Hello:

I'm a law and order fellow. I suppose that sounds surprising to some of you, but I believe in the rule of law.

Any RIGHTY will tell you that the reason we hold people accountable for their actions, is not only to punish them, but to send a signal that illegal behavior isn't acceptable...

So, I don't want to see the dufus or vice in jail because I don't like them. I want to see them in jail because they're criminals, and I don't want any future president thinking he can get away with breaking the law...

That was the whole idea behind the Nixon impeachment. We demanded accountability...

However, today, we'd rather let bygones be bygones. We don't want to stir up anything. We're happy with just letting things lie...

I don't know why. I really don't. You righty's wanted to impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job, but you don't want to impeach (or at least try) vice for waterboarding??

The fact of the matter is, it's not ABOUT the dufus or vice. It's about US.

excon

PS> To speech, where he'll say that they've BEEN fully investigated already, I say, BUNK! They've NOT been investigated by the Justice Department, and the gutless congress wasn't willing to issue subpoenas. Why?? Because they went ALONG with the torture and they're guilty TOO. Yes, I'm speaking about Madam Pelosi.

I think one of the greatest achievements of the US was investigating Richard Nixon and exposing his criminality. How many other countries would have the courage to hold their President accountable to the laws of the land? Not many. That is what makes America great, principles above personalities or office.

So I am all for an investigation, but I don't want it turning into a partisan witch hunt. If laws were clearly broken, people need to pay.

Quote:

---

Why?? Because they went ALONG with the torture and they're guilty TOO. Yes, I'm speaking about Madam Pelosi.

---

Why aren't you calling for their removal from office and imprisonment ?

I'm sure Eric Holder has plans to start rounding up the Bushies once he is in office. He isn't in the business of preventing terrorism .He is more interested in securing pardons for terrorists.

What I want to know is how soon after the Obots take control will Charlie Rangel be imprisoned?
Chris Dodd be imprisoned?
Barney Frank be jailed?
Chuck Schumer be incarcerated??

How would these Stalinist-like show trials look like ?
Circus hearings and investigations, subpoenas, depositions and grand juries, for the purpose of tripping up the targets (ala Scotter Libby ), so that they can more handily be prosecuted for the offenses of making false statements, perjury or obstruction of justice.

Then, we would have the trials ;motions and delays, obsessively followed by MSNBC filling in the time with endless commentary from Keith Olberman.

Bush Administration officials were not thieves lining their own pockets. Theirs so called crimes were to exercise the powers of government on our behalf. You can disagree with the decisions they reached but the fact is that they were making decisions based on a legitimate interpretation of Article 2 of the constitution .

So what is really being proposed is the ability of an incoming administration to criminalize political decisions of the previous administration. 4 or 8 years down the road the Obots could face a similar fate.

You really want to get on here and get puffy about how Lefties value the rule of law? "Attorney general nominee Eric H. Holder Jr. repeatedly pushed some of his subordinates at the Clinton Justice Department to drop their opposition to a controversial 1999 grant of clemency to 16 members of two violent Puerto Rican nationalist organizations, according to interviews and documents." Eric Holder pushed for controversial clemency - Los Angeles Times
The poblem with Lefties is they want to stamp out and imprison those who don't think like those on the Left. Good luck!

Hello tom:

Couple things. You should excuse me. There isn't ROOM to mention ALL the guilty people, conspirators included. Every single one of them should be jailed - every one. If they were told we are waterboarding people and they did NOTHING, they're conspirators. I don't know if those particular people should go the slam, but there absolutely should be a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. Let the chips fall where they may.

And, it matters NOT, that they didn't line their own pockets... We put LOTS of people in jail who didn't do that.

Plus, you got it backwards above... I'm not suggesting we CRIMINALIZE a political decision. I'm suggesting that if a political decision was CRIMINAL, then we need to hold the "decider's" accountable.

excon

What law was broken ? Congress did not pass a law against waterboarding until 2006 .

Hello again, tom:

I'm having trouble thinking it was legal before 2006. But, like Sara Palin said, I'll get back to you on that one, Katie.

But, if they didn't break our laws, they for sure broke international law. And, they for sure broke the Geneva Convention. So, how would you feel about the Europeans capturing vice or the decider when they're on a trip over there, and trying them in the Hague? If WE don't hold them accountable here, the world might. Go for it, world.

But, forget about torture for a minute... They also broke the FISA law when they illegally spied upon Americans WITHOUT a warrant. They should be jailed for THAT. I got a whole laundry list of lawbreaking they did. I've only just started.

excon

Lol ;I've no doubt that the Hague would hold a trial for dunking KSM for 30 seconds. Meanwhile the leaders of over a dozen countries that really torture (according to Human Rights Watch ) have not been captured ,and I hear of no plans to do so.

As for FISA, my same general argument applies . It was not Congress but the Constitution that vested the president with surveillance authority. Yes the president could be impeached for abusing it (as Nixon would have been had he not resigned first ). But the power is a component of the Executive authority forged by Article II, not a creation of statute. Pressed to defend himself Bush should argue that the FISA law itself is unconstitutional because it took away a constitutional executive authority from the President and gave it to the Judiciary.

If Congress thought there was an abuse of power they should've impeached . This business of going after him when he is an ex-President is chicken sh*t in my opinion.

Love the pre-emptive strike, ex. Sorry if I have a hard time buying into the notion that Bush, Cheney, Pelosi, etc. are war criminals deserving of prison. My outrage might be stirred a little more if half the people so eager to see Bush behind bars didn't think Che Guevara was a hero and Hugo Chavez is a great role model.

Yeah I get it, we aren't everyone else so we shouldn't be like them, but all this disdain for an administration (and a wishy-washy congress) I believe has honestly thought they were doing what was needed to protect us falls flat over some rather subjective ideas of what constitutes torture by people who can't seem to figure out what we're fighting in Islamofascist terrorists. In light of the lack of outrage over say, Hezbollah hiding behind the civilian population of Lebanon, Hamas firing rockets indiscriminately into Israel while maintaining in its charter the dedication to Israel's destruction, Chavez and his cadre of dictators, Putin flexing his muscles and Iran and the mullahs…it just seems to me that we have bigger fish to fry.

And like tom said, this business of going after Bush now is pathetic. If they really had anything they surely should have done something by now.

Hello again:

Below are the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950:

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

Principle II

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

---------------------

For you, Steve. You're not alone. You've verbalized the Reasonable American Consensus on torture. It's the agreed-upon method for dismissing away -- mitigating and even justifying -- the fact that our leaders, more or less out in the open, instituted a systematic torture regime with the consent of our key elite institutions and a huge bulk of the American citizenry, engaging in behaviors which, for decades, we insisted were inexcusable war crimes when engaged in by others. This is how we phrased it when WE did it:

When American leaders did it, it was different -- fundamentally different -- than when those evil/foreign/dictator actual-war-criminals did it. Our leaders had good reasons for doing it. They were kind and magnanimous torturers. They committed war crimes with a pure heart. They tortured because they were scared, because they felt guilty that they failed to protect their citizens on 9/11, because they were eager -- granted: perhaps too eager -- to keep us, their loyal subjects, safe from The Murderous Terrorists.

excon

Actually, it's this that I take exception to, the idea that we "instituted a systematic torture regime," the idea that we regularly, intentionally, without remorse or regard for human life engaged in codified "inexcusable war crimes."

As terrible as waterboarding may seem (one case I believe it was), does Khalid show any signs of serious mental harm from it? Were we intentionally maiming, mutilating and raping the detainees? I don't think so, but if so then sure, let's jail the whole lot of them. Not one congressman, senator, aide, cabinet member, CIA agent or anyone else left out. While we're at it, let's prosecute the NY Times and their sources for leaking classified information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Were we intentionally maiming, mutilating and raping the detainees?

---

Umm, yeah!!
Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hoe you all haven't forgotten about Alberto R. Gonzales, the biggest criminal of them all!

Quote:

---

The U.S. Department of Defense removed seventeen soldiers and officers from duty, and seven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery. Between May 2004 and September 2005, seven soldiers were convicted in courts martial, sentenced to federal prison time, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, Specialist Charles Graner, and his former fiancée, Specialist Lynndie England, were sentenced to ten years and three years in prison, respectively, in trials ending on January 14, 2005 and September 26, 2005. The commanding officer at the prison, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, was demoted to the rank of Colonel on May 5, 2005.

---

People were held accountable. I don't believe anyone has shown that maiming, mutilating and raping the detainees was official US policy have they? The Wikipedi article does state an executive order approved "sleep deprivation, hooding prisoners, playing loud music, removing all detainees' clothing, forcing them to stand in so-called "stress positions", and the use of dogs." Is that torture?

The Washington compost admits that the office of the President-elect will have a" perilous balancing act to fulfill his pledge to make a clean break with the detention and interrogation policies of the Bush administration while still effectively ensuring the nation's security."
Obama Under Pressure On Interrogation Policy

Lol ;this is where campaign rhetoric meets reality road.

by the way : did you hear Obama's waffling during his interview with George Stephanopolis ?

They were talking about Cheney's advice that he calm down and find out exactly what was being done before he needlessly limit his options :
OBAMA: For example, Vice President Cheney I think continues to defend what he calls extraordinary measures or procedures when it comes to interrogations and from my view waterboarding is torture. I have said that under my administration we will not torture.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about them taking that to the next step. Right now the CIA has a special program, would you require that that program -- basically every government interrogation program be under the same standard, be in accordance with the army field manual?

OBAMA: My general view is that our United States military is under fire and has huge stakes in getting good intelligence. And if our top army commanders feel comfortable with interrogation techniques that are squarely within the boundaries of rule of law, our constitution and international standards, then those are things that we should be able to (INAUDIBLE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no more special CIA program?

OBAMA: I'm not going to lay out a particular program because again, I thought that Cheney's advice was good, which is let's make sure we know everything that's being done. But the interesting thing George was that during the campaign, although John McCain and I had a lot of differences on a lot of issues, this is one where we didn't have a difference, which is that it is possible for us to keep the American people safe while still adhering to our core values and ideals and that's what I intend to carry forward in my administration.
ABC News: 'This Week' Transcript: Barack Obama

To refresh Obama's memory... McCain initially supported limiting interrogations to the Army Field Manual . But when Sen FrankenFeinstein introduced an amendment to make it law ,McCain opposed it.

Then Feinstein herself got that "flexibility " bug according to the NY Slimes :
But in an interview on Tuesday, Mrs. Feinstein indicated that extreme cases might call for flexibility. “I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible,” she said, raising the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/us...1&ref=politics

Her cosponsor on the Army Field manual amendment,Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, said :
he would consult with the C.I.A. and approve interrogation techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual as long as they were “legal, humane and noncoercive.” But Mr. Wyden declined to say whether C.I.A. techniques ought to be made public.

Hmmm ......secret interrogation techniques .

EXCON- I like your thinking...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

btw : did you hear Obama's waffling during his interview with George Stephanopolis ?

They were talking about Cheney's advice that he calm down and find out exactly what was being done before he needlessly limit his options :
OBAMA: For example, Vice President Cheney I think continues to defend what he calls extraordinary measures or procedures when it comes to interrogations and from my view waterboarding is torture. I have said that under my administration we will not torture.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about them taking that to the next step. Right now the CIA has a special program, would you require that that program -- basically every government interrogation program be under the same standard, be in accordance with the army field manual?

OBAMA: My general view is that our United States military is under fire and has huge stakes in getting good intelligence. And if our top army commanders feel comfortable with interrogation techniques that are squarely within the boundaries of rule of law, our constitution and international standards, then those are things that we should be able to (INAUDIBLE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no more special CIA program?

OBAMA: I'm not going to lay out a particular program because again, I thought that Cheney's advice was good, which is let's make sure we know everything that's being done. But the interesting thing George was that during the campaign, although John McCain and I had a lot of differences on a lot of issues, this is one where we didn't have a difference, which is that it is possible for us to keep the American people safe while still adhering to our core values and ideals and that's what I intend to carry forward in my administration.
ABC News: 'This Week' Transcript: Barack Obama

To refresh Obama's memory .....McCain initially supported limiting interrogations to the Army Field Manual . But when Sen FrankenFeinstein introduced an amendment to make it law ,McCain opposed it.

Then Feinstein herself got that "flexibility " bug according to the NY Slimes :
But in an interview on Tuesday, Mrs. Feinstein indicated that extreme cases might call for flexibility. “I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible,” she said, raising the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/us...1&ref=politics

Her cosponsor on the Army Field manual amendment,Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, said :
he would consult with the C.I.A. and approve interrogation techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual as long as they were “legal, humane and noncoercive.” But Mr. Wyden declined to say whether C.I.A. techniques ought to be made public.

Hmmm ......secret interrogation techniques .

---

Well you should be appauding then, shouldn't you?:D

Flexibility? No!! Have you also noticed that the media is starting to favor the term "harsh methods" now?

The media? They might be propagandists?

Hello again:

Let me close this thread with a few truths...

Things are backwards today... Used to be, that the RIGHT were the law and order people... They ARE, but only when it comes to peons... When it comes to high government officials, nahhh, not so much...

It's clear, that Obama is not going to prosecute... It doesn't make me happy.

The word "liberal" has undergone a remarkable transformation over the last eight years. All that's necessary to qualify is a belief in such radical, exotic and fringe-leftist concepts as search warrants before the Government can eavesdrop on our communications; due process before the state can lock people up for life; adherence to decades-old Geneva Conventions restrictions which post-World-War-II America led the way in implementing; and the need for an actual, imminent threat from another country before we bomb, invade, occupy and destroy it.

But, wait. Liberals are worse than that... Would you believe that liberals NOW adopt the shrill, ideological belief that high government officials must abide by our laws and should be treated like any other citizen when they break them. To believe that now makes you not just a "liberal," but worse: a "liberal score-settler."

Apparently, one can attain the glorious status of being a conservative, only if one believes that high political officials (and our most powerful industries, such as the telecoms) should be able to break numerous laws (i.e.: commit felonies), openly admit that they've done so, and then be immunized from all consequences.

Yup, down is up -up is down.

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm PROUD to BE a law and order guy, now that you folks have abandoned the phrase.

excon

As nuanced as you are, excon, you will enjoy this: "Barack Obama was elected partly to cleanse the temple of the Bush-Cheney stain, and in his campaign speeches he promised to reverse Cheney's efforts to seize power for the White House in the war on terror.

"It may not be so simple." Obama's Cheney Dilemma | Newsweek Politics: The Obama Presidency | Newsweek.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

It may not be so simple

---

Hello again, George:

It's true. The dufus broke it SOOOO badly, that it might NOT be fixable. Specially when there's a consensus to KEEP doing it...

I, however, being the law and order guy I am, believe that we can "preserve and protect the Constitution", AND keep us safe.

But, what do I know?

excon

During WWII The Roosevelt Adm gathered up 110,000 Japanese-Americans and sent them to interior concentration camps . The Constitution and the nations survived that and Roosevelt is considered one of the great Presidents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

during WWII The Roosevelt Adm gathered up 110,000 Japanese-Americans and sent them to interior concentration camps . The Constitution and the nations survived that and Roosevelt is considered one of the great Presidents.

---

Sounds all well and good from a historical perspective; but it was nightmare for Japanese-American individuals who believed that being American meant the constitution protected them too.

I don't know your background, but if the next wave of terrorists start looking like you and you get locked up for years without a charge being leveled against you and your tortured because you must be a lying bastard terrorist, and you have no access to the legal system; you might have a change of heart.

Hello again, tom:

What you say is true. But, Roosevelt WON a war where we actually were attacked... Nothing breeds forgiveness like success.

The dufus, on the other hand, started one war for no apparent reason, and we ain't won it yet. Oh, he had the reason he MADE up to start it, but that ain't enough... Of course, STARTING that war caused us to start losing the OTHER war... Now that the dufus has checked out, ain't nobody putting out tales that we're winning there - NOBODY!

So, now you've compared the dufus to Truman, Hoover and now Roosevelt. Aren't you stretching a little??

excon

Hello again, Tex:

*greenie*

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

What you say is true. But, Roosevelt WON a war where we actually were attacked... Nothing breeds forgiveness like success.

The dufus, on the other hand, started one war for no apparent reason, and we ain't won it yet...

excon

---

You are suggesting we use fire bombs and nukes so we can 'win' the war (as FDR and Truman)? Even you should compliment Bush on being a compassionate warrior.

George ; I was not praising Roosevelt. I was in fact saying that much worse has happened in our history and I'm tired of George Bush being reviled for actions he took in our defense.

Ex; all the incidents be they waterboarding ;Gitmo etc were all reactions to 9-11 ;not the Iraq war .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

You are suggesting we use fire bombs and nukes so we can 'win' the war (as FDR and Truman)? Even you should compliment Bush on being a compassionate warrior.

---

Hello again, George:

Nahhh. I'm not a compassionate warrior. I'm more from the John Wayne school of warfare. Pick your enemy's well, and bomb hell out of 'em.

But, if you pick wrong, as the dufus did, compassion don't mean squat!

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

George ; I was not praising Roosevelt. I was in fact saying that much worse has happened in our history and I'm tired of George Bush being reviled for actions he took in our defense.

---

Well, I was responding to excon, as I agree with you. Furthermore, as to Allied behavior in WWII, "The greatest "war crime" in terms of a bombing raid against Germany in the second world war was the bombing of Dresden. The Germans had tried very hard NOT to make this beautiful city a target. The Americans and English bombed it to hell, just for spite. They methodically chose a method which would assure maximum destruction. First, large incendiary bombs were dropped. This was followed by "block" busters, to spread the initial fires, and to destroy the water mains which would be needed to fight the fires. This was followed by lots of small incendiaries to spread fires over a wide area--and finally, specific pattern-bombing with 500- and 1000- pound bombs to start the "fire storms" which had so devasted Hamburg." Was Allied bombing of Germany Jan - April 1945 a war crime?
The U.S. started this acitivity on a grand scale in the War Between The States, not to mention its fights with native Americans. I guess Bush & Cheney have more to answer for than we expected. But I digress...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, George:

Nahhh. I'm not a compassionate warrior. I'm more from the John Wayne school of warfare. Pick your enemy's well, and bomb hell out of 'em.

But, if you pick wrong, as the dufus did, compassion don't mean squat!

excon

---

You are a cherrypicker's delight: so you are saying, might makes right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

You are suggesting we use fire bombs and nukes so we can 'win' the war (as FDR and Truman)? Even you should compliment Bush on being a compassionate warrior.

---

Compassionate? Considering Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq at the start of the war and there were no WMD's to be found. How many Iraqi civilians lost their lives due to a questionable war with Iraq? Conservative estimates put the number at 100,000 dead.

That's not compassion, it's incompetence which resulted in the involuntary manslaughter of 100,000 people.

(Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there's no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

Recklessness, or willful blindness, is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. An instance of this would be a defendant throwing a brick off a bridge, into vehicular traffic below. There exists no intent to kill; consequently, a resulting death wouldn't be considered murder. However, the conduct is probably reckless, sometimes used interchangeably with criminally negligent, which may subject the principal to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter: the individual was aware of the risk of injury to others and willfully disregarded it.

In many jurisdictions, such as in California, if the unintentional conduct amounts to such gross negligence as to amount to a willful or depraved indifference to human life, the mens rea may be considered to constitute malice. In such a case, the charged offense may be murder, often characterized as second degree murder.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasParent

Compassionate? Considering Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq at the start of the war and there were no WMD's to be found.
That's not compassion, it's incompetence which resulted in the involuntary manslaughter of 100,000 people.[I]
I]

---

TP: the war in Iraq was not proseucted to rid the country of Al-Qaeda; the fact that no WMD was located is obviated by the fact that Saddam's possession was assumed by everyone on the planet; and by the fact that Saddam refused to allow UN inspectors to do their job. He was given an ultimatum and determined on his and his country's behalf to play 'dare'. In that way, Bush is a lot like Lincoln: not a man to screw around with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

TP: the war in Iraq was not proseucted to rid the country of Al-Qaeda; the fact that no WMD was located is obviated by the fact that Saddam's possession was assumed by everyone on the planet; and by the fact that Saddam refused to allow UN inspectors to do their job. He was given an ultimatum and determined on his and his country's behalf to play 'dare'. In that way, Bush is a lot like Lincoln: not a man to screw around with.

---

May 1st, 2003.

History will show that George W Bush was right
By Andrew Roberts - Telegraph.co.uk

Quote:

---

The American lady who called to see if I would appear on her radio programme was specific. "We're setting up a debate," she said sweetly, "and we want to know from your perspective as a historian whether George W Bush was the worst president of the 20th century, or might he be the worst president in American history?"

"I think he's a good president," I told her, which seemed to dumbfound her, and wreck my chances of appearing on her show.

In the avalanche of abuse and ridicule that we are witnessing in the media assessments of President Bush's legacy, there are factors that need to be borne in mind if we are to come to a judgment that is not warped by the kind of partisan hysteria that has characterised this issue on both sides of the Atlantic.

The first is that history, by looking at the key facts rather than being distracted by the loud ambient noise of the 24-hour news cycle, will probably hand down a far more positive judgment on Mr Bush's presidency than the immediate, knee-jerk loathing of the American and European elites.

At the time of 9/11, which will forever rightly be regarded as the defining moment of the presidency, history will look in vain for anyone predicting that the Americans murdered that day would be the very last ones to die at the hands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the US from that day to this.

The decisions taken by Mr Bush in the immediate aftermath of that ghastly moment will be pored over by historians for the rest of our lifetimes. One thing they will doubtless conclude is that the measures he took to lock down America's borders, scrutinise travellers to and from the United States, eavesdrop upon terrorist suspects, work closely with international intelligence agencies and take the war to the enemy has foiled dozens, perhaps scores of would-be murderous attacks on America. There are Americans alive today who would not be if it had not been for the passing of the Patriot Act. There are 3,000 people who would have died in the August 2005 airline conspiracy if it had not been for the superb inter-agency co-operation demanded by Bush
After 9/11.

The next factor that will be seen in its proper historical context in years to come will be the true reasons for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in April 2003. The conspiracy theories believed by many (generally, but not always) stupid people – that it was "all about oil", or the securing of contracts for the US-based Halliburton corporation, etc – will slip into the obscurity from which they should never have emerged had it not been for comedian-filmmakers such as Michael Moore.

Instead, the obvious fact that there was a good case for invading Iraq based on 14 spurned UN resolutions, massive human rights abuses and unfinished business following the interrupted invasion of 1991 will be recalled.

Similarly, the cold light of history will absolve Bush of the worst conspiracy-theory accusation: that he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. History will show that, in common with the rest of his administration, the British Government, Saddam's own generals, the French, Chinese, Israeli and Russian intelligence agencies, and of course SIS and the CIA, everyone assumed that a murderous dictator does not voluntarily destroy the WMD arsenal he has used against his own people. And if he does, he does not then expel the UN weapons inspectorate looking for proof of it, as he did in 1998 and again in 2001.

Mr Bush assumed that the Coalition forces would find mass graves, torture chambers, evidence for the gross abuse of the UN's food-for-oil programme, but also WMDs. He was right about each but the last, and history will place him in the mainstream of Western, Eastern and Arab thinking on the matter.

History will probably, assuming it is researched and written objectively, congratulate Mr Bush on the fact that whereas in 2000 Libya was an active and vicious member of what he was accurately to describe as an "axis of evil" of rogue states willing to employ terrorism to gain its ends, four years later Colonel Gaddafi's WMD programme was sitting behind glass in a museum in Oakridge, Tennessee.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasParent

May 1st, 2003.

---

By the way, that mission was accomplished. But a president should never underestimate ("assume away", as General Swarzkopf used to say) the capabilities of his enemies, in this case, the MSM. Mass media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"I have often said that history will look back and determine that which could have been done better, or, you know, mistakes I made. Clearly putting a "Mission Accomplished" on a aircraft carrier was a mistake. It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but nevertheless, it conveyed a different message." -Bush acknowledging this mistake.

Quote:

---

It's very nice that Susan Crawford can now continue her work with a clear conscience, but it seems the left has missed the point of this story entirely[/U][/URL]. We already knew that the Bush administration had ordered the use of aggressive interrogation techniques on a number of detainees, and we already knew that there was some disagreement about whether those techniques constituted torture as defined by international treaties and U.S. law. Liberals will call it torture, Bush and Cheney do not. Crawford asserts that, in her view, the aggregate effect of the otherwise legal techniques authorized by Bush was, in fact, torture. All of which does nothing to advance a solution about what to do with Mohammed al-Qahtani.

Barack Obama has come up with a clever strategy on Gitmo -- order the closure of the U.S. prison there and take the next one to eight years figuring out how best to implement the new policy. The left has given him a pass on this as they will give him a pass on just about anything for the foreseeable future, but the implication is clear: Obama has no idea what to do with men like Qahtani who pose a very real threat to the American people but cannot be convicted in federal court for the crimes they have already committed.

Obama at least seems to understand that simply attacking the Bush administration for the decisions it made in the aftermath of 9/11 will no longer suffice as a substitute for some alternative policy. His supporters haven't yet arrived at the same conclusion. There are a dozen liberal bloggers using this story as a launching pad for an attack on the war crimes of the Bush administration, but none has offered any solution to the problem that plagues Judge Crawford -- what now?

In less than a week Barack Obama will be sworn into office and Democrats will need to stop defining themselves by their opposition to George W. Bush and start arguing in favor of serious policies for keeping this country safe. For all the self-righteous talk about constitutional protections and international law and due process, the current consensus on the left would have Obama free Qahtani and prosecute Bush. If that's the outcome dictated by a principled liberalism, then liberalism won't be ascendant for very long.

Posted by Michael Goldfarb

---

Shall we continue to hound him from here on or shall we move on?

The solution is simple really. Bring the Gitmo detainees to the US. Put them under house arrest with monitoring ankle bracelets and surveillance around the clock. Send them to a new hybrid court system that protects classified imformation but allows the detainee the right to defend himself. If the government loses the case, they could tie it up in appeals for years; and all the while the detainee would be allow a life of a sort although monitored closely until he is no longer a threat, or the organization he worked for is no longer a threat. If the government wins, they send him to prison or worse depending on the laws.

My concern is of course what if the detainee is innocent? This would allow them a life of a sort while waiting for their day in court rather than being held in a cell without hope or any freedom. I think this a reasonable compromise, will it hold up under our constitution, I doubt it.

The detainee's home countries don't want them back and I say keep your enemies close so you can keep an eye on them.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration created this mess of what to do with detainees in Gitmo. I mean even if Bush could have been elected to 4 more 4 year terms, how were THEY going to deal with detainee's; release them at 80 years old or let them die, which ever came first?

So don't blame Obama for having difficulty with this one, because the Bush administration apparently had the same exit strategy for Gitmo as they had for Iraq. Didn't McCain say, 100 years if that's what it takes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasParent

...If the government loses the case, they could tie it up in appeals for years; and all the while the detainee would be allow a life ...

The detainee's home countries don't want them back and I say keep your enemies close so you can keep an eye on them.

---

How about you, as a show of good faith, post your home address? Or, just your home town?

My family is less of a target to a terrorist than it is to the Child Molesters who already live in our town. So I wouldn't have a problem with that, at least the potential terrorist would have round the clock surveillance while awaiting trial.