O/T: It won't go away by itself. (Verrry scary political)

Page 4 of 8  


Thank god (if you are so inclined) that you're just an annoying anonymous internet twit, then.
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Lurndal wrote:

Sigh.
I'll just have to add you to my list. Right after Spain.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Part I, Article 1, Item 1 "...torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..."
I guess the case hangs on the meaning of "severe". The DOJ lawyers chose a very severe meaning of "severe". I think most courts might choose a lower level of pain. Especially since the US Attorney General has said water boarding is torture, the US is going to have trouble mounting a defense.
I heard a quote from Jessie Ventura, former Navy SEAL, former professional wrestler, former governor of Minnesota, and all round Wild Guy, who was water boarded as part of his SEAL training:
"Give me a water board, Dick Chaney, and one hour. I'll have him confessing to the Sharon Tate murders."

That part doesn't, but this part does:
"Article 5
1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases: [...] 3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate. "
If such charges are brought, the US is obligated to extradite the accused under Article 8.

Eh? No.
From http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/29/spain.court.guantanamo /
"Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed, a Spanish citizen captured in Pakistan in 2001, who was later sent to Guantanamo. He arrived in Spain in 2004 and was acquitted of terrorism charges by Spain's Supreme Court."
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Douglas Johnson wrote:

Examples include having to listen to Madonna, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Nancy Pelosio-O, her father, Geppetobama, and Alec Baldwin.

Right he did say that. Now, do you suppose he speaks for all SEALs, past and present, and/or the rest of the SOGCOM community?
<SNIP More Treaty Quotes>
The underlying problem with this entire argument - the hingepoint if you like - is whether the U.S. has any treaty obligations to people who make war in plain clothes, make war intentionally upon non-involved non-combatants, and purposely hide among civilian populations when being pursued. My understanding is that we have one important obligation to such people upon capturing them: Formally finding out whether or not they are in one of the classes of people specifically protected by treaty obligations (POWs, civilians caught up in wartime, etc.), or whether we can treat them as spies with essentially no redress under any treaty to which we are signatories.
Then there's the smelly leftwing elephant in the room. The left - for entirely political reasons - insists on trying to regard these combatants as subject to and having standing before our domestic *civilian* law. But these people have no such standing unless they happen to be U.S. citizens (in which case they are entitled to our full legal protections since their citizenship trumps any international treaty). Foreign non-citizen invaders - in- or out of uniform - are covered at most by international treaty. They have no legal redress before a domestic legal system to which they are not parties.
By this definition, the Bush administration was dead wrong in the Hamdi case - Hamdi was a U.S. citizen - and SCOTUS properly found this way. But you don't go onto the field of battle - even if it is on your own domestic soil - and start handing out the full rights of legal residence to people who are essentially an invading army. This is sheer insanity possible only by people who think Noam Chomsky is a genius, Ward Churchill is right, and Barack Obama is a statesman.
There may be practical, political, and PR reasons arguing for- or against waterboarding or having to listen to Keith Olberman's regular squealings - both arguably forms of torture - but there is no *legal* reason not to when the subject is: a) Not a U.S. citizen, and b) Operating as a non-uniformed combatant making war upon civilians.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I think you're wrong there - citizenship is not a test for whether someone is subject to our laws. During WW2, hundreds of thousands of German and Italian POWs were held in U.S. territory, many of whom were U.S. citizens (think dual citizenship). Not one got access to our courts. See below for why. The issue of citizenship was raised by a couple of the German saboteurs captured in New Jersey. The Supreme Court said citizenship didn't matter.
Even Moses told the Israelites: "You shall have but one law for your brethren and the sojourner in your midst."

The 4th Geneva Convention defines a "lawful enemy combatant" as one who a) Wears a distinctive uniform, b) Carries arms openly, c) Reports to a defined chain-of-command, AND d) Conforms his conduct to the customary rules of warfare. By extension, anyone not meeting all four of these conditions is an "unlawful" enemy combatant.
The folks at Gitmo - and Hamdi - are unlawful enemy combatants. They are not criminals and are not entitled to the protections our Constitution gives to criminal defendants (trial by jury, lawyer, indictment, etc.). Neither are they POWs subject to the restrictions of various treaties, conventions, and the rules of war. As unlawful enemy combatants they are subject to the whim of the president under his Article II powers.
In wars past, most UECs were summarily executed. These included spies, saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and the like. As distasteful as it is, belligerent entities are will within their rights according to the customary rules of war to dispose of UECs forthwith in any manner they see fit.
Until 1951, the rules governing the conduct of the U.S. Navy ("Rocks and Shoals") permitted the hanging of captured pirates by any captain of a naval vessel.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

I'm saying something slightly different than you read. The *only* people who have any standing to our social/legal contract are people parties to that contract: citizens and people here lawfully. (Though for a variety of practical reasons we extend that standing some people here *illegally*.) Now, it is certainly true that there have been times when even citizens have been denied due process under that standing, but I think this is wrong. Apparently, so too does SCOTUS in their slapdown of the Bush administration in the Hamdi case. But the larger and more important point here is that foreign invaders not citizens bent upon harming us do NOT have standing as a civil/criminal matter. They're ... well ... an invading army, in this case (as you point out) an "illegal" army, where "illegal" means not recognized or protected by treaties between nations, let alone domestic law.

Yeah, but Moses didn't write U.S. law and we're not a theocracy - though with all the Obama messianic fervor, it's sure feels like one.

Agreed. But you have to stipulate that it may be in *our* interest to not act capriciously insofar as it makes *us* look bad. I'm deeply conflicted on the whole waterboarding thing. On the one hand, I stand with you insofar as I believe Bush was well within his legal right to do what he did. I also believe that doing so saved lives, notwithstanding the constant drone of "You can make anyone confess anything under "torture." If, in fact, there had been no benefit to doing so, why on earth would Bush have continued to tolerate something that cost him so much political capital, and arguably cost his party reelection? It boggles the mind that the entirety of the executive branch, Nancy Pelosi-O (the lying puppet of her father Geppetomaba) and the congress, the military operators, and the CIA field people would all conspire to support a contentious practice that didn't work at all.
OTOH, waterboarding has been incredibly contentious within the nation and a real source of conflict with our allies and their citizens. We're supposed to be the good guys occupying the moral high ground. I'd be a lot more comfortable with this practice if it had been done with some kind of military legal supervision comparable to a FISA court. Maybe it was, but thus far such oversight seems somewhat (entirely?) lacking. There may be times to push the envelope of what constitutes proper behavior - as I said, I see no legal reason not to - but it ought to be done as transparently as possible ... and transparency is something pretty much no president or party ever really wants...

Yes, but there is a moral and qualitative difference between executing a traitor or invader vs. torturing them. Torture can be worse than death. That said, I do continue to have trouble buying the idea that waterboarding itself is "torture" insofar as the results are not permanent. (Torture is listening to Barney "The Weasel" Frank whine is way through an explanation of how none of what's going on right now is his fault.)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How?
If you torture people to get them to give you the excuse for the illegal war you wage, torture becomes useful.

Because he was arrogant enough to think it would not harm him and his cronies. He also didn't just 'tolerate' it, he bloody well initiated it. He instructed his henchmen to torture a confession out of his detainees so he could justify his war(s). Either he initiated it, or he didn't have the balls to stand up to Cheney and his death squad.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

If you or any of the other people with Bush Derangement Syndrome could actually prove this (as opposed to using proof by repeated assertion) I'd be at the front of the line with you demanding a war crimes trial. However, this seems very unlikely and just more foaming by people who didn't like W for a whole lot of reasons. I didn't much care for better than half of his policies but I've never bought the "Bush (or Cheney) is evil incarnate" argument - it's silly.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote:
=================================Because he was arrogant enough to think it would not harm him and his cronies. He also didn't just 'tolerate' it, he bloody well initiated it. He instructed his henchmen to torture a confession out of his detainees so he could justify his war(s). Either he initiated it, or he didn't have the balls to stand up to Cheney and his death squad. ============================= Listened to Cheney's speech given today.
He continues to throw a lot of crap on the wall in hopes of getting something to stick, but it hasn't happened yet.
What is driving him?
Does he think the gov't will come after him?
Is he trying to build a defense?
Obama has been spraying "Bush BeGone" all over the Whitehouse, and it seems to be working.
Too bad there isn't an equivalent spray for Cheney.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Article II of the Constitution nominates the president as Commander in Chief. As such, he is solely in charge of war-making and his decisions cannot be gainsaid by anyone.

Well, there's that. You may be overlooking, too, the shear fun of it (which makes about as much sense).

I've already agreed with you that the Bush administration was arrogant - all administrations are arrogant. But you're wrong in one observation. To my knowledge, no confessions were obtained by coercive techniques. We, like the early church, didn't need confessions to prove anything - guilt was already established. We wanted, like the church, something completely different: The church wanted a soul-cleansing on the part of the condemned; we wanted information to prevent more attacks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Why as there any need for declarations of war, the Tonkin resolution, the Iraq equivalent of that resolution?
I thought that Congress had the power to declare war, or the modern equivalent of that declaration.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They do and they did. Repeatedly. They just did it again to the tune of $98 billion or so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Congress has the sole power to declare war. The president has the sole power to wage war. The Congress can declare all it wants, but the president could refuse to do anything about it. The president can wage war all HE wants and the Congress can do little to prevent his actions (aside from cutting off funds).
Remember, Bill Clinton waged war on more countries than any president since FDR (Somalia, Haiti, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Albania, and Serbia).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Any of Clinton's war started by him under false pretences...scratch that.. LIES???
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Instead of whining and repeating yourself, why don't you produce proof that there was a "lie"? You'd be a hero of the Sheeple's Revolution and Comrade Obama would likely give you a little trinket for doing something *no one* has thus far managed to do: Demonstrate conscious malfeasance on the part of the Bush administration. Oh, I forgot, sanity and reason left the building a long time ago...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Damn.. I keep forgetting about all those WMD's and yellow cake they found... my bad... oh.. and that Al Qaida/Iraq connection. . . . wait... you're pulling my leg, aintcha....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

In a vain attempt to prevent invasion as well as a massive sense of self impotrance, Sadame Hussain (SP) presented the world with the thought/fear that he had various WMD in hiding just waiting to use on any invasion force. He refused to permit inspection of facilities to prove or disprove such material. That there were no WMD found is irrelivant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David G. Nagel wrote:

No, he's pulling on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who was pulling all our legs when he said "...and we know where they are."
Can't you take a joke?
And besides, when was it ever carved in stone that "Thou shalt not bear false witness"?

Saddam was indeed a bad actor, but he was /really/ over the top with that whole nuclear deterrence concept. Unforgivably bad.

Yup. There must be something in the water over there to make those guys actually believe in national sovereignty.
Hmm - now that we've disposed of that fiction, I suppose there's nothing to stop, say Spain (or Canada), from arresting a US citizen and executing him for uncooperative and threatening behaviors...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:

Proof by repeated assertion is no proof. I continue to await demonstration of your respective claims that the Bush administration materially mislead the congress, public, and international community and acted in bad faith. So far even the fringenut left hasn't managed to come up with anything and who better would have motive to do so?

Do you seriously propose that a nuked up Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc. would make the world a more stable place? I'm not saying what's there today is great, merely that more nuke proliferation is not an improvement.

If a U.S. Citizen had murdered 10s of thousands and had the means, motive, and opportunity to get access to weapons that could kills 100s of thousands (or more), I rather think the international "community" might want to step in at some point. Your analogy is absurd. Saddam could have stopped this whole thing at any point - up to and including the night of the invasion - by simply providing unfettered access to an international inspection team. You folks with Bush Derangement Syndrome are inventing this silly fiction that W simply had no probable cause to even be worried, let alone interdict in a situation where there was already ample examples of murder, human rights abuses, funding of terrorists in other countries, and threats to do more and bigger of all the above. Using your logic, every police officer that acts with probable cause and finds nothing should be arrested on "war crimes" charges.
The WMD thing turned out to be false, overstated, and/or finally unprovable, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I am no fan of W's on many other fronts, but on this one issue: His willingness to confront the disease of militant terror and its funding source - wherever they are found - he was not only right, history will regard him warmly, much like the deeply hated Truman has been properly rehabilitated by history...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I agree, and also recognize that this is the basis for /all/ of the arguments that you've presented. Did you really suppose this would go unnoticed?

You can wait as long as you like. I watched and listened to what those folks had to say and, at the time, took what they had to say at face value. It became clear to me that a significant number of statements made to justify political and military decisions had no basis in fact.
To claim knowledge of motivation is to claim to know the unknowable. I have not claimed to know whether untruth was spoken intentionally - only that it was spoken. You can spin it however you choose, but you cannot convert falsehood to truth after the fact.

You're using the wrong vocabulary with me. I have no interest in either extreme of the political spectrum, other than to note that neither seems to have much constructive to offer.

Nice strawman attempt. :)
I hear you, and will suggest that you consider how you might protect your homeland if you were an Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, etc and perceived that a large and powerful country was likely to take an interest in your natural resources, strategic location, etc.

One would think so. I was paying attention and found the response of the international community of considerable interest.

If there is such a thing as national sovereignty, then the exercise of that sovereignty includes the right to say "No" to foreigners who desire entry for any purpose.
Any claim to the contrary denies the concept of national sovereignty. I'm of the (very strong) opinion that this is an area where one should be /very/ careful what one wishes for.

Poorly constructed strawman argument - disregarded.

Thank you for noticing that the statements used for justifying invasion of a sovereign state were false, overstated, and/or unprovable.
This was my original assertion, to which you objected. :)

I think you're overly optimistic. I think that no matter how beneficial it was to remove Saddam Hussein, and that no matter how important it may be to confront terrorism (and its root causes) - George W. Bush's administration will be remembered for its intentional polarization of American society, its falsehoods, and its distain for the ideals and principles of American democracy.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.