[tomder55]

If that is the case there are more actual threats from domestic entities.

Yes that case can indeed be made. However ;in the fall of 2001 the external threats were quite real and needed immediate attention.

[tomder55]

I say, that the memos were written after the fact, with the intent to cover up the crime that was already committed. That makes the writers AND the doers guilty.

I have seen no evidence of this claim.

[excon]

I for one an more concerned with the preservation of the American civil society ,and that means defending it against those who's goals are it's dismantling.

Hello again, tom:

This is the part that you righty's don't, and apparently NEVER will understand... American civil society is based on equal rights, humane treatment for all, and YES, defending those who's goals are its dismantling. It's actually our CORNERSTONE. If you don't believe me, read the Bill of Rights. It's FULL of rights for very bad people. Oh, yeah. You don't like them either.

When you deny who we are as a society, and start acting like THEM, there's no American civil society left to protect.

excon

[excon]

I have seen no evidence of this claim.

Hello again, tom:

I'm sure you don't. That's why you absolutely should NOT object to an investigation.. That way we can find out who is telling the truth. You DO believe in the truth, don't you?

excon

[mrsinclair]

Hello again, mr:
......

You, and your righty counterparts, say those memos interpreted torture in such a way so as to make what they did legal. I say, that the memos were written after the fact, with the intent to cover up the crime that was already committed. That makes the writers AND the doers guilty.
.........

Isn't your side the one who says of the Fourth Amendment, "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about being searched." Yes, I think it IS your side.

Same thing here. If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about an investigation.

excon

I have to laugh, I find these threads interesting, However for the record I don't really follow the right at all. I believe most of the right are fascists that pry on peoples fear and intellectual laziness.

However it is my belief that the opposite extreme, most of the left, lack the realism to and objectiveness to effectively solve problems.

as far as this debate goes, as I stated in my original post, I believe that information extraction should not be done by torture. But just "talking" and "persuading" won't work either. I am a proponent of medical coercion. Medical coercion has proven to be the best form of information extraction.

If you would take the time to read the initial posting you will see that I know torture to be counterproductive.

My general point is the left and right are the same. The right claims "rightiousnes" and do not value oposing opinions, and the left claims "inclusion" but also does not value oposing opinions.

Right=you live a different life style your evil and anti American
Left=you don't agree with my different life style your ignorant.

my over all point is that both extremes are the same.

If you were into fact then you would not have ran and assumed the right was "my people" and would have considered the initial factual argument.

and so is the separation of people based on dogmatic beliefs. GOD BLESS AMERICA.

[excon]

I have seen no evidence of this claim.

Hello again, tom:

I said earlier that we need an investigation, and we do. However, I think the evidence you're looking for is contained in the CIA document that was supposed to be released yesterday, but wasn't. It's said to contain scurrilous stuff - the kind of stuff that I've been alluding to all along - you know, criminal stuff.

excon

[mrsinclair]

Hello again, tom:

I said earlier that we need an investigation, and we do. However, I think the evidence you're looking for is contained in the CIA document that was supposed to be released yesterday, but wasn't. It's said to contain scurrilous stuff - the kind of stuff that I've been alluding to all along - you know, criminal stuff.

excon

There probably is. But at what point does national security take priority. Which is more important, being punitive or proactive?

One of the many things I love about Obama (which liberals seem to complain about) is his proactive, pragmatic way of dealing with things.

I hope pragmatism wins this debate. Unlike the threads we see here.

[excon]

there probably is. but at what point does national security take priority. which is more important, being punitive or proactive?

Hello again, mr:

National security NEVER takes priority over the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the oath of office says that Obama WILL ".... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution...". The founders wrote it that way. If they meant to say something else, they certainly could have. They didn't. I think the intent is clear.

But, that doesn't stop people like you from making up stuff, like the presidents' FIRST responsibility is to keep America safe. Where does it say that??

excon

[excon]

Hello:

Yes, I have more to say on the matter...

There's this wrongheaded notion that's harbored in some quarters that's personified by the phrase, "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact". Those who harbor that notion don't believe that the law will serve us well in times of peril. Usually these people are the "law and order" folks, but if they believe that notion, then they really don't believe in law and order. They're just biding their time until something better comes along...

O'Reilly said it best, "I believe in our principles, until I don't". To me, principles aren't malleable or they're not principles. They're goals.

Well, after we've been attacked, these people think that's the something better, so we can get rid of all that we've stood for in the past, and start acting exactly like our enemy.

Contrarily, I believe the rule of law has served us well in the past Within our legal framework, we even defeated the Nazi's, who I daresay, were a much bigger threat than the one we fact today.

So, I say again, national security NEVER takes priority over the LAW. The law, all by itself, provides PLENTY of protection...

Lest you think that the Constitution somehow weakens us, may I remind you that we became the world's LARGEST jailer, in SPITE of the Constitution.

excon

[mrsinclair]

Hello again, mr:

National security NEVER takes priority over the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the oath of office says that Obama WILL ".... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution...". The founders wrote it that way. If they meant to say something else, they certainly could have. They didn't. I think the intent is clear.

But, that doesn't stop people like you from making up stuff, like the presidents' FIRST responsibility is to keep America safe. Where does it say that????

excon

And exactly who are "people like me". Lol

Neither right nor left. Pragmatic and anti dogmatic. It is shame "people like me" can't just get on board. We need to make up our mind and conform to one polarized extreme or the other.

Tisk. Tisk. Tisk. It is just "people like me" that thought the American way allowed and stood for reasonable debate and distention.

How awful of us narrow minded people. (chuckle)

[excon]

Tisk. Tisk. Tisk. It is just "people like me" that thought the American way allowed and stood for reasonable debate and distention.

Hello again, mr:

I thought people like you had thicker skin. Guess not. You want to play a victim, and I want to have a discussion. If you can't handle the heat, later dude.

excon

PS> It's cool with me if you want to call me "people like you".

[mrsinclair]

Hello:

Yes, I have more to say on the matter...

There's this wrongheaded notion that's harbored in some quarters that's personified by the phrase, "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact". Those who harbor that notion don't believe that the law will serve us well in times of peril. Usually these people are the "law and order" folks, but if they believe that notion, then they really don't believe in law and order. They're just biding their time until something better comes along....

O'Reilly said it best, "I believe in our principles, until I don't". To me, principles aren't malleable or they're not principles. They're goals.

Well, after we've been attacked, these people think that's the something better, so we can get rid of all that we've stood for in the past, and start acting exactly like our enemy.

Contrarily, I believe the rule of law has served us well in the past Within our legal framework, we even defeated the Nazi's, who I daresay, were a much bigger threat than the one we fact today.

So, I say again, national security NEVER takes priority over the the LAW. The law, all by itself, provides PLENTY of protection....

Lest you think that the Constitution somehow weakens us, may I remind you that we became the world's LARGEST jailer, in SPITE of the Constitution.

excon

OK this gets more and more entertaining.

"........Lest you think that the Constitution somehow weakens us, may I remind you that we became the world's LARGEST jailer, in SPITE of the Constitution."

The constant referral to "you people", "your people" is the same type of generalizing that rightswingers do. So based on the extreme tones I must assume you are a "leftist". I was trying to refrain from making assumptions , however it seems unreasonable people have a need to generalize and objectify people that don't conform to their beliefs

I myself find the two sides are simply foolish the right and the left will tear this country apart.

Both sides are to stupid, inflexible, dogmatic. They use different "reasons" to villainize anyone who doesn't agree with there point of view.

We finally have a president that is pragmatic and not extreme. You know he is a good president that may make real changes when both sides "Like yours". (lol. j/k cause the term is so childish and ignorant) complain about him.

[mrsinclair]

Hello again, mr:

.....PS> It's cool with me if you wanna call me "people like you".

You referred to me as "people like you" and I was being sarcastic.

I would argue reason however,

You interpreted me calling you "you people".

You claim I got sensitive even though through out the threads you have: "you people", "your people." people like you"

I think reason is not as important to extremists as dedication to dogma.

[excon]

Hello again, mr:

Still waiting for you to counter my argument instead of talking about ME. I promise, I'll try to leave you people out of it too.

excon

[mrsinclair]

Hello again, mr:

Still waiting for you to counter my argument instead of talking about ME. I promise, I'll try to leave you people out of it too.

excon

:D (chuckle) The law is the highest of priority, and I believe that it should be respected. However, opening classified files can be detrimental to national security. I do agree that most of the time that "national security" is used as a cover for various forms of lies. However, to open prosicution of previous administration's officers begins to tear down the system. I do agree with Obama that we as a country should refrain from "coerhsive interogation techniques" I also agree that we should not prosecute the previous administration. There are some slopes you just don't start down.

as I asked in the thread B4 which is your priority being proactive or punitive.

and I believe proactive is always better.
Our country is wonderful and standing by our laws is important but when we become obsessed with being punitive we walk down the paths of "thmils"

I know the value of what our country stands for better than most. This country is great but it is not the real world. People that have not left this country and live sheltered lives don't know about the rest of the world.

[tomder55]

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States,

and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So as you see ;the oath is more than a declaration to protect and defend the Constitution.

I know that the issue of inherent powers is debatable ;but if it is ,then every President including Washington has violated the oath according to your narrow definition .

Inherent in the role of the President is the most important area of national security or "in the national interest" .
Generally recognized by both Congress and SCOTUS is that the president has "special prerogatives" in foreign affairs.

Right or wrong ;SCOTUS decided in 1936 that the Presidential powers was "special and pronounced" in foreign affairs .(US v Curtiss-Wright). Even before that John Marshall wrote that the Presidency was the "sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations" .
Before that Jefferson said in 1790: ''The transaction of business with foreign nations is executive altogether. It belongs, then, to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specially submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly.''

The justice dept. memos cite the sole organ doctrine in their rationale and since there is 2 centuries of prescident behind them it is hard to make the claim that the President was not faithfully executing his office.

Congress can make law and SCOTUS can make decisions but unless you can prove your contention that the memos were written after the fact ,then any prosecution will be in itself ex post facto.

[tomder55]

mrsinclaire

Maybe this is not the right thred for it ,but I'd be interested to hear the philosophical basis for political pragamatism.Are questions of ethics based on the implied relativity ? Is truth mutable when making political decisions? What are the principles that guide a political pragmatist ?

If I were to vote for a self proclaimed pramatist how could I expect him to vote on issues I think are important ?

From my perspective it was realism (based on Cold War calculations )that justified us overthrowing democratically elected governments and supporting tyrants against their own populace . You are right that Obama is beginning to show signs of Bismarck realism in foreign policy as he embraces the delusional homicidal mullahs in Iran over the popular will in support of some grand bargain that is in his mind .The Mullahs have time and again demonstrated to us that they consider the US an enemy. But to Obama, the Mullahs are people to charm.

Yeah I know... Obama will claim his Cairo speech stoked the flames of popular revolt if it serves his interests ,but I can equally make the case that seeing democracy in Iraq did the stoking .If the revolt is crushed the President will be just as happy to bed the winners.


(btw domestically he exhibits authoritarian statism .)

[excon]

The law is the highest of priority, and I believe that it should be respected. However....

Our country is wonderful and standing by our laws is important but.....

This country is great but.....

People that have not left this country and live sheltered lives don't know about the rest of the world.

Hello again, mr:

We fundamentally disagree! The laws of this nation should be respected, PERIOD - end of story.

It also looks like you're talking about ME again. You've made pronouncements about me, and I haven't objected, except to say that YOU and I AREN'T what this is about. I don't care what you think about ME. If I did, I probably would have selected a different name.

I care about the argument. Get to it, or get lost.

excon

[mrsinclair]

mrsinclaire

maybe this is not the right thred for it ,but I'd be interested to hear the philosophical basis for political pragamatism.Are questions of ethics based on the implied relativity ? Is truth mutable when making political decisions? What are the principles that guide a political pragmatist ?

If I were to vote for a self proclaimed pramatist how could I expect him to vote on issues I think are important ?

From my perspective it was realism (based on Cold War calculations )that justified us overthrowing democratically elected governments and supporting tyrants against their own populace . You are right that Obama is beginning to show signs of Bismarck realism in foreign policy as he embraces the delusional homicidal mullahs in Iran over the popular will in support of some grand bargain that is in his mind .The Mullahs have time and again demonstrated to us that they consider the US an enemy. But to Obama, the Mullahs are people to charm.

Yeah I know ......Obama will claim his Cairo speech stoked the flames of popular revolt if it serves his interests ,but I can equally make the case that seeing democracy in Iraq did the stoking .If the revolt is crushed the President will be just as happy to bed the winners.


(btw domestically he exhibits authoritarian statism .)

Well to begin with the truth is always mutable, only facts are consistent. And yes questions of ethics are based on implied relativity. It is that understanding that supports "Freedom of religion". Facts are never mutable, but fact and truth are mutually exclusive. Political decisions should benefit the whole population, NOT cater to the "values" of one group of people or another. In this country we have media of fear panderers (on both sides) that polarize the populous. Which in turn makes people bias and intolerant of other people with different values.

A political pragmatist will objectively evaluate the situation: weigh the likely outcomes and provide a moderate decision that will benefit the broadest range of demographics.

this will benefit all people but make a lot of people pissed of because they can't get their way.

As for as voting for someone who will vote on isses that you think are important. Are your priorities more important than other peoples? If your values impede those of others do you have the right to enforce them? We all have to compromise to get most of what we want in a fair manor.

That is pragmatic politics.

If we are doing to "free the world" of tyrannical dictators we need to do it across the board. And we do not. To be honest if we tried to right all of the human atrocities in the world every person in this country would be over sees, in the many wholes in the world, with shovel and an automatic weapon.
And once we do choose a country to "free" we do not have the right to undermine or dictate their cultural system. The Arab Muslim world is just that "muslin" (which BTW contrary to American propaganda is a gentile and submissive religion) and their culture is Islamic and should remain that. The human atrocities should be stopped but there culture is based on their religion and that is there RIGHT. There are many that believe the problem with that country is that there laws are religion based, well that is their right. And Many Americans would like our laws to be based on religion, but Christianity.


As far as Arab Muslims Hating Americans that is not the case. I am guessing like Excon you have not resided in another country or been to many native places around the world.

Many Muslims are indifferent to Americans but find their judgment and intrusive nature to be disrespectful and obtrusive.

[mrsinclair]

Hello again, mr:

We fundamentally disagree! The laws of this nation should be respected, PERIOD - end of story.

It also looks like you're talking about ME again. You've made pronouncements about me, and I haven't objected, except to say that YOU and I AREN'T what this is about. I don't care what you think about ME. If I did, I probably would have selected a different name.

I care about the argument. Get to it, or get lost.

excon

What you quoted is an excerpt of my direct answer. The law is paramount. However harping on the punitive, e.g. prosecuting previous administration's officers is counter productive. There are reasons for statute of limitations.

To be direct we should not prosecute the previous administration's officers, moreover we must not engage in torture in the future.

To clarify if it is still unclear. My point in that is to say if we focus on being punitive we are counter productive. Having complete disregard for the law and focusing on being punitive are both destructive.

To assist in clarity:

–adjective
serving for, concerned with, or inflicting punishment: punitive laws; punitive action.