Obama failing to defend torture law
Follow the blog on TWITTER
Technically speaking, torture is still against the law. The words are still there, in Title 18 of the U.S. Code:
“Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”
But thanks in part to President Barack Obama, those words have all the relevance of an archaic law prohibiting pig-selling on Sunday. They mean nothing.
Publicly, Obama claims America has changed course. On his first day in office, he signed an executive order halting “enhanced interrogations.” But that did not restore the rule of law; it weakened it further. If one executive order can ban torture, as Obama claims, then another such order can restore it, simple as that.
And let’s at least be honest — what we have done is torture, sanctioned at the highest levels of government and at least tacitly accepted if not explicitly endorsed by Congress, including leading Democrats. Let’s at least have the moral courage to acknowledge that fact.
In World War II, waterboarding was torture when Japanese soldiers inflicted it on Americans such as Lt. Chase Jay Nielsen, captured in the famous Doolittle Raid on Tokyo. In a tactic that sounds all too familiar, the Japanese claimed the treatment was legal because Nielsen was a war criminal not entitled to protection as a prisoner of war. In later war-crime trials, that defense failed.
To Lt. Col. William Harrison, it was torture when inflicted by North Korean Communists.
“They used the water treatment. They would bend my head back, put a towel over my face and pour water over the towel. I could not breathe. This went on for hour after, day after day. It was freezing cold. When I would pass out, they would shake me and begin again. They would leave me tied to the chair with the water freezing on and around me.”
That is not “fraternity hazing.” It is torture. If it is torture when inflicted on Americans by others, it is torture when we Americans do it. We torture. In the eyes of the world and whatever God you might worship, we torture.
That is difficult for many to accept because we are Americans and we are supposed to be different: Our strength is in our principles and commitment to values.
But what did it take to make us throw all that away? Nineteen men armed with a plan and box cutters?
That is Osama bin Laden’s victory: He scared us into fleeing the high ground.
“All these things vanished when the Mujahideen hit you, and you then implemented the methods of the same documented governments that you used to curse,” bin Laden chortled in 2002. “… What happens in Guantanamo is a historical embarrassment to America and its values, and it screams into your faces: ‘You hypocrites, what is the value of your signature on any agreement or treaty?’ ”
As bin Laden understands, the biggest canard of all is that the strong are willing to torture, to do what is necessary, while the weak shy from it. It takes no toughness to order the torture of a creature who is helpless to defend himself, a creature over whom you have absolute control. To the contrary, you torture because you fear that helpless creature — you do so because your fear is greater than the principles of civilization you tell yourselves you are defending.
On the eve of our invasion of Iraq, President Bush issued a warning to the Iraqi military: “War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, ‘I was just following orders.’ ”
If a president is to have the credibility make such statements again, we have to restore the rule of law. We should do so not through a criminal probe of what individuals may have done — creating legal scapegoats for a policy that too many supported for too long — but with a candid, nonpartisan investigation of what we did as a nation. Rather than block such a probe, Obama should insist upon it.
�
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
206 comments Add your comment
Copyleft
April 30th, 2009
9:51 am
ask what is better to not torture and have a highground and suffer a terrorist attack with thousands of Americans being killed or injured, or is it worse to possibly get less than rosey with a few know and admitted terrorist?
Let me ask you the same question, what, but phrased differently:
Which is more important–sticking to our principles and values in dangerous times, or abandoning them in the name of security?
It’s an easy answer for me. I suspect, sadly, that it’s just as easy for you.
Copyleft
April 30th, 2009
9:53 am
It amazes me how many of you want a weaker America. It is such a shame!
Truth: It certainly is. It’s shameful how many people have already surrendered to the terrorists and willing to give up on everything America stands for, just to feel “safer.” That kind of weakness is pathetic.
Solution
April 30th, 2009
9:57 am
Truth, as with most things, it depends on ones perspective.
You think that ‘x’ makes America weaker, I think ‘x’ makes America stronger.
Truth
April 30th, 2009
10:00 am
Copyleft… What is pathetic is you and your people having no backbone whatsoever. And dont act like you wanta strong America. I see the hate you spew each and every day on here. Your kind surrendered a long time ago!
getalife
April 30th, 2009
10:02 am
The solution is simple.
The scared trolls should leave this country since we do not torture anymore.
Get out and move to a country that tortures.
Simple solution.
Taxpayer
April 30th, 2009
10:03 am
What the heck, I like facts. I like…eggs too. Chicken eggs, that is. I don’t know about the goosy ones. Further, I think polls are interesting but they do not factor into my beliefs beyond the fact that they exist. I may even talk about them from time to time but that does not mean that I rely on them for anything other than conversation. Further, if someone uses a poll to make a point, I may even use a poll in response but even that would not make be a ‘believer’ in polls. It would simply mean that one good poll deserves another or live by the poll, die by the poll, etc. By the way, I voted for Obama and don’t regret doing so.
Copyleft
April 30th, 2009
10:05 am
Well said, Getalife. If you want a country that tortures people in the name of security, move to Iran or Afghanistan. America don’t do that s***t.
what
April 30th, 2009
10:07 am
Copyleft,
Sticking to our values is more important.
You may want to do a little history lesson though this ain’t the first time we have tortured. ACtually have a long history of it, so I guess we are sticking to our priniples and values. They may not be YOUR values but they have been America’s for a long time.
Also isn’t one of our principles something along the lines of
LIFE, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.
Kinda hard to do the life and happy thing when someone blows up the building you are in.
I fel that you underestimate the terrorist threat because it has been handled fairly well as far as keeping us domesticlly safe. So possibly you underestimate the fact that some peoples only focus and goal in life is to harm or kill US.
Taxpayer
April 30th, 2009
10:09 am
Wow, copyleft! Are you an alien or something. “…You people…” “…your kind…” The Truth is out there and I think you hit his sore spot. Ouch.
Ray
April 30th, 2009
10:09 am
Do these animals that threaten our country have two identities? Are they one thing on the battle field when they are a combatant and fair game for the first sniper who can bring them down….. permanently? Then their identity must change when we confine them and call them detainees. They must take on a new aura, gain a halo over their head and become our friends.
News flash….. they are the same people. Why are the Somali pirates who held Phillips fair game for the Seals when in that lifeboat and then become different people without Phillips? Would the pirates be fair game without Phillips being on the life raft? They are also the same people. Motives, ambitions& threats to our country do not change just because these cretins are incarcerated. They are still the same people with the same objectives…. putting our head on a pole. It’s not a perfect world, libs and trying to make it one will only put our country at greater risk.
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
10:11 am
The rule of law is the rule of law. If laws can be broken at convenience laws are worthless. Thats the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy. In a democracy, the law applies from the top to the bottom of the society. Those at the top dont get to decide to violate the laws for any reason, especially not because they personally deem it for the good of the nation. From that perspective, if it were for the good of the country to seize everyone’s private property or their guns, the second amendment could be tossed out at the blink of an eye.
And of course that then makes true what Islamic fundamentalist have all along said about the United States. That it supports brutal dictators who jail, torture and kill those who oppose their rule.That was what caused the Islamic Revolution in Iran and also why they decided to take over the American Embassy. They captured the records that implicated American CIA officers stationed at the Embassy had tortured or assisted in the Savak torture tens of thousands of the Shahs opponents of every political persuasion, the greatest number being students who wanted a democratically elected government instead of a King. It also makes a total mockery of overthrowing Saddam Hussein because he imprisoned and tortured his opponents. Liberating a nation from someone who imprisons, kills and tortures his enemies by imprisoning, killing and torturing your own enemies is pretty senseless at best, hypocritical at worse, immoral in any case.
what
April 30th, 2009
10:12 am
great getalife so all who disagree should leave?
Real sound thinking.
Remember it was you that was in the minority only a time ago.
I for one am glad you stayed, but kinda snobbish to say all who now don’t agree should leave.
But thanks for teh ignorance.
Thogwummpy
April 30th, 2009
10:14 am
Here’s the thing Bookman’s ilk doesn’t want you to know. Journalists still stuck in their 8 year-long War on Bush (much of it based on fabrication, distortion, and omission); is that in 1994, Congress passed and Anti-Torture bill. You see, “torture” is a rather AMBIGUOUS term—-like “beauty” or “healthy”, the specifics of what it is, is open to subjective interpretation. HOWEVER, under that law in 1994; certain guidelines were determined. The Bush Administration cited that law; AND that law was the basis that the lawyers used to write those now controversial memos. Their reccomendation of what constituted harsh interrogation; was set upon the ‘94 framework which said what could not be done. Waterboading, was NOT considered torture under the 94 law. Lefties such as Bookman and the current President, have this odd arrogance where they think that they can retroactively go back in time and re-set facts—that’s why the Bush administration lawyers might wind-up fighting in court (criminalizing political adversary’s positions after the fact; is a trait of fascist regimes). Is waterboarding actually “torture”? Well, if Clinton had done it….no. But, it’s become a pillar of the anti-Bush witch hunt that they just can’t let go of…they had 8 years to pin something on Bush, and couldn’t do it—-so they’re trying to manipulate this topic because the Bookmans of the world dream they can one day indict the former President.
In the process, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Code Pink, Daily Kos, MoveOn, etc.—-care more about giving Al Qaeda terrorists (NOT protected under the Geneva Conventions), full civil rights of Americans…..than they care about whether your family and mine are killed by these psychopaths.
sd
April 30th, 2009
10:15 am
“Why are the Somali pirates who held Phillips fair game for the Seals when in that lifeboat and then become different people without Phillips? ”
Because its the law. Why can I drive my car as fast as I want on a sanctioned race track, but have to drive slowly on public roads? Isn’t it the same car?
Truth
April 30th, 2009
10:15 am
Getalife… I recieved an email a few months ago. You might like it:
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists,
Marxists, and “you know who” supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950’s, but the whole of this
latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I
know, we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future
generations, but, sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two
ideological sides of America cannot, and will not ever agree on what
is right, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile, chalk
it up to irreconcilable differences, and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each
taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our
two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that it should be
relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly
divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate
tastes.
We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are
welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and
war, we’ll take firearms, cops, the NRA, and the military. You can
keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O’Donnell (You are, however,
responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all
three of them) .
We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies,
Wal-Mart, and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless,
homeboys, hippies, and illegal aliens. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan
hockey moms, greedy CEO’s, and rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and
give you NBC and Hollywood .
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right
to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the
peaceniks, and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are
under assault, we’ll help provide them security.
We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam,
Scientology, Humanism, and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.
But we will no longer be paying the bill.
We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can
take every Subaru station wagon you can find.
You can give everyone healthcare, if you can find any practicing
doctors. We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a
right. We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National
Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute Imagine, I’d Like to
Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya, or We Are the World.
We’ll practice trickle down economics, and you can give trickle up
poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you we’ll keep our
history, our name, and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so please pass it along to other like
minded liberal and conservative patriots, and if you do not agree,
just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you ANWAR
which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Taxpayer
April 30th, 2009
10:16 am
If the police are chasing a criminal, they have the authority to shoot to kill if need be. However, if they capture the criminal and incarcerate him, they cannot subsequently restrain and torture him in order to extract information from him. That’s the way it is and the way it should be as long as you don’t want to be in the same category as the criminal. Of course, if you have no problem with being a criminal, that’s your short-coming, your cross to bear. Go for it and if you get caught and convicted, then you suffer the consequences. OK. Or, will you now debate the rule of law.
getalife
April 30th, 2009
10:16 am
Lets face it, after one attack a group of thugs changed our country. Not an Army of millions, a group of thugs, a gang if you will.
One attack.
This is one Americans that will not allow a gang to change our country. That is weak and patheic.
Man up Americans and don’t let thugs change our country. If you can’t man up, just leave like the cowards you truly are.
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
10:23 am
The primary argument made by the Nazi leaders at Nuremberg is that they were following orders. The American head of the trials used every law available to prove that there is a higher law than obeying laws that are immoral. Letting the torture slide is basically overturns every sentence that was handed down at Nuremberg, because by the laws of Germany, every single perpertrator was obeying the law of the land they resided in. We were only following orders did not cut it in 1946-1948, it should not be given a pass today.
Copyleft
April 30th, 2009
10:23 am
Mike: Yes, I’ve seen that tantrum before. And I’d mostly agree to it! Of course, we’d be the ones calling our country “America,” since we’re keeping all its values and ideals. And we’ll keep the Constitution too, since the far right has so little use for it.
To What and WhatNow: Yes, I’m well aware that America has fallen short of its ideals–MANY times. Does that mean we should no longer have them?
If we change who and what we are because “these enemies are especially bad, and I’m a-skeered of ‘em!”, then we never actually had any principles to begin with. I’ll stand OR FALL by my principles, thank you… and America, the “land of the free and home of the BRAVE,” will too.
sd
April 30th, 2009
10:24 am
A lot of you think that paying income tax is wrong. However, since its the law, I bet you think that people who cheat on their income taxes should be punished. Why? Because its the law.
Same thing here. Maybe you feel that its fine to torture, but thats not the question. Is it against the law?
Kamchak
April 30th, 2009
10:25 am
getalife
This group of thugs don’t want to leave–they want to secede–and by “secede” I mean they want us to give them a large piece of this country.
Susan Myers
April 30th, 2009
10:25 am
Lindsay Graham: “We Lost Young People Because Our Republican Brand Is Tainted”
Ya think, Lindsay? Geez.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/lindsay-graham-we-lost-yo_n_193318.html
Jay
April 30th, 2009
10:33 am
Thogwhumpy, what you have posted is a complete and utter fabrication.
The law you cite — the same law I cite in my post — defines torture. Among its definitions, torture is anything that puts the detainee in fear of imminent death.
By all accounts, waterboarding puts you in fear of imminent death. It creates the sensation of drowning, and in fact IS a controlled form of drowning. By the very law you cite, you are wrong.
Furthermore, the “controversial” memos you cite have been repudiated, not by Obama or the courts but by the Bush administration itself. Even Bush officials have had to admit that those memos were absurd distortions of the law, and as such have been withdrawn.
Furthermore, prosecution of top Bush officials would not “turn policy differences into a crime.” The law making torture a crime was passed in 1994, as you conveniently note. It existed then, it existed now.
What you and others are trying to do is turn a crime into a policy difference.
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
10:33 am
“We have stuck together since the late 1950’s, but the whole of this
latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I
know, we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future
generations, but, sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two
ideological sides of America cannot, and will not ever agree on what
is right, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile, chalk
it up to irreconcilable differences, and go our own way.”
Why did we stick together. Because back in the 1950’s the main thing that most citizens thought was “If I break the law, I will get caught and I will have to pay the penalty for getting caught”
Over the last three decades that has become decidedly different, because the rules now basically say. “I might be able to get away with it”
Everytime someone at a higher level commits a crime and is given a slap on the wrist, or even pardoned, as those who were involved in Iran Contra, or any similar event, were pardoned, makes a mockery of the laws of the land. When we see our highest officials breaking the law, and having the ability to forgive themselves for it, the law no longer has any weight. No longer has any meaning.
I remember when Leona Helmsley dared to simply state “Only little people pay taxes” both the public and the law went after her like white on rice.
Nowadays she would make a phone call to a political buddy and she would get a small fine at best.
When there are no laws, and no regulations, people will do whatever their power allows them to get away with.
This applies to the current economic mess. The lack of legal consequences, regulations, etc, made a Bernie Madoff possible. It made the entire economic mess possible because a few hundred very wealthy and powerful men knew they had a chance of making a fortune, getting away with it, and destroying the lives of hundred of millions, or billions of people worldwide.
When the laws are working properly and are equitably applied, fewer people are inclined to break them,because there WILL be punishment.
The right is very strict about applying the law to those on the lower end of the social spectrum. Drug dealers, petty thieves do more time in jail than those who defraud millions of Americans out of billions of dollars.
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
10:36 am
Fortunately America is not based on Judeo Christian values. The Founding Fathers were very clear about how little they thought of Judeo Christian values and they were very careful to publically state that the laws of America were not based on Christianity. Virtually all of them gave a critique of the history of Christian society. Most simply said it was evil.
chuck
April 30th, 2009
10:38 am
Actually Ms. Godzilla, it’s the left that advocates torturing near-term babies.
MIKE, you should have written this column. You are exactly right. Anyone who thinks that Obama released those documents for any other reason than political payback is hopelessly naive.
Jay, Do YOU advocate prosecuting drill sergeants and training officers? IF WATERBOARDING IS BY DEFINITION, TORTURE, then wouldn’t it’s use on our own soldiers in training be prosecutable? There is no provision in the law or definitions that would differentiate between the 2.
If you look carefully at the definition of torture as it applies to that code section of federal law, there would have to be the “threat of imminent death”, for it to be considered torture. Has anyone waterboarded in OUR custody DIED from the technique? NO!!! Anyone with a brain should know by now that waterboarding SIMULATES the FEELING of drowning but does not ACTUALLY CAUSE one to drown. If you KNOW that waterboarding will not kill you, then there is no threat of IMMINENT DEATH. If there is no threat of imminent death, then there is NO TORTURE. How can we call it torture when we use it in the training of our own troops?
Further, your comparisons to the Japanese and Korean situations don’t hold true. Enemy combatants are constantly monitored as they are interrogated. A physician is always present and great pains are taken to ensure that the methods don’t go too far. That is the difference between the way we do things and the way our enemies do things.
Personally, I WOULD RATHER UNDERGO WATERBOARDING than to have to see the BLATANT politicization of this issue by the Barack HUSSEIN Obama Administration and Nancy Pelosi.
On a differnt topic, did anyone notice that our president is now our chief hygiene officer? Ya’ll wash your hands now.
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
10:38 am
Simply put, the fish rots from the head down. The more those at the top set a criminal example, the more crime you will see at the bottom.
Steve
April 30th, 2009
10:41 am
Susan,
I’m not too worried about your ‘witchcraft’, just your desire to determine who it is OK to use torture on. I don’t remember Limbaugh or Hannity shooting guns at US citizens or threating to blow up innocents.
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
10:44 am
The standard for torture is not if the person it is being applied to dies or not. America made the worldwide laws on which all torture laws are based. Asserting that if the person does not die, or if they are being monitored, does not wash. You cannot put an electrical heart monitor on a person you are waterboarding. If you look at the American laws on torture it also includes anything that causes extreme physical or mental anguish.
Aside from that, if you read the constitution, ANY treaty that the United States enters into, becomes the law of the land, and is to be enforced by all courts from the lowest, to the highest, as the law of the land. As article six of the Constitution points out:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Susan Myers
April 30th, 2009
10:45 am
Stevie,
Beware!
chuck
April 30th, 2009
10:46 am
copyleft, you said:
It’s shameful how many people have already surrendered to the terrorists and willing to give up on everything America stands for, just to feel “safer.”
Would you apply that principle to your side of the aisle in it’s quest to destroy America’s values as they apply to personal responsibility, capitalism, laissez-faire, integrity of our borders, national sovereignty, etc…?
As usual, you only value the “AMERICAN VALUES” THAT FIT IN WITH YOUR NAMBY-PAMBY APPEASEMENT VIEW OF THE WORLD.
Old Physics Teacher
April 30th, 2009
10:46 am
“Which one of those four men has an adoring, slavish, lying and sycophant media at his every command?”
oh, oh OH!!!!!! I got this! I got this! All of them, right?!
Geeze, dude, All media, except maybe Faux News, bows and scrapes no matter which party is in office. The difference with Faux News is that they only act as sycophants to reactionary Republicans. At least they’re straight up about it. They know, and everybody knows, that “Fair and Balanced” guff is just a slogan. But you…don’t look now, but your hypocrisy is showing.
RW-(the original)
April 30th, 2009
10:46 am
Pardon me Thogwhumpy, but this needs clarification.
The law you cite — the same law I cite in my post — defines torture. Among its definitions, torture is anything that puts the detainee in fear of imminent death.
Talk about complete and utter fabrications. The law doesn’t say that at all and Jay B knows it. Read it here.
Or here:
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
A,B,C,& D are only illegal if they cause what’s listed in item 2.
Bye again! See y’all upstairs at happy hour.
Mrs. Godzilla
April 30th, 2009
10:47 am
oh chuck!
brilliant the abortion defense for torture!
wowee wow wow wow!
and then you do a “hannity”…..oh ya torture me oh baby
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
10:48 am
Or to put it more plainly. Every international treaty that the United States has signed, has the same and full weight as any American law. until Congress sees fit to vote to repeal that treaty.
RW-(the original)
April 30th, 2009
10:48 am
WTF? Sorry about the link failure above.
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
10:51 am
The process is: The president signs a treaty, it becomes law when Congress ratifies it, and after that the president cannot UNDO the treaty without the approval of the Congress who then “de-ratify” it.
Before the President can break the United Nations Charter, The Nuremberg Conventions, the Vienna Conventions, The Geneva conventions that we have signed and ratified, the president must go back to Congress and request that they vote to remove America from the treaty itself. Can’t legally decide to violate parts of them, or even have the president interpret them himself. They are inviolable laws of the United States once ratified.
Paul
April 30th, 2009
10:54 am
Well of course torture is still against the law. Defining specific acts as torture is the crux of the problem.
Title 18 creates an exception to the statute right off the bat (“other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions”). So, there are some instances in which a person acting under color of law, intending to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering, is protected.
We’ve also been around the block on another key idea: to qualify, it must cause ‘prolonged’ mental harm. But the point is, the law is not settled. It sets up general guidelines, then one has to weigh specific practices against it.
That is what the Bush Administration did in going to the Justice Dept Office of Legal Counsel for an opinion. If the Bush Administration truly did not care about the rule of law (I know, I know, some will say they were merely covering themselves) they would have skipped the step. The majority opinions said waterboarding did not qualify under this statute. Others disagreed. Welcome to opinions.
So now we have two difficulties: first, some here advocate prosecution attorneys for providing their professional opinion. Good luck on getting people to work in the OLC after this. Second, we’d establish precedent whereby gov’t employees acting in good faith can be prosecuted when subsequent litigation adopts a differing opinion. Even if later repudiated, the key point is the status of understanding at the time.
It’s similar to all the arguments regarding the Second Amendment: some say it’s clear that anyone can have any gun they want. Not, so, say others – that’s for a militia. Yet both sides acted as if they’re completely correct and the other is absolutely wrong.
That’s the difficulty I see with the assertion “another Executive Order can restore torture.” We’re focusing on specific practices, at the time deemed to be more than normal interrogation practices yet less than torture. Any future Order would have to go through the same process the Bush Administration went through, presupposing there will be an Office of Legal Counsel to render an opinion.
A fundamental aspect of law is that if something is not prohibited, it is permitted. That’s one reason we have so many laws (an exception is federal appropriation law: gov’t employees can spend money only on that which is specifically authorized). It’s the “is there anything that says I can’t” rule. In this case, there were opinions that said “no, there’s not.”
And I think that’s what Pres Obama is trying to avoid. He’s discussed general principles of conduct and wants to move past the exceptional times that brought about exceptional actions. And I think he understands the difficult, as President, of initiating action that may result in precedent by which he may not want to be bound.
CopyLeft 9:51
[[Which is more important–sticking to our principles and values in dangerous times, or abandoning them in the name of security?]]
That’s nice – and was the idea behind my postings last night on Keith Olbermann changing positions and endorsing waterboarding. Not for security, but to teach someone a lesson. Or to apply it to someone with whom he disagrees and doesn’t like. Abandoning principles for ratings, ego and money. Then justifying it as ‘different.’
For the Future
April 30th, 2009
10:54 am
NPR had an interesting story this morning about this subject. Hayden absolutely defends the practice stating we got very good information and also saved the country from yet another attack. The CIA was the unit using the waterboarding methods. An interrogator with the Armed Forces however, stated his way of getting information was to walk in the room, Quaran in hand, use a quote from it and ask the suspect a question about the Muslim religon. Not using torture but using your brain to try to get the information out. The one result he quoted was it took the CIA 3 years to try to get a lock on Zarquowi (sp), it took the Army interragator two months to find and kill him – using no torture. the example he uses is with torture, you will get the information about the house your looking for, without torture, you will also find the house is boobytrapped. TORTURE ONLY SERVES TO HURT THIS COUNTRY!
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
10:56 am
This link states that this law has only been law since 2007.
Need to look at previous laws, as well as treaties that the United States is signatory to. These are considered to have the full weight of any domestic law passed by congress because treaties are ratified by Congress. Ratification of a treaty means that the United States accepts the conditions of those treaties as law.
Ray
April 30th, 2009
10:56 am
SD,
What an absurd comparison. Same car, different driver? I think not. Oh, and by the way, how are we going to bring these animals to justice for what they did? Try them in American courts of law and afford them the same rights as American citizens? Then maybe we can give them food stamps and a “new start”. Maybe if we show them how nice we are, they will start liking us. “Coming to a neighborhood near you”….. In the 60s, some Americans bought one way bus tickets for a bunch of welfare moms and their kids to Hyannisport so that the Kennedys could take care of them. In Truth’s new distribution of America, you can have them too. Let’s encourage all of these animals to move to San Francisco…. maybe there are a few houses in Ms Pelosi’s neighborhood.
Dan
April 30th, 2009
10:59 am
The laws need defining not defending. Of course if the current democratic congress actually did draft a law defining certain acts as torture that would defacto mean they were not previously and then they wouldn’t not be able to display the false outrage. Do you really think Pelosi, Hilary and others didn’t know what was going on?? If it were being done behind the scenes there would be no memos
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
11:00 am
The laws that govern torture in the United States apply to torture committed within the United States borders. Torture committed by Americans outside of the United States are subject to international treaties that the U.S. is signatory to.
2340A. Torture
How Current is This? (a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
With regard to waterboarding at Guantanamo (because it is a United States military base, therefore United States territory, the laws of the United States apply)
At CIA stations in other countries, international law applies, unless the CIA stations are inside of diplomatic properties of the United States, wherein they become U.S. territory according to international laws of diplomacy. If a CIA agent, for example, were torturing a prisoner at the U.S. Embassy in some European nation, they would be commiting the act in the United States.
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
11:03 am
“Oh, and by the way, how are we going to bring these animals to justice for what they did? Try them in American courts of law and afford them the same rights as American citizens?”
Yup, we are going to bring them to justice by following the treaties we signed, and are now U.S. law, and by U.S. Law.
The idea that we can violate the laws because other people break them is too absurd to consider.
Copyleft
April 30th, 2009
11:04 am
Chuck: If you’d read the first page of this topic, you would have seen your “troop training” excuse already addressed. The difference between waterboarding a volunteer and waterboarding a prisoner is roughly the same as the difference between charity and mugging. One is voluntary; the other is not.
And your complaints about “values” seems odd: where are “capitalism, laissez-faire, and integrity of our borders” mentioned in the U.S. Constitution? Laissez-faire has never been an American principle; border security is arguably related to national defense, and capitalism? Heck, capitalism’s just an economic option, one among many. Nothing sacred or quintessentially “American” about it.
getalife
April 30th, 2009
11:13 am
Cons allowed obl and his thugs to change our country.
Cowards, pure and simple.
What would these cowards do if we are invaded like Iraq?
We know they would surrender.
Weak and pitiful.
]
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
11:13 am
The one thing that Hayden is not telling you is how Al Qaeda is structured. And they are modeled after the Algerian resistance. Basically you capture anyone, from the top to the bottom, and you can find nothing out except the operations they already finished.
This is why the Algerians kicked the French out of Algeria. And the French tortured these guys like hell. Made what we are doing to Al Qaeda look like playing patty-cake.
We train our own CIA operatives the same way. They only know what they need to know at the time they need to know is, so if they are captured, they can give nothing up. Nothing of consequence.
Other nations have gotten more out about the CIA by BUYING off high level agents, not by capturing and torturing them.
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
11:17 am
And on that NPR program where Hayden claimed they got important info, agents who were directly involved with the waterboarding stated that EVERYTHING they got out of these two top Al Qaeda people, they got during the time they were treating the wounds that occured during their capture. Simply while talking to them while they were removing bullets, bandaging the wounds, while they were in pain from the wounds, or zonked out from the pain medications given to them to relieve the pain from the wounds. Nothing of consequence during the waterboarding.
Truth
April 30th, 2009
11:18 am
Getalife… You honestly think you leftists would fight and the conservatives would tuck tail and run if we were invaded?
Ray
April 30th, 2009
11:19 am
The winners write the history. If we spoke German now, Ike and Patton would have had their own Nurnberg trials. Instead, they got medals and became war heros for killing Germans. The Demos are interpreting and writing their version of recent history. But the kicker is that they are politicians with something to gain…… re-election. Of course, they all knew what was going on. If they didn’t, they didn’t do their job very well.
Jay
April 30th, 2009
11:24 am
Dan, current law — the same law that existed during the time torture was an officially sanctioned policy — defines it quite clearly and explicitly.
It states:
As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
If we deal ONLY with the issue of waterboarding, it is clearly torture under at least two of those standards:
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(C) the threat of imminent death;
Besides the clear language of the law, there is also the question of precedent. In U.S. courts and international war tribunals in which the US has participated, waterboarding has repeatedly been classified as torture, every time. There is NO exception in precedent.
Mrs. Godzilla
April 30th, 2009
11:25 am
“RICE: The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture. So that’s — And by the way, I didn’t authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency, that they had policy authorization, subject to the Justice Department’s clearance. That’s what I did.”
How Nixonian!
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
11:28 am
And the guy who contradicted Hayden was far closer to the interrogation than Hayden,Bush or Cheney or any of those saying torture works on NPR yesterday as well:
Matthew Alexander is an advocate of a different kind of interrogation — one that builds rapport, like the kind of technique you see on television cop shows. Alexander was a military interrogator in Iraq and doesn’t see the need for rough questioning.
“One of my best techniques for building rapport was to bring into the interrogation booth a copy, my copy, of the Koran and to recite a verse out of it or to ask questions about Islam,” he said.
It is important to know that Matthew Alexander wasn’t just any run-of-the-mill military interrogator. He was in charge of an interrogation team working on one of the most important counterterrorism operations of the war: the hunt for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man in charge of al-Qaida in Iraq.
Jay
April 30th, 2009
11:29 am
Paul, there is no exception or qualifier.
“… incidental to lawful sanctions” refers to legally imposed punishments, such as the death penalty. That’s what “lawful sanctions” means.
Of course someone about to be put to death would be in fear of death. But since that is “incidental to lawful sanctions,” it is not torture.
Joe Matarotz
April 30th, 2009
11:30 am
The President may have failed to defend the torture law, but he did say that we a being vigilant in confronting swine flu. I don’t know what that means, but I fell better already. Maybe he had to make an executive decision whether to defend the torture law or vigilantly confront swine flu. He is a man of action, no doubt about it.
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
11:32 am
More of Alexanders interview AFTER Hayden’s interview:
“I know on the chase to Zarqawi we had several people during that chase who didn’t talk,” Alexander says. “But that was OK. We used the opportunities with detainees we couldn’t convince to cooperate to become better interrogators. And it was those skills we developed in those interrogations that allowed us to break the detainees who led us to Zarqawi.”
Alexander’s experience in Iraq is particularly instructive in the context of the current debate over whether harsh interrogation techniques work. That’s because Alexander and his team followed international standards for questioning and didn’t use any of the rough techniques the CIA adopted. And yet, without waterboarding or stress positions, Alexander says, he not only helped track down al-Qaida’s top man in Iraq but also managed to give the military better information.
“When you use coercion, a detainee might tell you the location of a house, but if you use cooperation they will tell you if the house is booby-trapped, and that’s a very important difference,” says Alexander. He says his success in Iraq proves that torture isn’t necessary to break a terrorist
Hayden claims results. Doesnt tell about how many Americans died checking out the results and found that they tortured these guys into leading people into a trap
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
11:37 am
Actually, Jefferson,Madison and Franklin didnt think much of laissez faire capitalism, and in fact distrusted it and so beleived that businesses should be heavily regulated. There were many more business regulations AFTER the American Revolution than under the British.
The founders found the idea that the “market would regulate itself” laughable. They were well aware that the wealthy could use their wealth to sway the markets in their own favor and while doing so harm thousands of other owners of small businesses.
That is why laissez faire is not mentioned in the constitution. Smith was developing his ideas at the same time the founding fathers were and were well aware of his ideas. They did not accept them as they beleived that the weathly and powerful needed to be restrained.
chuck
April 30th, 2009
11:37 am
Excuse me copyleft but your assertion included the following qualifier:
>>>>everything America stands for<<<<
I don’t see anything that says that it has to be in the Constitution. Because whether or not you agree, America has ALWAYS “STOOD FOR”, those things that I listed…ALWAYS. Nice try at obfuscation but you should recall that it doesn’t work on me. I actually pay attention to what others write.
But since you mention it, WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT GIVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE OVER A PRIVATE BANK? Where in the Constitution does it give the federal government to force a PRIVATE business to take federal money and then control how they pay their employees? Where in the constitution does it allow the federal government to control education in the states, create national parks, forcibly take money from Americans for social “security”, create the CDC, pay people who don’t work, regulate businesses that lie completely within one state, OH MAN, I could go on for ages, but you get the point.
As for the “troop training” issue being “addressed” on the first page, I assume you were referring to your lame argument that it was “voluntary”. That is not the point. As I pointed out DIRECTLY FROM THE CODE QUOTED BY JAY, the law does not make any exceptions for that. Here is an analogy for you:
If a bank manager tells the robber it is okay to rob the bank, would the robber still be prosecuted? One person cannot VOLUNTARILY aloow another person to break the law.
M. Parrot
April 30th, 2009
11:39 am
Wow I never thought I would see the day were I agree with Bookman.
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
11:45 am
Or as Jefferson put it:
The “rich” and the role they play have always been a threat to liberty, leading Jefferson to observe,
“That liberty [is pure] which is to go to all, and not to the few or the rich alone.” –Thomas Jefferson to Horatio Gates, 1798.
and:
“Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.
The founders were extremely distrustful of deregulating business to the point at which the wealthy had more influence over government than anyone else, and formulated rules to attempt to prevent this from occuring.
Taxpayer
April 30th, 2009
11:45 am
Does chuck come with an interpreter.
getalife
April 30th, 2009
11:51 am
Truth,
Yes, I do,
cons want to close the border because of con flu.
Cowards, pure and simple.
I Report/ You Whine
April 30th, 2009
11:52 am
I was out in the garden and was attacked by a tiny little fuzzy killer caterpillar, it caused me much severe emotional pain and distress, torture if you’d like to call it that, oh wait a minute, no it didn’t, I’m a man, not sissy.
Never mind.
Evil United States, boo! liberals boo!
I Report/ You Whine
April 30th, 2009
11:55 am
So which is worse, closing the border to keep the dregs of society out or having a National Hidey Under Your Beddie Day like Hairplugs Biden wants?
Susan Myers
April 30th, 2009
11:55 am
Here’s a fascinating article about the man who was in charge of interrogating 500 spies for England during WWII. England was being bombed daily and people were dying while these spies had the information needed to save lives. The guy’s nickname was Tin Eye. He not only got the information, but he also turned dozens of these spies into double agents who worked for him. And he expressly forbade any form of physical violence at all. It’s in the London Times online and it makes for interesting reading. This guy was not nice and he didn’t, unlike Churchill, take this stance on a moral basis. He insisted on it because it worked and the other way didn’t.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article729216.ece
your local black man
April 30th, 2009
11:56 am
Re: 101airborne
If somebody kidnapped your child or children and you or the authorities catch this person. He or she refuse to tell you where your scared hungry & thirsty kids are unless you give them a large sum of money that you don’t have access to, what are you going to do? Give them a cigar and pedicure! Or better yet, take them to a concert and shower them with gifts and chocolates. I feel if you have the right to protect yourself by any means necessary then you should do what ever it takes to get those kids back, by any means necessary!
AmVet
April 30th, 2009
11:58 am
Poll after poll after poll, survey after survey after survey – the same new song and dance.
America, excluding the lunatic fringe, has no trust in these fake conservatives. And accordingly, they’ve been fired for gross incompetence.
WASHINGTON — The public widely views Republicans as less competent than Democrats to handle issue ranging from healthcare to education and energy, according to internal polling presented to top GOP officials in Congress..
The survey found the public holds greater confidence in Democrats than in Republicans in handling most of the issues that are involved in Obama’s legislative agenda.
Democrats were favored by a margin of 61 percent to 29 percent on education; 59 percent to 30 percent on health care and 59 percent to 31 percent on energy. Congress is expected to consider major legislation in all three areas this year.
Those surveyed also consider Democrats more adept at handling taxes, long a Republican strong suit. The only issue among nine in the survey where the two parties were rated as even was in the war on terror.
The survey found Obama’s job approval at 62 percent, in line with other recent polls. Moderate Republicans disapproved of his job performance by a relatively narrow margin of 44-39 percent, and self-described conservative independents by a somewhat larger margin of 51-36 percent. Conservative Republicans overwhelmingly disapproved, 75-18.
pat
April 30th, 2009
11:59 am
” It takes no toughness to order the torture of a creature who is helpless to defend himself, a creature over whom you have absolute control. To the contrary, you torture because you fear that helpless creature — you do so because your fear is greater than the principles of civilization you tell yourselves you are defending.”
Sound like your talking about abortion…But not only do you torture, you murder in the process.
Aside from that. I aggree torture is a bad thing, but we did it, and will continue to do it. We may not here about it, but it will happen…Every country and every administration has it’s dark dirty little secrets we will never know. That’s just the way it is…Obama keeps his language ambiguous because he knows just that…He may have use it one day, God forbid.
Taxpayer
April 30th, 2009
12:02 pm
A violation of the law is, of course, a big deal, especially on something this grave and important. This is not a jaywalking ticket. There were 34 suspected or confirmed homicides of detainees, some clearly due to torture. It does not get any more serious than this. But what is even worse is if you set the precedent that violations of the law like this will not have any consequences. That is bigger than the crime itself.
Paul
April 30th, 2009
12:17 pm
Jay 11:29
Of course that’s what it means. It’s there as it is conceivable the pain and suffering someone felt (as in some death penalty procedures) would feel the same to the person as that which under this statute is defined as torture.
So I cited it to illustrate that the very same procedures, the very same pain that is illegal in one circumstance is lawful in another.
It’s not a justification, it’s what is according to sometimes arbitrary decisions of law. But it does address the point of absolutists who say ‘this is always wrong.”
But I think the statute is full of qualifiers. Again, I am not defending waterboarding. I am saying each procedure that comes up for any extraordinary interrogation method would likely have to follow the “ask DOJ and have a foundation to proceed” route.
And if people disagree with that later, then then let the law evolve. But don’t prosecute.
I really don’t think this will come up again for a while. The ten-year gap in understanding what we were up against immediately following a massive homeland attack should not occur in our lifetimes. The sense of fear, uncertainty and urgency likely will not recur, absent other systemic failures. But the desire to politicize and punish policy disputes or differences of opinion will recur – regularly. And that’s a problem
And I still think current serving officials, as well as those who left service prior to 2001, would be just a tad concerned about the potential for personal damage if these standards are applied uniformly, regardless of party or position. But maybe that’s too great an expectation and is why some are not all that concerned about their past involvement. Whether they recall it or not.
chuck
April 30th, 2009
12:43 pm
Jay, I think you and others on the left are falling right into Obama’s trap. Some on the right are doing it as well. The dems WANT us talking about this rather than having us focus on THE REAL CRIMES BEING PERPETRATED ON THIS COUNTRY BY THE DEMS.
Some examples:
H.R. 1913 the latest version of hate crimes legislation that will essentially keep ANYONE from opposing gay rights publicly without fear of prosecution.
Obama’s “budget” and I use the term loosely because the word implies to a degree fiscal planning, of 3.4 TRILLION DOLLARS.
Plans to in some cases triple what we pay for gas, oil, and electricity.
If we are talking about prosecutions that ARE NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN, we will ignore the truly important debates that we should be having.
Jake
April 30th, 2009
12:48 pm
We have a long history of torture and worse, the firebombing of Tokyo, My Lai, and Abu Ghraib bieng just a few examples. War is a nasty business. BTW, there’s lots of precedence for not prosecuting law breakers too. I always think of Reagan admitting he approved providing arms to the Iranians, but no one prosceuted him.
chuck
April 30th, 2009
12:48 pm
As a side note, has anyone noticed how they do interrogations on TV shows? The cops go in and just talk nicely to the criminals and they just go ahead and confess. Is it any wonder the “hollywood” left thinks it will work in the real world?
Shawny
April 30th, 2009
12:53 pm
Be careful what you ask for whey asking for investigation into this issue. Just ask Nancy:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/30/pelosis_tortured_explanation_96262.html
Typical politician. Not a leader.
md
April 30th, 2009
1:05 pm
Jay,
Per your clarification:
“An unarmed, bound captive who is helpless and completely under your control poses an entirely different situation.”
Does that not describe a baby in the womb?
And yes Mrs G, the abortion argument, but not to defend torture as you surmise, but to point out the hypocrisy and inconsistency associated with defining torture and defining abortion. It is illogical to define one as morally wrong and then defend the other as morally right. The mantra on the left is “Live and let live”, unless of course one hasn’t made it out of the womb.
As for rule of law bandied about on these boards – definitions, and nothing more, changed and applied by individuals according to a set of given principles and agendas at a given moment.
Paul
April 30th, 2009
1:15 pm
Shawny
I liked that part from the link: when it involved Spkr Pelosi, certain techniques definitely were NOT torture, which is why she referred to them as “enhanced interrogation methods.”
LOLOLOLOL!!
This is really too much!
oscardagrch
April 30th, 2009
1:23 pm
Law, say the gardeners, is the sun,
Law is the one
All gardeners obey
To-morrow, yesterday, to-day.
Law is the wisdom of the old,
The impotent grandfathers feebly scold;
The grandchildren put out a treble tongue,
Law is the senses of the young.
Law, says the priest with a priestly look,
Expounding to an unpriestly people,
Law is the words in my priestly book,
Law is my pulpit and my steeple.
Law, says the judge as he looks down his nose,
Speaking clearly and most severely,
Law is as I’ve told you before,
Law is as you know I suppose,
Law is but let me explain it once more,
Law is The Law.
Yet law-abiding scholars write:
Law is neither wrong nor right,
Law is only crimes
Punished by places and by times,
Law is the clothes men wear
Anytime, anywhere,
Law is Good morning and Good night.
Others say, Law is our Fate;
Others say, Law is our State;
Others say, others say
Law is no more,
Law has gone away.
And always the loud angry crowd,
Very angry and very loud,
Law is We,
And always the soft idiot softly Me.
If we, dear, know we know no more
Than they about the Law,
If I no more than you
Know what we should and should not do
Except that all agree
Gladly or miserably
That the Law is
And that all know this
If therefore thinking it absurd
To identify Law with some other word,
Unlike so many men
I cannot say Law is again,
No more than they can we suppress
The universal wish to guess
Or slip out of our own position
Into an unconcerned condition.
Although I can at least confine
Your vanity and mine
To stating timidly
A timid similarity,
We shall boast anyvay:
Like love I say.
Like love we don’t know where or why,
Like love we can’t compel or fly,
Like love we often weep,
Like love we seldom keep.
Copyleft
April 30th, 2009
1:31 pm
So now Chuck wants to change the subject…. what a huge surprise.
The problem, Chuck, is that the “values” you expressed are YOUR values–not “American” ones. They’re just your personal preferences.
Jay has already pointed to tons of laws, documents, and precedent that define what America stands for when it comes to torture: we DON’T, period. Where’s your support for the so-called “American value” of laissez-faire capitalism?
Cindy
April 30th, 2009
2:11 pm
Torture, including waterboarding = illegal per US Code in spite of old white house “memos”
“Patial birth” abortion = illegal
So right wingers do you agree to both? Or do you pick your morals?
Geez.
md
April 30th, 2009
2:18 pm
Cindy,
Same question to you without the touchy feely definition of “life”.
Is it OK to torture/kill infants and not older humans? And just answer the question vs recite some definition that justifies the act against one but not the other.
chuck
April 30th, 2009
2:19 pm
Laissez-Faire capitalism began with “Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith in 1776. It was the primary economic philosophy UNTIL the 1930’s. I would call that a pretty good indication that it is a philosophy that is part of what America has “STOOD FOR”. We began losing our way during the FDR Administration and continued to flounder under the so-called Keynsian model until the Great Ronald Reagan was elected. Hayek and Friedman began espousing a return to the Smith model (which by the way, was followed by Jefferson, despite the false rantings of NJ…See, “The government which governs best, governs least.”) in the 1970’s after the debacle of Johnson’s “Great Society”. Most of that was finally unraveled by the Republican Congress in the 1990’s.
BTW, I don’t hold Republicans blameless in all of this. The reason we have elected such a HORRIBLE choice for President is that Republicans dropped the ball really beginning about 5 years ago…That’s right, they started acting like democrats.
Jake
April 30th, 2009
2:29 pm
Jay, didn’t you learn anything from My Lai? Prosecution accomplishes nothing. Some low level flunky (2nd Louie Calley) takes the rap and everyone else gets acquitted or has the charges dropped. It’s war, it’s a bad law, Obama promised we won’t do it again, just let it go.
Jay
April 30th, 2009
2:36 pm
Jake, I fully agree. That is precisely the argument I have used for why I do NOT support prosecution, but instead want a commission with subpoena power and the ability to grant amnesty to all who testify truthfully.
chuck
April 30th, 2009
2:40 pm
Jay, Why in the world would we do that? It makes no sense. It is nothing more than an opportunity for a political pound of flesh. Who do you think would be appointed to that commission? THERE IS no way for it to be non-partisan.
Paul
April 30th, 2009
2:40 pm
Jay
And as you wrote the other day, it appears the majority party is trying to game the system. Too bad. This is one case where good could have come from a horrid situation.
chuck
April 30th, 2009
2:41 pm
SOMETIMES, we don’t need openess in government. This is one of those times.
TnGelding
April 30th, 2009
2:44 pm
Then what’s the point? It would be too distracting and split the country even more, if that’s possible. I’m thinking it’s probably business as usual at the CIA and Pentagon, and with Obama’s blessing.
Jay
April 30th, 2009
2:59 pm
Chuck, most people agree that the 9/11 Commission did its work in a nonpartisan fashion. A few people have been critical of its work for various reasons, but partisanship is not generally among them.
ESR
April 30th, 2009
3:02 pm
I can’t believe some of you keep referring to the two bombs in Japan that ended the mass slaughter of Americans as something torturous. Watch a few of the old grainy films of the Japanese soldiers putting our soldiers in 8 foot holes, alive, then dousing them with gasoline and listening to them scream with smiles on their faces. Every person of Japanese heritage alive today better be glad we spared the lives we did spare. Many people think we should have bombed that island and every living thing on it to hell and back.
Joe
April 30th, 2009
3:03 pm
I personally don’t care what they do to extract info from terrorists. They can pull finger nails, pour salt in wounds, or shock them for all I care. The folks shouldn’t even know about this but since the media hates Bush so much they want to flaunt it as much as possible to try and make him look bad. The simple fact is water boarding works. If you libturds think we should take the moral high ground on this why don’t you follow suit. Stop supporting homo marriage because as anyone with a brain knows it’s immoral. Stop supporting the legalization of drugs because it too is immoral. Baby killing which you lib freaks like to call abortion is certainly immoral. I could go on and on.
chuck
April 30th, 2009
3:05 pm
Yes Jay, the 9/11 commission did an okay job, but the political rancor has been ratcheted way up since then. Obama has way too many people hollering for prosecution and they are his political base. Because of that, he has been more partisan than any president in recent memory, I think going all the way back to LBJ. Have you heard the rhetoric coming out of the democrats since the election? They have come to the conclusion that they are now a god-like, all powerful entity that can do whatever they want to do. Very Cheney-like if you asked me.
Hillbilly Deluxe
April 30th, 2009
3:13 pm
what @ 9:50
You raise a valid question but it’d take a smarter man than me to know the answer. I think the system is set up to benefit incumbents, regardless of party. That’s awfully hard to change.
Paul @10:54
Sort of off topic but I wonder how many people know that Georgia counties are divided into Militia Districts?
Paul
April 30th, 2009
3:15 pm
Hillybilly Deluxe
You SURE you want to go there on this blog?
earlgreyhot
April 30th, 2009
3:25 pm
Hey is that Joe…the plumber? I ask because your arguement sure is full of sh*t so maybe you should put those plumbing skills to use. Gay marriage harms no one and is between two consenting adults (adult being something I’m guess Joe is not). Drawing a parallel between that and torture demonstrates that Repugnuts have gone off the deep end and are hopefully drowning in their own pool of swill.
Cindy
April 30th, 2009
3:30 pm
Torture isn’t the only way to extract true information. Yes, one might get an ear full. Torture wasn’t the sole method of questoning that extracted vital National Security information and we don’t yet know if torture vitctims provided any useful information that could not have been or was not obtained through other methods. How many people without National Security information did we torture? And why the need to torture so many times? Even the memos sounded like granting an exeption in seriously threatening circumstances that in themselves were abused. That, alone is enough to say, stick with federal law: no torture.
md
No, it is not okay to kill viable infants, children or adults.
Jake
April 30th, 2009
3:54 pm
ESR – I bring that up often although I usually refer to the March 9 1945 firebombing of Tokyo, which preceeded the August nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. American bombers dropped 500,000 M-69 incendiary devices on Tokyo that night. When an M-69 ignited it shot out a 100 foot flame. The asphalt melted under 1800 degree heat and we burned about 100,000 women, children and very old men to death that night in what is widely recognized now as a war crime.
Here’s why I mention it. The attack on Pearl killed about 2500, all but 60 or so were military personnel. In return we burned 100,000 civilians to death and then nuked 200,000 more. Terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into public bulidings killing 3,000 civilians and people are whining about pouring a little water on a few terrorists heads! We’ve lost our way. From Wounded Knee to Tokyo to My Lai Americans have always been willing to do whatever it takes to defeat and demoralize the enemy. Now half the country wants a war crimes tribunal to prosecute the former president for authorizing a little waterboarding. ‘Thus conscience does make cowards of us all.’
Mob_Barley
April 30th, 2009
3:57 pm
“Liberals can’t have it both ways. Waterboarding can’t be considered torture when late-term abortion never was.”
waterboarding and abortion are no where near the same thing. Water boarding is torture (because it is cruel and inhumane.) late stage abortion is more like murder than torture. (torture and murder are very different- if john mccain died during his period of torture it would be called murder.)
think before you type!
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
4:20 pm
Yes, conservative consistantly push for a weaker America from the point of view of liberals.
You cannot be strong without friends and you cannot have friends if you are a bully.
The main reason that pirates captured an American captain off the coast of Somalia?
The Europeans got so sick of our attitude that they stopped patrolling the region for the United States.
For a long time, in order for the U.S. to be able to position its ships so that they could provide support for the Iraq War, The United States asked Germany and France to take up a larger portion of the shared duties for policing that area as well as protecting access to the Suez Canal, and they were capturing all sorts of pirates and Al Qaeda terrorists trying to smuggle weapons and explosives in that area. Their citizens simply got tired of the abuse, and the governments pulled their naval forces out. The French cut back assisting from their base in Djibouti as well.
N.J,
April 30th, 2009
4:42 pm
Another thing that Europeans are rather ticked about is that they get little thanks for the role they are playing in Afghanistan with their 60,000 troops compared to our 20-30,000.
There is a lot of talk in Europe about disbanding NATO because it no longer serves any purpose and so that these other countries will not continually be called by the U.S. to assist it in its unending efforts to be the worlds policeman.
md
April 30th, 2009
6:38 pm
Cindy,
Your president says it is. Any outrage there?