Hello:

Well, you got your Pelosi's who want to let bygones be bygones... Then you got your Constitutional lawyers like Glenn Greenwald, who wants accountability.

Where do you come down?

I'm talking specifically about the crimes of the Bush administration. Yes, I think he and his cohorts committed CRIMES punishable by prison time. I also understand that there's a constituancy who believes Bush broke no laws...

How do we resolve it? Should we investigate? Should we forget it? Why SHOULD we investigate? Or, in the alternative, why should we not? Is accountability good? Do we hold people to account because we want THEM to pay? Or do we hold people to account so that the public will SEE that they WILL be held accountable?

Do you think there's any thing to account for? Do you think that this stuff eminates only from radical people like me?

excon

"If the doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the presidency is to have any validity at all, it must be equally applicable to a president after his term of office has expired,"
Harry S Truman

Truman said this 2 years after he was
President when Congress tried to subpoenae him.
He was right and Congress backed down . The Republicans wanted to continue investigations into Bill Clintoon's actions after he left office and President Bush used executive privilege for the first time to block the subpoena .
President-elect Obama knows that he too will one day be a former President and if we don't want an endless cycle of tit-for-tat criminizing of politics then he too will continue with the precedent.
Judges presiding over criminal trials related to the Iran-contra affair blocked requests by defendants to make Ronald Reagan testify and release his diaries. Which means that in the past ;all 3 branches have refused to act on the executive decisions of former Presidents.

There is enough for government to do in the next term than to pursue witch-hunts and Stalinist show trials.

Investigate for what? Specifically?

Lol ; name it and someone thinks it's criminal. Obama is going to have to expand GITMO for all the people that will be purged. Pretty much any action the President did or authorized was done with Congressional approval.

Hello Steve:

Bush's interrogation, detention, and rendition policies. Let's not forget his domestic spying, either.

excon

In other words, rehashing the same investigations. Let’s spend a gazillion more dollars and waste a gazillion more congressional hours to investigate what’s already been investigated to death. We could call it a media bailout, that might get people watching the news and reading the papers again.

Excon dearie, you seem to forget that Bush is able to pardon people while he is still President. I am quite confident that he will not only pardon himself before he leaves on Jan 20th, but he will pardon Cheney, Rice, etc. etc. of any and all wrongdoings and then nobody can do diddly to any of these criminals. He's gotcha covered, don't worry.

Hello:


Do you think there's any thing to account for? Do you think that this stuff eminates only from radical people like me?

excon

No. Yes.

What's done is done, let's move on. The most these guys will get is a slap on the wrist, and it won't be the top guys, someone else will take the fall if there is any fall to be taken.

Unfortunately you were right in another thread you posted, there is 2 tier justice in America.

Hello again,

After WW ll, we executed people who waterboarded our prisoners... Today, instead of prosecuting OUR people for waterboarding, we just change the definition, and look the other way...

That might be fine for YOU. It AIN'T fine for me.

excon

The Japanese also used their POWs for bayonet drills, slave labor and beheading contests. Waterboarding was the least of their offense.

Hello tom:

You and I have had many discussions over the years regarding this VERY issue...

I SAY we should ACT because of who WE are. You say we should REACT because of who THEY are.

I'm right. You're wrong.

excon

It's true! It's true! The crown has made it clear.
The climate must be perfect all the year.

A law was made a distant moon ago here:
July and August cannot be too hot.
And there's a legal limit to the snow here
In Camelot.
The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot.
By order, summer lingers through September
In Camelot.
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it sounds a bit bizarre,
But in Camelot, Camelot
That's how conditions are.
The rain may never fall till after sundown.
By eight, the morning fog must disappear.
In short, there's simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot.

Camelot! Camelot!
I know it gives a person pause,
But in Camelot, Camelot
Those are the legal laws.
The snow may never slush upon the hillside.
By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear.
In short, there's simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot.

Hello Steve:

Bush's interrogation, detention, and rendition policies. Let's not forget his domestic spying, either.

excon

Weren't these issues already reviewed by the courts with no criminal activity being found? Wouldn't attempting to nail him on these issue count as double jeopardy, since they already went through the legal process?

Elliot

Maybe we could organise a shoe collecting drive?

Hello again,

After WW ll, we executed people who waterboarded our prisoners.... Today, instead of prosecuting OUR people for waterboarding, we just change the definition, and look the other way....

That might be fine for YOU. It AIN'T fine for me.

excon

I have read quite a bit of history in my time, Ex, but I have never seen anything about people being executed for waterboarding anyone in WWII.

Mind you, there were executions for actual cases of torture and mass murder in the wake of WWII, but at no time have I ever seen "torture" defined as or said to include "waterboarding" in any historical document or account I have seen. Have you?

Elliot

Hello tom:

You and I have had many discussions over the years regarding this VERY issue.....

I SAY we should ACT because of who WE are. You say we should REACT because of who THEY are.

I'm right. You're wrong.

excon

Such idealism...

If we don't do whatever is necessary to protect the country, there will be no country to act better than them. Practicality before idealism.

Besides, do you really think that, as bad as our interrogation techniques may be, we aren't still infinitely better than our enemies in our treatment of POWs... even illegal combatants? Do I need to recall for you the copies of the Gitmo menues, schedules of daily activities, lists of prayer and holy books and religious artifacts that have been delivered to the POWs?

Elliot

Elliot

If we don't do whatever is necessary to protect the country, there will be no country to act better than them. Practicality before idealism.


Yeah that's why I mentioned Camelot . In the old days I'd go on to explain the character Mordred .
American Presidents since at least Jackson have faced this dilemna. Lincoln ;credited with preserving the union was far from being clean in his actions . There are too many illustrations where Presidents have faced this very test and chose defending the country from external threat .

Tom,

It goes back long before Jackson. As a war-time general, I'm pretty sure that he had to do things to prisoners that would make the liberals of today SCREAM... I know that the British did bad things to Colonial POWs. And that was just seen as the nature of war.

Elliot

I would describe myself as mostly Democrat, but it's easy to see that Pelosi is letting by-gones be by-gones because we Democrats won the Whitehouse, Congress and Senate.

If McCain had of won, she would be calling for the heads of the Bush administration.

Clearly this is political so the Democrats don't get mired in what will be perceived to be a witch hunt whether there are true criminals or not from the prior administration.

So it's not principles, it's politics.

I prefer to stand on prinicples and all administrations once they leave power or while in power need to be accountable for their actions. Having said that, I don't believe that any serious charges would be brought against anyone because the rich and the powerful don't get the same justice in this country as the regular criminal... lol... the point is, as sad as it might be; I support letting by-gones be by-gones because it will be a huge waste of time, money and focus. None of which the government has in great supply.

A liberal is perfectly capable of saying that he or she should do something and yet will not do so; the conservative... is already moving as soon as the word "should" is pronounced.


- Bruce Fleming.


Terrorism occurred during the Clinton administration. It escalated and everyone agreed it was bad, but Clinton did nothing.
9/11 happened and President Bush did something about it, confronted terrorism for the evil that it is, and thank God, another 9/11 has not occurred.





g&p

Besides, do you really think that, as bad as our interrogation techniques may be, we aren't still infinitely better than our enemies in our treatment of POWs

We have a long way to go . Everyone forget Nick Berg already ?

Bill Roggio describes how the Taliban operates :
Taliban desecrate body of slain opposing tribal leader - The Long War Journal (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/12/taliban_desecrate_bo.php)
The leader of the tribal resistance was killed and two of his aides were beheaded last weekend after the Taliban overran the region controlled by the opposition.

After Samiullah was buried, the Taliban returned, dug up his body and hanged it in public. The Taliban made an example of Samiullah and those who oppose Fazlullah's rule.



It goes back long before Jackson

Yeah I know ;but Jackson was fresh in my mind because I'm in the middle of reading 'American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House'.

Everyone forget Nick Berg already Hello again, tom:

More evidence of your belief that we should ACT based upon who THEY are - not who WE are.

I DISAGREE. That ISN'T who we are as a nation... It NEVER was who we are, and it NEVER will be who we are. I don't understand how you missed that.

Frankly, a belief in tit for tat is no better than the Taliban...

excon

Did I say that I wanted a tit for tat response ? No I did not . But from a tactical point of view ;our winning hearts and minds is far less effective than their terrorizing hearts and minds . We will not defeat them with tea and crumpets.

Turns out the office of the President-elect is having 2nd thoughts about restricting interrogation techniques to those codified in the Army Manual . He is willing to entertain some CIA secret techniques . I guess the issue is not as black and white as it appears.
Print Story: Rollback on Torture? Not So Easy for Obama and the Dems - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081205/us_time/08599186473600/print)

Hello again, tom:

It IS black and white if you don't WANT to torture. It's grey if you do.

excon

Most of congress should be in jail for allowing what is happening in our country today to occur. I am not bashing one party. I said most of congress. Along with the heads of the major lending institutions who are raping the "bailout" of millions to line their own pockets.
As far as torture is concerned. Lets put into prospective a bit.
Lets say your daughter was raped and murdered. You found someone who knows about what actually happened and who did it. What would YOU do to get the information? Remember now there is no police in this scenario, just you to gather the information, find the culprit, and carry out punishment.

Hello again, 450:

Of course, you point out the Jack Bauer theory of torture... But, it's full of holes if one thinks about it a bit...

THAT'S the problem. We DON'T think about it very much. We just REACT.

And, that's the very reason why we, as a society, give the power to punish to the state. One hopes the state would act WITHOUT emotion.

Course, THESE guys don't think much. Cause, in the example above, how do you KNOW that you found someone who knows what you want to know? Did somebody tell you? If they did, go ask him? How would HE know, anyway??

Of course, the answer in your scenario, is you DON'T KNOW that the guy you're about to torture knows anything - you only THINK you know.

excon

Did not say I would torture them I asked what YOU would do in this case?
Personally I will do what ever it takes to ensure the safety of MY family. And in my example above I would do only as much as necessary to gain the information I needed to take me to the next step.
That could mean water boarding ( not torture) sleep deprivation ( not torture) or it could mean that I feed him only food that is forbid by is religion to gain the information. Remember in my scenario I am the judge and jury and excutioner.

Unlike most of the koolaid crowd I have actually been in war. It is not pretty, people die every day. Burning to death is a horrible method of killing people, but War is Hell. But in a War you do what ever is necessary to achieve victory. Otherwise there is no reason to go into battle.

Hello again, 450:

I think you missed what I said. You usually do.

excon

Did not say I would torture them I asked what YOU would do in this case?
Personally I will do what ever it takes to ensure the safety of MY family. and in my example above I would do only as much as necessary to gain the information I needed to take me to the next step.
That could mean water boarding ( not torture) sleep deprivation ( not torture) or it could mean that I feed him only food that is forbid by is religion to gain the information. Remember in my scenario I am the judge and jury and excutioner.

Unlike most of the koolaid crowd I have actually been in war. It is not pretty, people die every day. Burning to death is a horrible method of killing people, but War is Hell. But in a War you do what ever is necessary to achieve victory. Otherwise there is no reason to go into battle.



You don't think waterboarding is torture?

I don't understand why when people have made themselves very clear your answers boil down to disrespect and "Well, what would YOU do?," followed by some impossible and usually illegal scenario.

Please define torture for me.

and in my example above I would do only as much as necessary to gain the information I needed to take me to the next step.Hello again, 450:

I ask you again, how do you know the guy HAS the information you need?? I submit, that you don't. Period, plain and simple.

Oh, and by the way, I've been in a few battles mydamnself - koolaid and all.

excon

Hello again, 450:

I ask you again, how do you know the guy HAS the information you need???? I submit, that you don't. Period, plain and simple.

Oh, and by the way, I've been in a few battles mydamnself - koolaid and all.

excon



Well, you know what they say - War is Hell.

Please define torture for me

The crux of the problem . Some would say making a prisoner uncomfortable is torture. Others like me say that waterboarding ;the most extreme interogation technique used (and on only 3 terrorists )doesn't meet the definition of torture. Others like me say it doesn't come close when compared to... oh lets say the mutilation that was done to the Jews by the jihadists in Mumbai before they were executed .

Like I said "the office of the President-elect " is having a difficult time adequately defining what crosses the line.

Hello again,

If you want to torture, as this president and his supporters do, you could just redefine it. And, they did. If you didn't want to, the definition is clear.

excon