The torture debate after Bush

Yes it was Rags. And the only time, in my IMO, the law withstanding, the right time to do it. Again, the law withstanding. Those laws are there to stop evil deeds by corrupt officials. But we also have judges/juries/panels in place to inteperet those laws.

Once your enemy crosses the lines of humanity, decency or any other spin you want to put on it and attempts(or in the 9/11 case, does) to kill thousands of innocents, the rules of war should be out of the window. The gloves are off man, they are trying to cause mass genocide for crying out loud. We need to do everything to stop that and still protect ourselves.

Comparing Himmler to Cheney is wrong on so many levels. Cheney isn't Himmler and the laws of our Great Nation block him from becoming like a crazy-minded Nazi Jew-slayer, if that, the craziest of scenarios ever crossed his mind, which I doubt he did with 100% surety. The magnitude of difference in their reasoning of their choices is vast.

I am not saying the government will not go after them. Unfortunately, I think they will. But I personally believe it to be a mistake and a big one at that, with fallout that will continue to undermine our politics and stop us and probably the rest of the world from advancing to a better state. Of course, it is only one of many mis-steps along that road.

And if Cheney can deliver a Nicholson-esque speech when it happens, that would be something for the History books..... great reference!

 

This is precisely when the rules of war (Geneva Convention) must be followed. It is far to easy to give in to temptation of revenge after such an attack. I have argued on and off about the status of terrorist under the Geneva Convention (I believe them to be more like spies than combatants) but at no time should torture been allowed. Torture does not help the conflict. Torture does not aid in timely gathering of information. Torture simply degrades the fighting force and lowers the credibility of the torturer in the eyes of everyone.

 

It really is a shame that people with your level of clarity on the issue of torture are so rare in the Republican party, T2. Many of them* would consider you a bleating-heart liberal for what you just said. It makes me really pessimistic for the future that things have devolved to that point.

* The afore-mentioned "base."

 

There's a difference in degree, but not in type. Of course the Reps were more extreme, but that doesn't mean the Dems didn't do it. It's like a hail of gunfire versus one sniper shot. The degree and magnitude are massively different, but both are lethal attacks.

Umm, Tal, they did. Obama won, you know. Ok, it could be said that it's more that McCain lost, and probably to the economy at that, but still, the Dem smear machine was alive and well at the time.

Blades, I understand the 'victory (survival) at all costs' mentality, believe me, and I don't immediately have a problem with it. In fact, I argued it myself in tentative defense of torture not too long ago. Torture, however, isn't just banned for being 'objectionable'. It's also inefficient, unreliable, dangerous, and largely unpopular in the international climate that we have to live in. I feel I have to agree that Cheney should be made to pay for it (and anyone else who actively knew about the details of the program and went along with it/did nothing).


Lasly, I'd just like to state my firm belief that at least 75% of the people in the entire world are 'sheep'. The Bible makes that analogy many times, and I think it does so with good reason. Most people are happy to hand over decision-making power to another. It's unfortunate, but true.

 

A bit off topic but I thank you for the summation of the debate on healthcare. It is an interesting one and has many valid points.

One thing I was thinking about was the point some are making that Obama's plan will not reduce the deficit or costs. If that is true one question that I would have is will it help prevent future costs? I believe one of the points Obama tried to make was that healthcare in the US is getting more and more expensive.

So it may be valid from a preventative POV.

 

Umm, what exactly would you call democratic workers going around assisted living complexes and telling everyone McCain had said he wanted to cut Medicare benefits in half? I don't think the Reps even stooped lower, they just did it more often.

Tal, find me one complaint that didn't have some kernel of truth behind it. The 'death panels'? Well, there were going to be doctors counseling the elderly on (among other things) ways to end their lives. The funding for abortion? Well, it was in there (and some are still trying to sneak it in indirectly). Not being able to keep your insurance? Wait, that one's actually true.

This is one of the confusions. Obama doesn't actually have a plan, just objectives. Congress, in the mean time, has several, with several possible outcomes (and many experts debate about exactly what those outcomes may be). Whether any will decrease, or even contain, spending is one of the big questions.

... That is a little off-topic, though.

 

Assuming your claim is correct (I doubt it - substantiate, please), do you honestly believe that calling Obama a secret muslim, a terrorist's pal, and insufficiently American is somehow stooping higher than claiming McCain wants to cut Medicare by half? On what scale are those even equal?

There are several, but that's beside the point. A kernel of truth does not justify a bushel of bullsh*t, NOG. Dishonesty is dishonesty. You shouldn't be defending it. It's beneath you. A "kernel of truth" can be found in any argument if you are sufficiently invested in finding one to justify the larger lie. Rush Limbaugh's built an empire out of exactly that.

 

As a baby boomer, a Rep, former military and all around bull headed raised in the 50s person, your welcome for all we did. The freedom started in the 60s, the tech boom, the industry created by our labor and yes the screw ups we were part of. I guess I am one of the 49% Tal speaks of. What was done after 911 was wrong. It should not have happened. When prisoners are tortured it will be returned on our own men. The problem I have in my own mind is every country we have fought has done far worse to our people who fell into their hands. This just makes a justifaction for that occuring and continuing. Also, as stated, it is against the law. An insult to humanity whoever is doing it. I agree with McCain when he said no one should be treated badly. I do not like him not pushing harder to stop it. He should know better than anyone we at least should take as high a road as possible. I for one would like to see just what we prevented with torture and how many lives were saved. Anyone in either party? Now the US is going to have to answer someday for the last 8 years, hope we can.
Oh, a last comment, both parties knew and condoned what was done. Don't kid yourself.

 

You mean like the "smear machine" that claimed McCain had a black illegitimate baby in the 2000 primary? Or claimed that Hillary would be a better choice than McCain (Ann Coulter), because Mac was "a bigger liberal and a socialist than she was?" Or conservative talking heads claiming that Colin Powell was "a racist?"

The point is that these two men represented what was best in the Republican Party. They both served their country with honor and distinction, While Dick Cheney was avoiding the draft back in the 60s and Coulter was going to her dance prom, these guys were on the frontlines of the real war and fighting for the principles we claim to value.

You half expect to be slimed from the other side, because "its politics," but you don't expect it from your compatriots and the party that you helpled to build. Without these guys the country would be worse off, and without men like these, IMO, the Republican party would be nothing more than hive of villians and knaves. Newt (yes, that Newt) had it right when he commented that the Republican party was "filled with a bunch cannibals."

 

In the realm of politics, considering the targeted bases, yes, I do consider them equal. For people who's lives are dependant on Medicare, saying your opponent wants to cut it in half is tantamout to saying he wants to kill you.

Considering how easily a kernel of truth can be blown out of proportion and into this kind of thing, I think it warrants a second look. Yes it is dishonest, especially when repeated by people who should know better, but it's also common-place. My point through this all isn't that it's right, but rather that it's standard MO in politics today.

No, that's the republican smear machine, not the dem one. The dem one is the one who said Hillary was a whore, a failure as a mother, and, by the way, she dresses badly, when she ran against Obama. It's also the one that painted McCain as Bush II, a racist (for daring to run against a black man, of course), and a supporter of torture. I know, they're awefully similar, it's easy to get them confused.

I'll agree with you on Gen. Powell, but if McCain is the best the Republican party has to offer, we're in trouble. I respect his service, both in war and in peace, but I don't particularly look up to him on anything. He's better than Cheney, but that's not saying much. I'll stick with Huckabee, thank you.

 

Actually, I never heard most of that. Can you provide some links? I knew about Hillary being a "bad dresser," but the whole world knew that (unless pant suits just happen to be your gig ) and, of course if the Republicans believed that Bush II was THAT bad, that it was an insult to be compared to the leader of their own party, it doesn't say much for them anyway. But I never heard the rest of that stuff. Nevertheless, you expect it from the other side, because it is politics, but if this is how you treat your own people, then I hate to see how you treat your enemies....

 

Assuming that interpretation is sensible (it's not), what is saying your opponant is a scary, Muslim, America-hating terrorist lover tantamount to? That he wants a cuddle?

 

You're right to point out Democratic cowardice or expediency thinking and ultimately complicity in Bush's torture program. But I think there is more to it.

The Bushies made it very difficult for the D's to resist their pressure. For instance they made the briefings on torture top secret. The Bushies had this well known passion for secrecy. They even re-classified things that had been de-classified before. And they made their little games with security clearances and secrecy. Famously, they stopped a Justice department's Office of Professional Responsibility investigation into whether Gonzales and other senior department officials acted within the law in approving and overseeing the administration's domestic surveillance program dead - simply by denying the investigators the necessary security clearance. Well, it just couldn't be helped ...

All that means that Cheney and his people masterfully controlled and manipulated the information flow from the administration to the houses and senate. They used secrecy and, more general, access to information as a political weapon. The torture matters were very highly classified. Publicising highly secret information carries penalties, involving jail, fines and in particular loss of clearance and loss off access. The Bushies could easily retaliate against unwanted exposure by D's with denial of access.

The D's were briefed secretly, so they were somewhat in the loop (but doubtless spared disturbing details) - but couldn't tell anybody without putting in danger their security clearance, and without exposing themselves to the utterly predictable R attack. That attack would have included the accusations ... hmm ... that by speaking out they were putting national security in jeopardy and were aiding the enemy! And perhaps even with an added cynical twist: That by speaking out on torture they were breaking secrecy laws (never mind that torture violates US criminal law)!

They could only lose and lose: Had the chosen D's came out denunciating the program, they would have cut themselves out of the information flow and open themselves up to savage Republican attack. If they kept quiet, as they did, to protect their clearance and their access, and to try to 'quietly ameliorate' the program from behind the scenes (tough chance), they became complicit - which was all the better for the Bushies, then they didn't cause trouble and added to Bush's defence. Very Machiavellian. The Bush people neatly put the D's into a box on torture.

I clearly remember one D politico saying that he had to adhere to secrecy laws and thus couldn't go public. Pathetic. It is ridiculous to say that oversight of secret activities, if it discovers misconduct, must remain secret, and that overseers then are not being allowed to talk about it. It does not make sense at all and it is utterly farcical. Yes, the D's did a pitiful job on that. When you oversee, and are told crimes are being committed, and you say nothing because they culprits have made it secret - then you're behaving like a battered wife. Now battered wives require a batterer.

It is completely inadequate to blame both parties equally. While it is clearly true that the D's aided and abetted Bush, it's as clear that it still ultimately was Bush (through Cheney) who ordered torture. That command responsibility cannot be denied. The Bush administration exercised government power and they initiated the torture program, and they vehemently pushed their torture program through the bureaucracy. The power wielded by the executive branch is formidable, in particular when put behind a political cause.

That is to say, D' complicity does not exculpate Bush and his goons who remain the main culprits of crimes like torture. They broke the law and ought to be prosecuted for it.

In implicates the D's too, but only as passive bystanders. Their crime of omittance carries a lighter penalty. They failed in their public mandate - but there is a remedy for such people - elect them out of office in favour of politicians of greater fortitude.

 

Sorry, I didn't keep links for such trash. The stuff against Hillary, though, I saw in various magazines and newspaper articles at work. Apparently the feminists decided Hillary was bad for their image (especially having stayed with a cheating husband) and started viciously attacking her.

At best that he wants to destroy your valued way of life and make you live it. At worst that he wants to kill you. Like I said, I count them about par.

Oh, please Ragusa. Those are some pretty bad excuses. "They couldn't tell because then they'd be kicked out of the club!" Considering we tried Germans for war crimes who would have been shot on the spot for disobeying, I think we can count any dems who knew culpable.

 

I took the time to do a little bit of your research for you, NOG, and I came up with this article regarding "feminists and Hillary Clinton." It seems to cover quite a few of the major feniminsts groups and their political thinking on the 2008 election. Yet, it doesn't sound like a whole lot of "smearing" going on to me. In fact, they sound quite reasonable. Bear in mind that there are some fringe groups of feminists that are mostly Marxists, and are neither Democrats, nor Republicans, but are special interest groups and not party operatives. In fact, I would consider almost all these "feminists" to be special interest groups.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/287988

 

I'm sorry, but your sense of balance is really screwed up if you think "terrorist-lover" and "Medicare-cutter" are on any kind of par. You're really reaching on this one, NOG.