A day of reconing for Bush's Torture lawyers.

[Lemon law]

Found this on the yahoo news today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090729/cm_csm/ysokol

Somewhat food for thought, even though this has been already discussed.

But it somewhat asks the new question of what happens if entities other than the USA formally bite the bullet and charge various US officials, with international war crimes.

Will or should our current AG, follow previous US precedent by limiting the war crimes to only the very guilty, totally oppose any US official being charged, or find a new middle ground? When and if other responsible international officials issue those toture war crimes charges?

 

[sciwizam]

Correction: An Christian Science Monitor's Opinion Piece's title

 

[BarrySotero]

Christian Science Monitor is rubbish

"A truth commission composed of Americans and non-Americans would help assure that the inquiry would be fair and free of political grandstanding."

It's always Marxist radical headcases that can't wait to see US subject to outside bureaucracies. These sorts are pre-programed to act that way because if their own psychological issues that get projected into politcs.

Holder already admitted himself that water boarding ( and Navy Seals get that and worse) cant be prosecuted as torture. He also said detainees were not subject to Geneva (I have the Youtubes). The far left is like an autoimmune disease. If you want to compare them to asthma. lupus, leukemia etc - it hardly matter which disease - the left in US wants to eviscerate its own country to the benefit of its enemies.

 

[PJABBER]

The author of this op-ed piece, Ron Sokol, is an American citizen but has not lived in the United States since 1966. He practices law in the beautiful university town of Aix-en-Provence in the south of France. His areas of expertise and how he pays the bills?

Family Law, Divorce, Child Custody and Adoption, General Civil Litigation, Immigration Law, International Law, Real Estate and Real Property

I would say that 60's angst needs to be channeled in more productive directions.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
The author of this op-ed piece, Ron Sokol, is an American citizen but has not lived in the United States since 1966. He practices law in the beautiful university town of Aix-en-Provence in the south of France. His areas of expertise and how he pays the bills?

Family Law, Divorce, Child Custody and Adoption, General Civil Litigation, Immigration Law, International Law, Real Estate and Real Property

I would say that 60's angst needs to be channeled in more productive directions.

And your specific points on how his article discussing the Nuremburg trials were what?

Oh, that's right, you have none so you blather instead.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Christian Science Monitor is rubbish

Irony.

"A truth commission composed of Americans and non-Americans would help assure that the inquiry would be fair and free of political grandstanding."

It's always Marxist radical headcases that can't wait to see US subject to outside bureaucracies. These sorts are pre-programed to act that way because if their own psychological issues that get projected into politcs.

It's blathering idiots who use the word "Marxist" as the equivalent of "poopoo head" where it has no relevance. You're simple deluded, and your comments deserve no more.

Holder already admitted himself that water boarding ( and Navy Seals get that and worse)

There's a big difference between the friendly training the seals get and being waterboarded by hostile captors - much less over 100 times, along with other measures.

Go argue with the US authorities who prosecutesd Japanese who waterboarded with a war crime.

cant be prosecuted as torture.

You should call Attorney General Holder and tell him there are no crimes possible for Bush officials, so he can stop wasting his time looking at what he thinls are possible crimes.

Thank goodness for alert citizens like you to provide the expertise to him.

The far left is like an autoimmune disease.

To a virus, antibiotics look like the disease.

...the left in US wants to eviscerate its own country to the benefit of its enemies.

No, we want to make the country good, and defeat imbeciles like you who pretend the nation wioll be destroyed by every strong wind justifying turning us into ruthless thugs.

Your kind has never been anything but a 'virus' in the nation. You were the same virus who in Japan pushed them to militarism and war, the same who followed in Germany.

Ironically, you're the same who encouraged the worst behaviors in the USSR - demanding 'ruthless' policies to 'protect the state' from 'threats'.

You are one of the voices of evil, pure and simple. You wrongly imagine evil to be something it's not - it's like you. Misguided people pursuing some 'good' the wrong way.

Show me anyone 'evil' in history pretty much, and I'll show you someone who thought they were doing good in some way, but were misguided.

Hitler was pursuing a misguided ideology around the improvement of the human race (as were US people who supported Eugenics until it became distasteful after the Nazis). Every brutal emperor was simply serving his own people's needs and trying to raise the level of civilization. Charles Manson was trying to resolve racial tensions by helping a cleansing race war to get started. David Koresh was following his religious beliefs. Timoth McVeigh was a patriotic revolutionary fighitng a corrupt government. Osama bin Laden is trying to get the people of the Middle East to fight back against the corrupting domination of the region by the west. Ronald Reagan was fighting for democracy when he sent an army of terrorists into Nicaragua to force them to vote for who he said to to end the terrorism.

You don't have any moral maturity to oppose torture - you simply hate those who do, and support its use against any 'threat' our leaders would like to torture, apparently.

And, in your frustration not understanding the moral issues, you lash out with whatever name-calling you can muster against the people who are standing for right and principle.

Luckily, you have help from well-funded propagandists with the labels to use in your parroted attacks. And there you go, off to the message board as the minion of evil.

 

[1prophet]

Some observers say that US government employees who carried out acts that the United States had previously called torture (when done by employees of other governments) should be left in peace because they were following orders.

But Holder should recall the testimony of William Keitel, the ranking officer of the German Army: "I took the stand that a soldier has a right to have confidence in his state leadership, and accordingly he is obliged to do his duty and to obey." The Nuremberg tribunal sentenced Keitel to death by hanging.

Article 8 of the London Charter that established the Nuremberg court made clear that obedience to an order from a superior to commit a crime is not a defense but can be considered only in mitigation of punishment. Since Nuremberg, following orders has ceased to be a valid defense in international law. Until 2001, the United States firmly and rightly adhered to that standard.

Were the lawyers following orders or issuing orders in the commission of war crimes?

If one must adhere to standard set in Nuremberg that following orders is not a valid defense then all those in the chain of command from Bush to the private in the field should be looked at in case of war crimes, not Bush's lawyers who neither had the authority nor subject to authority in commiting war crimes.

All they are guilty of is giving bad legal opinion, Bush and those below him are the one's who should be looked at for any war crimes since they had to make a choice in following that opinion, my lawyer made me do it is not a valid defense.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: PJABBER
The author of this op-ed piece, Ron Sokol, is an American citizen but has not lived in the United States since 1966. He practices law in the beautiful university town of Aix-en-Provence in the south of France. His areas of expertise and how he pays the bills?

Family Law, Divorce, Child Custody and Adoption, General Civil Litigation, Immigration Law, International Law, Real Estate and Real Property

I would say that 60's angst needs to be channeled in more productive directions.

And your specific points on how his article discussing the Nuremburg trials were what?

Oh, that's right, you have none so you blather instead.

Craig234, you are a sad, sad man. Are you sure you won't go to see a doctor voluntarily?

Since you have not commented on the substance of Sokol's proposal, I find your comments irrelevant.

I do believe that it is important to determine the credibility of the source of commentary first, particularly in cases of law where the opiner is an attorney. Going through a couple of years of law school does not make anyone an expert in law. It is in the practice of law that expertise is developed, and usually only over the course of years in practice, research and follow-on study. Otherwise, a first year associate could bill at the same rate as a senior partner.

I did find more information as to the credibility of this guy in five minutes than you have yet to attempt in the course of hundreds of unsubstantiated posts. You do spend an awful lot of time telling people to back up their opinions and establish point of proof and reference without doing so yourself. Does it make you feel superior without actually having to do any work to justify such a feeling?

I think this quote from Sokol summarizes his perspective -

There cannot be a set of legal rules applicable to other nations and citizens but to which America need not adhere. To regain its moral legitimacy, American must formally recognize that some of its official post-9/11 practices were unlawful.

Wrong, sovereign law is not subject to binding opinions from other sovereign judiciaries nor from international tribunals unless there is a formal release of sovereignty. Nor is foreign law or opinion normally held as precedent except in the most general sense in that our law is descended from the principles of English common law.

Meaning you can prosecute our people only if we agree to let you do this voluntarily (or in the case of defeat in war, where sovereignty is rendered null as a consequence of defeat and dissolution of the defendant state and there is no competent judiciary to render judgment, ie Nuremberg.) The U.S. has not, as of this date anyway, given up sovereignty and thus there is no acceptance of nor subjugation to the questions or findings of any court in any matters we do not wish to comply with voluntarily.

While the leftish seem to aspire to subrogate the U.S. to some foreign power because they themselves have no faith in the U.S., there is little in U.S. law that would have them do so without a Constitutional amendment or the abandonment of our current Constitutional protections. There would many challenges to any attempt by the government to take this acquiescing action and I doubt it would survive legal challenge.

Good luck with that.

FYI,

Article 3 Section 2 of the U.S. Consitution.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Amendment XI

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. Thank God.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: PJABBER
The author of this op-ed piece, Ron Sokol, is an American citizen but has not lived in the United States since 1966. He practices law in the beautiful university town of Aix-en-Provence in the south of France. His areas of expertise and how he pays the bills?

Family Law, Divorce, Child Custody and Adoption, General Civil Litigation, Immigration Law, International Law, Real Estate and Real Property

I would say that 60's angst needs to be channeled in more productive directions.

And your specific points on how his article discussing the Nuremburg trials were what?

Oh, that's right, you have none so you blather instead.

Since you have not commented on the substance of this man's proposal either, I find your comment irrelevant.

I do believe that it is important to determine the credibility of the source of commentary first, particularly in cases of law where the opiner is an attorney. Going through a couple of years of law school does not make anyone an expert in law. It is in the practice of law that expertise is developed, and usually only over the course of years in practice, research and follow-on study. Otherwise, a first year associate could bill at the same rate as a senior partner.

I did find more information as to the credibility of this guy in five minutes than you have yet to attempt in the course of hundreds of unsubstantiated posts. You do spend an awful lot of time telling people to back up their opinions and establish point of proof and reference without doing so yourself. Does it make you feel superior without actually having to do any work to justify such a feeling?

I think this quote from Sokol summarizes his perspective -

There cannot be a set of legal rules applicable to other nations and citizens but to which America need not adhere. To regain its moral legitimacy, American must formally recognize that some of its official post-9/11 practices were unlawful.

Wrong, sovereign law is not subject to binding opinions from other sovereign judiciaries nor from international tribunals unless there is a formal release of sovereignty. Nor is foreign law or opinion normally held as precedent except in the most general sense in that our law is descended from the principles of English common law.

Meaning you can prosecute our people only if we agree to let you do this voluntarily (or in the case of defeat in war, where sovereignty is rendered null as a consequence of defeat and dissolution of the defendant state and there is no competent judiciary to render judgment, ie Nuremberg.) The U.S. has not, as of this date anyway, given up sovereignty and thus there is no acceptance of nor subjugation to the questions or findings of any court in any matters we do not wish to comply with voluntarily.

While the leftish seem to aspire to subrogate the U.S. to some foreign power because they themselves have no faith in the U.S., there is little in U.S. law that would have them do so without a Constitutional amendment or the abandonment of our current Constitutional protections. There would many challenges to any attempt by the government to take this acquiescing action and I doubt it would survive legal challenge.

Good luck with that.

FYI,

Article 3 Section 2 of the U.S. Consitution.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Amendment XI

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. Thank God.

You spent a lot of time arguing the legal basis for legal sovereignty of the US, when the part you quoted specifically mentioned that we need to adhere to these principles to maintain our moral position.

 

[PJABBER]

There cannot be a set of legal rules applicable to other nations and citizens but to which America need not adhere. To regain its moral legitimacy, American must formally recognize that some of its official post-9/11 practices were unlawful.

A truth commission composed of Americans and non-Americans would help assure that the inquiry would be fair and free of political grandstanding.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

You spent a lot of time arguing the legal basis for legal sovereignty of the US, when the part you quoted specifically mentioned that we need to adhere to these principles to maintain our moral position.

First you have to accept that the U.S. has lost some moral position. I don't, and I actually don't care how some ex-pat lawyer in Aix feels about this. Screw this guy!!

Second, you have to accept this guy's idea that the U.S. is somehow subject or should be subjected to other nations' laws. Hell, no. See my comments above.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

There cannot be a set of legal rules applicable to other nations and citizens but to which America need not adhere. To regain its moral legitimacy, American must formally recognize that some of its official post-9/11 practices were unlawful.

You spent a lot of time arguing the legal basis for legal sovereignty of the US, when the part you quoted specifically mentioned that we need to adhere to these principles to maintain our moral position.

First you have to accept that the U.S. has lost some moral position. I don't, and I actually don't care how some ex-pat lawyer in Aix feels about this.

Screw this guy!!

The U.S. by its actions overthrew a horrendous dictator and a morally corrupt totalitarian government (see "genocidal.") The action was done under the auspices of a number of U.N. resolutions authorizing action to have Iraq come into compliance with U.N. resolutions or else. The action taken was supported and approved by an overwhelming majority of the U.S. Congress, no matter how they changed their minds when it was politically convenient.

I hope the Iraqis do well with their country after we spent so much money and thousands of lives to give them that chance. They are only the second democracy in the Middle East, Israel is the other. I hope they succeed in making the blood that was shed for them mean something.

Second, you have to accept this guy's idea that the U.S. is somehow subject or should be subjected to other nations' laws. Hell, no. See my comments above.

After all the crap you copied in your posts above you appeal to the UN for legitimacy? Weird.

Bush and his gang of thugs are war criminals under US law, so don't worry about concepts of international law, we can prosecute the bastards right here.

US Code link

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

There cannot be a set of legal rules applicable to other nations and citizens but to which America need not adhere. To regain its moral legitimacy, American must formally recognize that some of its official post-9/11 practices were unlawful.

A truth commission composed of Americans and non-Americans would help assure that the inquiry would be fair and free of political grandstanding.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

You spent a lot of time arguing the legal basis for legal sovereignty of the US, when the part you quoted specifically mentioned that we need to adhere to these principles to maintain our moral position.

First you have to accept that the U.S. has lost some moral position. I don't, and I actually don't care how some ex-pat lawyer in Aix feels about this. Screw this guy!!

Second, you have to accept this guy's idea that the U.S. is somehow subject or should be subjected to other nations' laws. Hell, no. See my comments above.

Uhmmm, no you don't. The position he takes on how to retain our moral authority says absolutely nothing about requiring us to be subject to other nations law, just that if we are to retain our moral authority we need to practice what we preach. You appear to have fundamentally misunderstood the passage that you quoted.

As for the idea that you don't think we've lost any moral position, that's fine. What you think is irrelevant however since the focus of that passage is how we could use our moral authority to influence other countries. It only matters if THEY think we've lost our moral compass... and they do.

I noticed you deleted the part about Saddam, but I can't for the life of me see how our policies of torture have even the slightest thing to do with him.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

There cannot be a set of legal rules applicable to other nations and citizens but to which America need not adhere. To regain its moral legitimacy, American must formally recognize that some of its official post-9/11 practices were unlawful.

A truth commission composed of Americans and non-Americans would help assure that the inquiry would be fair and free of political grandstanding.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

You are unable to understand the idea of making internaional standards consistent, not allowing a powerful nation to exempt themselves.

You argue instead against any international laws even existing for any nation, even while the US position clearly supports such laws, if only for others.

International truth commissions - we've often supported internation participation in controversial events, such as election monitoring and fact-finding.

The proposed commissions would have Americans, and if the non-Americans fulfilled your paranoia and used the commission to lie about the US, the Americans could expose that.

On the other hand, if the Americans were the ones to lie, the non-Americans could expose that. That seems to be your real worry.

You spent a lot of time arguing the legal basis for legal sovereignty of the US, when the part you quoted specifically mentioned that we need to adhere to these principles to maintain our moral position.

First you have to accept that the U.S. has lost some moral position. I don't, and I actually don't care how some ex-pat lawyer in Aix feels about this. Screw this guy!!

Ah, the sound of irrationality and ad hominen attack.

Second, you have to accept this guy's idea that the U.S. is somehow subject or should be subjected to other nations' laws. Hell, no. See my comments above.

The guy is pointing out how the US should follow the standards *it imposed* for all nations. If the US set up 'following orders is not a defense' in international law, it's for all nations.

The comment in my OP can be repeated:

And your specific points on how his article discussing the Nuremburg trials were what?

Oh, that's right, you have none so you blather instead.

The sum total of your argument against his summary of Nuremberg - which requires to high level of legal scholarship - is: 'he lives in France'.

Well, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin lived in France, and were quite popular there. I guess they have nothing to say about the principles of our nation either.

It's always remarkable to see the corruption of the arrogance of power as people run around feeling they have the right to intefere with others,and not to have the same done.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Bush and his gang of thugs are war criminals under US law, so don't worry about concepts of international law, we are obligated to prosecute the bastards right here.

Made one change.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PJABBER

There cannot be a set of legal rules applicable to other nations and citizens but to which America need not adhere. To regain its moral legitimacy, American must formally recognize that some of its official post-9/11 practices were unlawful.

A truth commission composed of Americans and non-Americans would help assure that the inquiry would be fair and free of political grandstanding.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

You spent a lot of time arguing the legal basis for legal sovereignty of the US, when the part you quoted specifically mentioned that we need to adhere to these principles to maintain our moral position.

First you have to accept that the U.S. has lost some moral position. I don't, and I actually don't care how some ex-pat lawyer in Aix feels about this. Screw this guy!!

Second, you have to accept this guy's idea that the U.S. is somehow subject or should be subjected to other nations' laws. Hell, no. See my comments above.

Uhmmm, no you don't. The position he takes on how to retain our moral authority says absolutely nothing about requiring us to be subject to other nations law, just that if we are to retain our moral authority we need to practice what we preach. You appear to have fundamentally misunderstood the passage that you quoted.

As for the idea that you don't think we've lost any moral position, that's fine. What you think is irrelevant however since the focus of that passage is how we could use our moral authority to influence other countries. It only matters if THEY think we've lost our moral compass... and they do.

I noticed you deleted the part about Saddam, but I can't for the life of me see how our policies of torture have even the slightest thing to do with him.

I was going to bed as I wrote that part about Saddam - it was actually meant for another topic and I got to typing in the wrong reply box. Yaaaaawn!

I would dispute that torture was used systemically (weren't only 3 people subjected to enhanced methods in total?) and I would argue that the actual methodology employed was the lightest possible application to get information from someone dedicated to causing mass casualties and with operational knowledge of past and future attacks.

Don't get me wrong, waterboarding is no fun, but then neither is being forced to wear ladies panties unless, like KSM, you swing that way. But, c'mon, does this morally equate to real torture?

I wish we would save our sense of outrage for the millions killed in death camps, gas chambers, gulags, and the forced labor camps that were, and in some cases still are, found in such morally exemplary places like Russia, China, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, and all of the other morally superior places around the world. Why no outrage on this board and elsewhere over the rape rooms favored by Saddam's kids? See anything of the news reports filtering out of Iran where they seem to be torturing and killing hundreds this week? Anyone know where Daniel Pearlman's head rolled off to?

Moral authority is over rated in the face of mortal threat. In the arena of international relationships you want to talk softly and carry a big stick. Using the stick once in a while when it is really needed reminds everyone why it is there in the first place.

Sweet dreams!

 

[Moonbeam]

ironwing, not to belabor the excellent points you raised but PJ should understand that the international laws to which we should adhere were international as in international treaties meeting his criterion that we are subject to international law where we give our permission. That is what a treaty is.

And while is is all well and good for PJ to cowboy the loss of our international moral prestige and tell our allies to fuck off, that is not something that works in the real world. There is only one war in this world and that is for the hearts and souls of men and if we do not live up to the highest aspiration of the human heart we will become rubble on the ash heap of time. In the 1950 America produced giants among men but today we produce total brain dead moral scum like Bush.

 

[sandorski]

If the US has Ratified International Conventions containing Laws and the US breaks those Laws, then it should be subject to whatever Councils/Courts/or Other panels that were made to Enforce those Laws. You can not be both Under and Over the Law.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
ironwing, not to belabor the excellent points you raised but PJ should understand that the international laws to which we should adhere were international as in international treaties meeting his criterion that we are subject to international law where we give our permission. That is what a treaty is.

And while is is all well and good for PJ to cowboy the loss of our international moral prestige and tell our allies to fuck off, that is not something that works in the real world. There is only one war in this world and that is for the hearts and souls of men and if we do not live up to the highest aspiration of the human heart we will become rubble on the ash heap of time. In the 1950 America produced giants among men but today we produce total brain dead moral scum like Bush.

Well said, except for the last sentence.

Now I REALLY must be off to sleep...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
ironwing, not to belabor the excellent points you raised but PJ should understand that the international laws to which we should adhere were international as in international treaties meeting his criterion that we are subject to international law where we give our permission. That is what a treaty is.

And while is is all well and good for PJ to cowboy the loss of our international moral prestige and tell our allies to fuck off, that is not something that works in the real world. There is only one war in this world and that is for the hearts and souls of men and if we do not live up to the highest aspiration of the human heart we will become rubble on the ash heap of time. In the 1950 America produced giants among men but today we produce total brain dead moral scum like Bush.

Well said, except for the last sentence.

Now I REALLY must be off to sleep...

Thank you. I know those last sentences are irrational but I also know I'm right.

Bush is not a thinker and he isn't deep. He was worried about public opinion. He wanted to be a tough guy that could protect the nation by torturing bad guys and telling us their plans. He was a coward. He didn't trust our system. He had no faith in moral superiority. He was happy to treat the enemy as a worthless piece of shit, exactly like the terrorists were willing to treat innocent people they never met. He was a small man and he brought us down to their level. The terrorist won. They scared us into being the same kind of shit they are.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BLABBER
~~~ Blah Blah Blah. We are the US. Do as we say - not as we do.

John Yoo is a Great American.

And just because we are signatories to international treaties and have set forth rules in the Army Field Manual we don't necessarily have to abide by them.

Blah Blah Blah ~~~

You spent a lot of time arguing the legal basis for legal sovereignty of the US, when the part you quoted specifically mentioned that we need to adhere to these principles to maintain our moral position.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Bush is not a thinker and he isn't deep. He was worried about public opinion. He wanted to be a tough guy that could protect the nation by torturing bad guys and telling us their plans. He was a coward. He didn't trust our system. He had no faith in moral superiority. He was happy to treat the enemy as a worthless piece of shit, exactly like the terrorists were willing to treat innocent people they never met. He was a small man and he brought us down to their level. The terrorist won. They scared us into being the same kind of shit they are.

Nicely said.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
ironwing, not to belabor the excellent points you raised but PJ should understand that the international laws to which we should adhere were international as in international treaties meeting his criterion that we are subject to international law where we give our permission. That is what a treaty is.

And while is is all well and good for PJ to cowboy the loss of our international moral prestige and tell our allies to fuck off, that is not something that works in the real world. There is only one war in this world and that is for the hearts and souls of men and if we do not live up to the highest aspiration of the human heart we will become rubble on the ash heap of time. In the 1950 America produced giants among men but today we produce total brain dead moral scum like Bush.

Well said, except for the last sentence.

Now I REALLY must be off to sleep...

Thank you. I know those last sentences are irrational but I also know I'm right.

Bush is not a thinker and he isn't deep. He was worried about public opinion. He wanted to be a tough guy that could protect the nation by torturing bad guys and telling us their plans. He was a coward. He didn't trust our system. He had no faith in moral superiority. He was happy to treat the enemy as a worthless piece of shit, exactly like the terrorists were willing to treat innocent people they never met. He was a small man and he brought us down to their level. The terrorist won. They scared us into being the same kind of shit they are.

Yeah we should be inviting the terrorists into the oval office and perhaps issuing some sort of apology.. maybe pay some fines for our crimes against them. Our military should immediately turn in all their guns and be issued portable massage machines they can use on the terrorists when they find them.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
ironwing, not to belabor the excellent points you raised but PJ should understand that the international laws to which we should adhere were international as in international treaties meeting his criterion that we are subject to international law where we give our permission. That is what a treaty is.

And while is is all well and good for PJ to cowboy the loss of our international moral prestige and tell our allies to fuck off, that is not something that works in the real world. There is only one war in this world and that is for the hearts and souls of men and if we do not live up to the highest aspiration of the human heart we will become rubble on the ash heap of time. In the 1950 America produced giants among men but today we produce total brain dead moral scum like Bush.

Well said, except for the last sentence.

Now I REALLY must be off to sleep...

Thank you. I know those last sentences are irrational but I also know I'm right.

Bush is not a thinker and he isn't deep. He was worried about public opinion. He wanted to be a tough guy that could protect the nation by torturing bad guys and telling us their plans. He was a coward. He didn't trust our system. He had no faith in moral superiority. He was happy to treat the enemy as a worthless piece of shit, exactly like the terrorists were willing to treat innocent people they never met. He was a small man and he brought us down to their level. The terrorist won. They scared us into being the same kind of shit they are.

+++

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Bush is not a thinker and he isn't deep. He was worried about public opinion. He wanted to be a tough guy that could protect the nation by torturing bad guys and telling us their plans. He was a coward. He didn't trust our system. He had no faith in moral superiority. He was happy to treat the enemy as a worthless piece of shit, exactly like the terrorists were willing to treat innocent people they never met. He was a small man and he brought us down to their level. The terrorist won. They scared us into being the same kind of shit they are.

Nicely said.

No. Bush was and is a highly moral man who was charged with the protection of the country and like any moral man faced any number of dilemmas in doing so.

He would have preferred to be a grown up frat boy but was turned into a more mature and introspective gentleman through his mid-life introduction to and subsequent marriage to Laura Bush, a greater and more steadying influence on his world view than is generally acknowledged. We should all be so lucky.

He did not want to be a tough guy, far from it, but the circumstances of his time in office forced him to confront the evil and brutality of the world early on. That he chose to confront such a condition directly rather than seeking accommodation is a tribute to his character and we should never accept any less of those we choose to be our national leaders. We have yet to see the current President demonstrate such insight and we now take on the risk that he will only learn his hard lesson in a way that will cost us lives.

I laugh at the intimation that the decision to use enhanced interrogation was taken lightly or without great consideration of morality and legality. All of that deliberation can be found in easily available public records. Read them rather than the blogs for insight.

I challenge you to put yourself in the position of making such choices where the lives of thousands, if not millions, of American are at stake on 9/11 and the subsequent months and years as the threat is more fully understood after years of inattention.

Out of intellectual curiosity I do take some time to try to understand the perspective of men and women choosing the course of violence, anarchy and the tempting salvation from despair or the exultation which martyrdom represents. In the end, though, it doesn't really matter, for such people have always been manipulated into deadly action by more cynical players with more self serving goals. They are the true cowards. And it is the responsibility of responsible leaders in the U.S. to protect us from their intents.

I am kind of a results based guy. Bush and Cheney did their best to protect the country in a time of threat and under circumstances of inadequate intelligence and thus great uncertainty. They have been unfairly vilified, considering how successful they were in this task. Imagine the level of demonification they would have faced should their efforts been proved inadequate and the U.S. were subjected to more attacks at the level of 9/11?

The focus shifted to overseas locations, the battles were fought on foreign land rather than here and you now have very little fear of a future attack here. That may be a misplaced confidence as enemies still exist and the systems that spawn them are still active. You should pray that an appeasing leadership does not overcome the efforts that were expended in the recent past. History shows that appeasement and the lack of a reality based world view has resulted in war; we may be forced to learn this harsh lesson again.

 

[Lemon law]

Regardless of what we think of GWB&Cheney, its still the does the ends justify the means slippery slope question.

But even then, this thread dodges the other question, if a foreign entity like the Hague or any well respected international entity issues indictments against various individuals inside of the GWB administration who tortured, what will our AG Holder do then?

It seems to me that the USA must turn them over to be tried or violate the very treaties we are signatories to.