have written at all. I merely want
those that are gungho about prosecuting people for so-called war
crimes to provide some kind of definition as to what constitutes
legal harsh interrogation techniques and what constitutes torture.
There is a fine line between them. What is legal and what isn't?
Nowhere in any of my posts, at all, do I even remotely claim that
torture should be legal. So the notion that I wrote "fuck the
precedents" is a figment of your imagination.
And evidently you have the same exact questions I do or you would
not have written this:
"...and has waterboarding ACTUALLY been declared torture? I mean, I
think it is, but what does or do the relevant statutes and/or
treaties say?"
Wow, that looks an awful lot like my question. I guess you are a
tool as well.
"... instead of detaining POWs in Afghanistan until the war was
over, he decided to ship them to Cuba..."
Yeah, thanks for the history lesson, but nothing in your
long-winded explanation changes the fact the individuals caught at
Guantanamo were in fact caught on the battlefield. I did not
justify their presence at Guantanamo, I did not call for their
torture, I didn't make any judgments whatsoever concerning what
their possible outcome should be. I merely stated a fact. Why then
are you and joe hyperventilating (ok, I understand joe, he is a
diva who hyperventilates over everything)over questions concerning
what is torture and trying to argue semantics over what is a
battlefield and what is not?
I will no longer address the question of whether these guys were
doing battle against the United States because the answer is
obvious. But I will get back to the question of what makes
something an illegal torture technique and what makes something a
legal interrogation technique. That is the heart of the argument,
one for which I have not received an answer other than "precedent".
Then you should have no problem citing the pertinent precedents to
back up your argument.
Now to another statement written by you:
No. In other words, read what I wrote: "If we have precedentally
prosecuted people for analogous interrogation procedures, we almost
have a common-law principle for doing it again."
Actually, you didn't write that statement in any of your previous
posts, but I know what you mean, even if you did erroneously put
quotes around the statement you never wrote. And it's good to know
we "almost" have a common-law principle, because almost is good
enough, right?
"Oh well, looky here: The Soldiers in the second photograph were
court-martialled for waterboarding."
Are you fucking stupid or what? Why are you acting like you got one
up on me when I made absolutely no statement at all as to whether
waterboarding or any other technique was illegal torture or
acceptable interrogation technique.
From an article on Yahoo News:
President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to prohibit the use of
waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques by ordering
the CIA to follow military rules for questioning prisoners,
according to two U.S. officials familiar with drafts of the
plans.....
However, Obama's changes may not be absolute. His advisers are
considering adding a classified loophole to the rules that could
allow the CIA to use some interrogation methods not specifically
authorized by the Pentagon, the officials said."
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
B|1.17.09 @ 1:51PM|#
"And also too, a black man named Hussein Osama will never win
North Carolina against a war hero."
Is this the same war hero who was going to keep us in a state of
constant war for 100 years in Iraq?
B|1.17.09 @ 1:54PM|#
" I know that you defend the use of torture of illegal
detention, and then use weasel words and feigned ignorance of
commonly known facts to defend the indefensible. I don't have to
know how you voted to say that people like you have been in
power."
Wrong on all counts joe. But hey, you are so brilliant you know me
better than I know myself, right?
B|1.17.09 @ 2:01PM|#
"So, there you go: cases of people imprisoned under our legal
system for use the controlled-drowning torture.
You may begin apologizing profusely, both for your ignorance, and
your completely uncalled-for rudeness":
Jesus, are you fucking blind or what? Please point out one
statement in any of the posts I made above that justifies
waterboarding or detainment of individuals at Guantanamo. As I
wrote multiple fucking times in my posts, I want a clarification as
to when an interrogation technique stops being legal and becomes
illegal.
Maybe when you are done attributing positions to me that I have
never taken, I will apologize.
|1.17.09 @ 2:09PM|#
If you're going to make a statement, B, stand by it. Don't be a worm your whole life.
|1.17.09 @ 2:12PM|#
"I can show you plenty of cases where people have been
convicted of torture for using waterboarding, from Japanese
officers in WW2 to American soldiers in Vietnam to police in the
United States; would that count"
Then show me then smart guy.
I then show him, to which he responds:
"Fuck."
You should have stopped there.
B|1.17.09 @ 2:15PM|#
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html?hpid=topnews
In the above article, Obama, says he will try and close Gitmo by
the end of his first term.
And in this article the Obama people are trying to carve out
loopholes that will allow them to use interrogation techniques not
approved by the CIA if it is necessary for national security:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090116/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_interrogations
So as the above articles make clear, Obama is not only not in a
rush to close Gitmo, he is also looking for ways to torture inmates
and use military or "hybrid" courts to try detainees. I have a
distinct feeling we will not be seeing a lot of bluster from you
joe concerning the prosecution of Obama's legal advisors and others
if he does in fact try detainees outside of a civilian court after
they have been tortured during their additional four years of
detainment, without trial.
|1.17.09 @ 2:15PM|#
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
An unnamed source states that some aides are "considering" a
loophole.
It's funny, you can't seem to find any legal doctrines defining
waterboarding as torture in any of the links provided, but can find
in this statement convincing evidence that there is no meaningful
distinction between Bush and Obama on torture.
Partisan hack.
|1.17.09 @ 2:17PM|#
But keep changing the subject from whether waterboarding is
torture, partisan hack.
Don't worry; nobody will notice.
B|1.17.09 @ 2:18PM|#
"I then show him, to which he responds:
"Fuck."
Hahahahahahahaha, you are so full of shit. My entire point was to
find out if individuals could provide clarification as to what was
illegal and what isn't and why. Again, nowhere do you see me
justifying torture or detainment of anyone at Guantanamo.
And I will never say "fuck" to anything I read from you joe. I
don't care enough.
|1.17.09 @ 2:22PM|#
My entire point was to find out if individuals could provide
clarification as to what was illegal and what isn't and
why
Which was provided, via literally thousands of pieces of
documentary evidence, via The Google, which I helpfully pasted the
link from, reasonably assuming that someone who can't figure out if
controlled drowning torture is torture may have trouble operating a
search engine.
Jesus, are you fucking blind or what? Please point out one
statement in any of the posts I made above that justifies
waterboarding or detainment of individuals at Guantanamo. As I
wrote multiple fucking times in my posts...And I will never say
"fuck" to anything I read from you joe. I don't care
enough.
Lol. Just go away.
B|1.17.09 @ 2:28PM|#
" reasonably assuming that someone who can't figure out if
controlled drowning torture is torture..."
And here I thought there was a debate raging in Washington, and the
rest of the country, now over whether waterboarding was torture or
not. Evidently not.
|1.17.09 @ 2:34PM|#
You were wrong. There is no debate raging; there have never been
a debate ranging. That waterboarding is torture has been an obvious
and well-established fact in American law literally for a
decades.
There has been a rash of political hacks pretending that this is a
question which is up for debate, but the capacity of political
hacks to hide behind feigned confusion is as well-documented as the
legal status of waterboarding torture.
B|1.17.09 @ 2:38PM|#
"t's funny, you can't seem to find any legal doctrines defining
waterboarding as torture in any of the links provided, but can find
in this statement convincing evidence that there is no meaningful
distinction between Bush and Obama on torture"
Once again, as is evident by reading my posts, I was trying to get
a clarification as to which techniques are legal and which are not
and whether it is appropriate to prosecute or not when such
uncertainty exists. As is obvious by the tone of the debate in
Washington and elsewhere, the precedents you link to are not
proving sufficient to settle the debate. If you wish to call me a
partisan hack, I could care less, because everyone on this site
knows you never criticize those on the left joe, even if that means
writing apologia for Castro and Chavez, which you have done on
numerous occassions.
The Angry Optimist|1.17.09 @ 2:49PM|#
When I said "almost common-law precedent", I did NOT mean we
have no legal precedent, I meant that common-law as I understand it
generally does not lend itself to situations like this, primarily
because conventions against waterboarding are only a couple of
hundred years old. I said "almost common-law" just because the law
on this isn't old enough to rise to actual common law.
I will no longer address the question of whether these guys
were doing battle against the United States because the answer is
obvious.
You're equivocating. You and I are currently "doing battle" via
verbal conflict. That does not mean you and I are at war.
B|1.17.09 @ 3:06PM|#
"When I said "almost common-law precedent", I did NOT mean we
have no legal precedent, I meant that common-law as I understand it
generally does not lend itself to situations like this, primarily
because conventions against waterboarding are only a couple of
hundred years old. I said "almost common-law" just because the law
on this isn't old enough to rise to actual common law."
And that is exactly the point I was trying to make, and one that I
thought you were trying to clarify when you asked explicitly about
particular prohibitions on waterboarding.
"You're equivocating. You and I are currently "doing battle" via
verbal conflict. That does not mean you and I are at war."
And you don't feel you are equivocating? Do you honestly think that
since the President did not ask for a formal declaration of war
that those individuals caught fighting against the United States in
Afghanistan were not caught on a "battlefield"? Because you seemed
to have an issue with my use of the word battlefield.
Similarly whenever you hear individuals discussing the Korean War
and Vietnam War do you stop and correct them by telling them it was
the Korean police action and the Vietnam conflict?
The Angry Optimist|1.17.09 @ 3:12PM|#
I do not generally correct people on Korea and Viet Nam, but
that is because they are not trying to draw legal implications
from the use of those terms!
I'm explicitly NOT equivocating. I'm asking the apologists and the
outgoing (and incoming) administration to define it one way or the
other: either this is a war, meaning that it has objectives for
when it is complete (these require numbers, goals, steps, not
nebulous impossibilities like "when all terror is gone"), that
those captured are EPWs and will remain detained until the war is
over (and then they are released...you know that, right?).
Alternatively, this is a police action, wherein the offenders are
placed under arrest and either held under a fair justice system is
in place in the home country or they are subject to United States
justice.
The Administration is trying to make up law as they go; they want
their cake and to eat it, too. They want this to be a war, with all
of the emergency powers and use of Soldiers and soaring rhetoric
that entails, but they do not want to follow the commensurate
laws.
B|1.17.09 @ 3:26PM|#
Those that were/are detained at Guantanamo were not fighting under a particular countries flag, nor were they wearing a uniform when detained, thus the designation of POW is not valid, or at least it wasn't until recently.
B|1.17.09 @ 3:31PM|#
That first sentence should read country's, not countries.
And I would like to add that multiple cases clarifying what is
legal, illegal, appropriate etc. have been decided during Bush's
tenure. To act like everything was so clear cut before hand is
quite simply false.
The Angry Optimist|1.17.09 @ 3:33PM|#
ose that were/are detained at Guantanamo were not fighting
under a particular countries flag
We. Were. Not. At. War.
Had we declared war against Afghanistan, that would be a whole
different kettle of fish.
Again, B, one way or the other: Either those who were captured were
combatants (irregular or illegal or whatever) and are therefore
subject to the Geneva Conventions or they are not.
This is, at root, a police action. We are simultaneously rebuilding
states so they do not become havens for terrorists and hunting the
terrorists. None of these look like war.
B|1.17.09 @ 3:36PM|#
"We. Were. Not. At. War"
No, Congress had merely authorized the use of military force by the
president.
B|1.17.09 @ 3:40PM|#
"Had we declared war against Afghanistan, that would be a whole
different kettle of fish."
Also, why would we declare war on Afghanistan? Only one, perhaps
two, nations in the entire world recognized the Taliban as the
legitimate rulers of Afghanistan. Declaring war on the Taliban is
not tantamount to declaring war on Afghanistan, and vice versa.
The Angry Optimist|1.17.09 @ 4:05PM|#
B, should this be a war or not? If so, against whom? If not, why not? And regardless of the answer, we can then proceed down which law applies.
Kolohe|1.17.09 @ 6:05PM|#
For all practical purposes, we declared war on Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. I am not a big fan that Congress no longer issues a formal declaration of war, but as long as they issue some resolution that says the President is authorized to use military force for a sustained (or even indefinite) period of time, I am satisfied that all the Constitutional issues have been satisfied. Furthermore, Congress has a specific enumerated power to "make rules concerning captures on land and water", so it shouldn't even matter whether 'war' is declared or not. We did primordial 'war on terror' stuff at the very beginning with the barbary pirates and the quasi war, so it's not like all this stuff is brand new to this century.
|1.18.09 @ 2:39PM|#
As is obvious by the tone of the debate in Washington and
elsewhere, the precedents you link to are not proving sufficient to
settle the debate.
Of course not, because if a politician who is on the hook for a
criminal act says his case is complicated, it can only be because
the legal issues are murky.
|1.18.09 @ 7:20PM|#
You know what just hit me about this:
(2) But we really aren't talking about prosecuting Bush for war
crimes, so much as we are talking about criminalizing policy
differences. And that, especially, is a precedent that we should be
very, very wary of setting.
RC Dean (and John, and TallDave, and Shannon Love, et al) spent
2004-2008 telling us that we couldn't prosecute high government
officials for the war crimes that took place at Abu Ghraib because
they weren't "policy."
And now, they're going to spend 2009 telling us that we can't
prosecute high government officials for war crimes like that those
which took place at Abu Ghraib - because they were
"policy!"
|1.19.09 @ 4:24AM|#
When we win the "War on Terrorism" and have a big celebratory
parade, will there be anti-terrorism precautions taken at the
parade?
If yes, then we have not won.
If no, then you're kidding yourself and you'd be putting everyone
who attends the parade in grave danger.
You cannot eradicate a noun, whether it be terrorism, drugs,
hunger, poverty, rape, AIDS, or white collar crime. You can say
we're "at war" with it as a metaphor, but it has to be clear that
it's only a metaphor - not a literal war. We are NOT at war. We
have military action going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we're
not "at war" against either country, nor are we "at war" with any
nouns like terrorism. If you insist that we are, do you at least
concede that it's a war that we cannot win? Will you and your
family attend the "Parade to Celebrate Victory over Terror" if
there are no anti-terror precautions at the parade?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245