Liberals and terrorism

[Jim in CT]

In the New York Times editorial thi sweekend, their own editorial called for the arrest of #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney and others. This is a business headquartered in New York City, and instead of going after the terrorists, they are more concerned with going after the guy who is going after the terrorists.

I don't get it, i just don't get it.

What laws were broken, exactly? I'm no expert on this...but what codified laws are there that govern the treatment of captured terrorists? Because from what I do know (not much), history tells us that non-uniformed enemy combatants can legally be executed without trial. Has that changed? Because if thats legal, it seems to me it should be legal to waterboard.

Anyway. A major fringe newspaper \, located in NYC of all places, want sto go afetr the guy who was trying to keep them safe.

[spence]

Both Federal and International law consider torture criminal and I don't think there can be any doubt that the law was broken. We went way beyond even water boarding.

Don't worry though, it's never going to happen.

[PaulS]

Chicken Hawk #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney. He had "other priorities" when he constantly got draft deferments. Good thing that wasn't Pres. Obama or you'd be burning up the internet with that.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Both Federal and International law consider torture criminal and I don't think there can be any doubt that the law was broken. We went way beyond even water boarding.

Don't worry though, it's never going to happen.

"I don't think there can be any doubt that the law was broken."

If the Justice Department says "these things are legal", and you limit your actions to what's on the list, I'm not sure...

"Don't worry though, it's never going to happen"

Agreed.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Chicken Hawk #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney. He had "other priorities" when he constantly got draft deferments. Good thing that wasn't Pres. Obama or you'd be burning up the internet with that.

Perfectly fair to hold Cheney accountable for that, as opposed to John Kerry and John McCain, who deserve credit for their serivce.

Is that why the NYT wants Cheney arested?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Both Federal and International law consider torture criminal and I don't think there can be any doubt that the law was broken. We went way beyond even water boarding.

Don't worry though, it's never going to happen.

Spence, I deeply respect your willingness to discuss your views and defend them. But I have no respect for your views on law. When you can silently stand by the political and judicial trashing of the supreme law of our land, saying you've read the Constitution several times but still can't understand it, and abide the skirting of it by politicians if you agree with their agenda, and accept judicial "interpretations" of it which twist it out of all recognition, then flatly say that when it comes to torture, "I don't think there can be any doubt that the law was broken", you lose me.

The law of our land, OUR land, not the world's, is and has been broken over and over again to further agendas you approve of. You have said that the Constitution is outdated.

Well guess what. International "law" is full of biases which in many cases contradict the principles on which OUR law was founded. And it outdates itself with new conventions too often to be recognizable, much less viable.

If you wish to be a citizen of the world, that's nice. If possible. Citizens of the world have no overriding law. They can only abide by the laws of the lands they visit. I presume, if you wish to be a citizen of the world, you would abide by the various laws of Islamic countries, communist countries, theocratic societies, oppressive regimes as well as liberal ones. You have eclectic tastes, so I assume that would suit you.

When we have that "balance" of law which is concocted into reality by the diverse and contradictory states which make up the international "community," we have a myth, a dream (or nightmare) code most of which is alien in some respect to the different people and their communities it purportedly represents.

And guess what again. Many of the countries you, as a citizen of the world, would visit, will not respect that international law as it applies to you if it will not accord with what they want to do to you. And if they are reviewed by an international court of justice vis a vis their treatment of you, they will twist the so-called international law to suit what they have done to you. And that will be the end of it.

So when it comes to law, if you cannot even respect the law of your own country, what is the honor or high ground of supposedly respecting a United Nations law?

Well guess what again. When a chain of abuses against your law transforms it into something which pretends to be a higher ground, but which flies against the face of reality, and makes a people who once had inalienable rights into a herd of sheep which is granted only what its master gives it, then what, exactly, are you a citizen of? What is international law then, other than an even higher form of tyranny compounded by the rest of the world's tyrannies, on top of the one you have become sheep to?

And yes, the reality is that it's going to happen again. Throughout the world. There doesn't need to be a law against torture. There are two kinds of relevant codified laws. Those which in aggregate place the individual above the state. And those which place the state above the individual. And there is the other law, the uncoded law by which we, at our most basic level, exist. And it is that unwritten law by which we operate in threat of extinction. Cruel as it may seem, that law has no bounds. To bind it with restrictions is to render it null.

That is the hypocrisy of laws against torture. And it begins with the word itself. In civil law the notion of torture melds into criminal behavior of varied violence perpetrated by persons against each other. Most of those assaults can be characterized as a form of torture. So the word loses its meaning other than some sadistic treatment by mentally disturbed psychotics. Any treatment, however,no matter how cruel or unusual, which is rationally used to prevent deadly violence against your society, pales in comparison to the wars we wage for the same cause. To say killing your enemy is acceptable, but imposing cruel pain to him in order to prevent more killing is a contradiction which flies in the face of even the "higher ground" argument.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Chicken Hawk #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney. He had "other priorities" when he constantly got draft deferments. Good thing that wasn't Pres. Obama or you'd be burning up the internet with that.

I'm not sure liberals should be condemning somebody for not serving their country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

I'm not sure liberals should be condemning somebody for not serving their country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do you think all liberal asked for 5 deferments like Chaney did and say they had "other priorities"? I'm sure there were some but I doubt they would be so infavor of war later in life as Chaney seems to be.

[PaulS]

Jim,

Here is an excert from the editorial

"Americans have known about many of these acts for years, but the 524-page executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report erases any lingering doubt about their depravity and illegality: In addition to new revelations of sadistic tactics like “rectal feeding,” scores of detainees were waterboarded, hung by their wrists, confined in coffins, sleep-deprived, threatened with death or brutally beaten. In November 2002, one detainee who was chained to a concrete floor died of “suspected hypothermia.”

These are, simply, crimes. They are prohibited by federal law, which defines torture as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” They are also banned by the Convention Against Torture, the international treaty that the United States ratified in 1994 and that requires prosecution of any acts of torture.

So it is no wonder that today’s blinkered apologists are desperate to call these acts anything but torture, which they clearly were. As the report reveals, these claims fail for a simple reason: C.I.A. officials admitted at the time that what they intended to do was illegal.

In July 2002, C.I.A. lawyers told the Justice Department that the agency needed to use “more aggressive methods” of interrogation that would “otherwise be prohibited by the torture statute.” They asked the department to promise not to prosecute those who used these methods. When the department refused, they shopped around for the answer they wanted. They got it from the ideologically driven lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel, who wrote memos fabricating a legal foundation for the methods. Government officials now rely on the memos as proof that they sought and received legal clearance for their actions. But the report changes the game: We now know that this reliance was not made in good faith."

There have been numerous (how many?) investigations in Bengazi that have failed to find anything but we keep hearing that "what harm can 1 more investigation do"

Why not look and see if the torture violated federal law?

From that "fringe" comment I don't think you realize how many pulitzers the NYT has. I believe that they have more Pulizers than any other newspaper.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Why do you think all liberal asked for 5 deferments like Chaney did and say they had "other priorities"? I'm sure there were some but I doubt they would be so infavor of war later in life as Chaney seems to be.

We did not go to war until after we were attacked . You seem to forget that part. I believe Chaney hoped to ensure it never happened again.
I think you're real problem is understanding when somebody says it like it is, instead of feeding you a bunch of sugarcoated bull#^&#^&#^&#^& . It troubles you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=PaulS;1060065]Jim,

Here is an excert from the editorial

"Americans have known about many of these acts for years, but the 524-page executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report erases any lingering doubt about their depravity and illegality: In addition to new revelations of sadistic tactics like “rectal feeding,” scores of detainees were waterboarded, hung by their wrists, confined in coffins, sleep-deprived, threatened with death or brutally beaten. In November 2002, one detainee who was chained to a concrete floor died of “suspected hypothermia.”

These are, simply, crimes. They are prohibited by federal law, which defines torture as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” They are also banned by the Convention Against Torture, the international treaty that the United States ratified in 1994 and that requires prosecution of any acts of torture.

So it is no wonder that today’s blinkered apologists are desperate to call these acts anything but torture, which they clearly were. As the report reveals, these claims fail for a simple reason: C.I.A. officials admitted at the time that what they intended to do was illegal.

In July 2002, C.I.A. lawyers told the Justice Department that the agency needed to use “more aggressive methods” of interrogation that would “otherwise be prohibited by the torture statute.” They asked the department to promise not to prosecute those who used these methods. When the department refused, they shopped around for the answer they wanted. They got it from the ideologically driven lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel, who wrote memos fabricating a legal foundation for the methods. Government officials now rely on the memos as proof that they sought and received legal clearance for their actions. But the report changes the game: We now know that this reliance was not made in good faith."

There have been numerous (how many?) investigations in Bengazi that have failed to find anything but we keep hearing that "what harm can 1 more investigation do"

Why not look and see if the torture violated federal law?

From that "fringe" comment I don't think you realize how many pulitzers the NYT has. I believe that they have more Pulizers than any other news

"I don't think you realize how many pulitzers the NYT has. "

What you don't realize is that winning a Pulitzer doesn't make you mainstream. That;s liberal elitists patting each other on the back, big whoop...

So why hasn't Obama charged them with a crime?

[CTSurfrat]

Thankfully we don't have to worry about this happening anymore - the Obama administration doesn't have the stomach for it - they would rather kill them and anyone near them site unseen. It is much more humane and apparently not against any laws, even if they are Americans. I wonder who has the high moral ground in this debate??

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

We did not go to war until after we were attacked . You seem to forget that part. I believe Chaney hoped to ensure it never happened again.
I think you're real problem is understanding when somebody says it like it is, instead of feeding you a bunch of sugarcoated bull#^&#^&#^&#^& . It troubles you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Iraq attacked us?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Iraq attacked us?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

HA! I was going to post the same thing.

[detbuch]

Afghanistan didn't attack us either.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So why hasn't Obama charged them with a crime?

First, it must be determined if it costs votes in the next election or gains them.

Anyway, I think that there is still a realization that future administrations, or even this one in the next two years, might have to use "illegal" measures if we are placed in a compromised position such as the hidden-bomb-and -prisoner-who-knows-where-it-is scenario. Hurt the opposition with rhetoric, but keep all options open.

The hilarious thing is that as I read it, I was able to insert actions of this and past administrations in place of those actions in the article and they were nearly perfect parallel "crimes." such as:

"Americans have known about many of these acts for years . . . These are, simply, crimes."

As in, it has been known for years that our government has acted illegally by legislating outside of the Constitution.

And:

"They are also banned by the Convention Against Torture, the international treaty that the United States ratified in 1994 and that requires prosecution of any acts of torture."

As also in, our government was banned by the Constitution against not faithfully executing their duties described in the ratified Constitution and banned from not defending it--all of which they knowingly have done.

And:

"So it is no wonder that today’s blinkered apologists are desperate to call these acts anything but torture, which they clearly were. As the report reveals, these claims fail for a simple reason: C.I.A. officials admitted at the time that what they intended to do was illegal . . . they shopped around for the answer they wanted. They got it from the ideologically driven lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel, who wrote memos fabricating a legal foundation for the methods."

As in, it is no wonder that today's hypocritical apologists delight in twisting the Constitution to say their decades of illegal legislations were "constitutional." As in, from the beginning of the FDR administration it was known and later admitted that ideologically driven government lawyers were consulted to create language to make what they did seem to be constitutional even though they knew it wasn't, as they later admitted. And that illegality crafted by ideological lawyers has continued to this day. And it has been admitted, including by progressive scholars such as professor Seidman, that the Constitution was and is being subverted. And as in Gruber who devised deceptive language and lies to sell the ACA to us and mollify the conscience of all who voted for it.

And:

"We now know that this reliance was not made in good faith."

As in we now know that the ACA and the illegal actions of this and previous administrations of the last eight decades were not made in good faith.

The rule of law has been broken so many times that articles like this and the fellow traveler complaints about so-and-so's, and such-and-such legislation being criminal, illegal, is not only hypocritical, but the cumulative effect of government lying and its contempt of rule of law has created the danger of a reactionary public of contempt for law.

And it is that contempt which may partly inform the confused and often baseless perceptions of bias in our system and the periodic accompaniment of destructive violence.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Iraq attacked us?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try to remember before the current Administration, when a President spoke to the world , his words meant something . He didn't draw " lines in the sand " and keep moving them back . When President Bush said " if you support terrorism , you will be dealt with " he meant it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by CTSurfrat

Thankfully we don't have to worry about this happening anymore - the Obama administration doesn't have the stomach for it - they would rather kill them and anyone near them site unseen. It is much more humane and apparently not against any laws, even if they are Americans. I wonder who has the high moral ground in this debate??

Or we just release them to kill again. .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[CTSurfrat]

Originally Posted by buckman

Or we just release them to kill again. .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And offer a 5 million dollar reward!

[buckman]

Originally Posted by CTSurfrat

And offer a 5 million dollar reward!

Yep, $5 million reward for detainee that we release from Gitmo
.
Over 30% of those released have returned to terror .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by buckman

Yep, $5 million reward for detainee that we release from Gitmo
.
Over 30% of those released have returned to terror .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But that means 70% have been successfully rehabilitated which by most standards means the system is a smashing success! No?

[CTSurfrat]

I would find it incredibly hard to believe that 70% are rehabilitated. More likely they haven't popped up on our radar yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device