Nuremberg or Nothing for Bush Administration Officials?:
TPM TV has an interview with Dahlia Lithwick on whether the Bush Administration officials responsible for legal strategies in the GWOT should be tried for war crimes Nuremberg-style, or whether a Truth Commission South-Africa-style or just some investigations or even nothing is more appropriate:
But I doubt we'll get to that point anyway. Based on what we know about George W. Bush, isn't it highly likely that he'll pardon everyone prospectively on his way out in January 2009? After all, the officials were doing the President's bidding. In an Administration as focused on loyalty to the President as this one, I would be surprised if he would let his people face the prospect of prosecution down the road.
But I doubt we'll get to that point anyway. Based on what we know about George W. Bush, isn't it highly likely that he'll pardon everyone prospectively on his way out in January 2009? After all, the officials were doing the President's bidding. In an Administration as focused on loyalty to the President as this one, I would be surprised if he would let his people face the prospect of prosecution down the road.
1) It will create (or reinforce) the impression that the pardonees did something requiring a pardon.
2) It will remove the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which will make investigations easier.
There's a broad gulf between wanting something and expecting it to happen; your second sentence only applies to the latter group. There's also a broad gulf between receiving a blow job and engaging the governmental apparatus of the United States in a years-long campaign of systematic torture and kidnapping in violation of domestic and international law.
Pardon them for...what exactly? I've yet to see any serious attempt to detail any war crimes committed by anyone in the administration. The closest I've seen is just a sort of flippant attitude that the war was "illegal" or "Bush lied", neither of which can be taken seriously.
So, no, he won't pardon anyone, because no criminal investigation has any likelihood of getting off the ground. Not to mention it would make him look guilty as hell.
You're not thinking very hard then. Although I agree with other posters that it's quite unlikely this will ever come about because it's kind of like the situation post civil war.
No confederate officers or officials were ever tried for treason in connection with the Civil War, in part, I've read, because of the questionable legal issue of whether or not there is actually a right to secede that would necessarily come up in any treason trial.
There's quite a number of things that, (if viewed in a certain light) could be construed as war crimes, not the least among them is sanctioning the detention and alleged torture of a number of individuals. Within the US itself, its' worth remembering that FISA itself contained criminal penalties for those violating the act, something which has been pretty much admitted as a part of the argument that Fisa is/was unconstitional.
Either of these things are highly questionable as charges, but that doesn't mean that people who had an inclination couldn't decide it was enough to proceed on.
1. While the power of prosepctive pardon is well settled, the Supreme Court can always change its mind. Elections have consequences, as someone famously warned.
2. The Pardon power only extends to offences "against the United States". It is not clear that it covers war crimes against international law.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, actually committed a felony (perjury) that was indisputably professional misconduct as an attorney, subsequent to commission of a misdemeanor (adultery in the District of Columbia at the time).
This is, of course, the fundamental difference between "liberal" and "conservative" jurisprudence. The "liberal" says, "This is bad, therefore it is a crime". The "conservative" says, "This violated the law, therefore it is a crime."
One difference -- Clinton was impeached. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton. [Sorry about the wiki cite. Im not only liberal. I'm lazy.]
In the United States, "international law" is law only insofar as the laws of the United States specify it is.
That shouldn't have been in issue after Texas v. White.
Bush's pride may prevent him from doing that -- it wouldn't be the first time.
Arguably however, the immunity provisions of the MCA are pardon enough.
Not O.K. of course, but a pardon can cover unnamed offenses, as did Ford's pardon of Nixon.
The criminalization of policy disputes is about the worst thing that could ever happen to this country - regardless of ideology or party affiliation. If you want to seriously talk about crimes against humanity and violations of international law, why don't you focus your energy on Zimbabwe or Sudan or one of the dozens of other countries were this is actually a legitimate issue.
Agree 100%
By international court do you mean a truly international court, like the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, or the regular domestic courts of foreign countries?
I don't think there is a currently existing international court that would have jurisdiction, so it's impossible to answer a question about a hypothetical future court. The International Criminal Court does not have jurisdiction because the US has not ratified the treaty creating it.
Many countries claim jurisdiction over certain crimes even if they occur in another country, and both the alleged perpetrator and victim are foreigners. For example, someone can be tried in a Canadian court for torture if they are ever present in Canada, regardless of their citizenship or where the torture allegedly took place.
What impact a presidential pardon would have on a prosecution like this would depend exclusively on the law of the foreign country, but it's probably doubtful a pardon from the American president would be of significance. Official who might be suspected of war crimes or torture would probably be well advised not to leave the United States.
Sure, and the Holocaust was just a policy dispute. So was slavery.
Good to know that the conservatives in this country continue to take a stand for morality.
I don't think any Bush pardon would work overseas. Particularly since the countries conducting the trials would likely view Bush as a party to the war crimes and would refuse to recognize the pardons. (Another approach might be for Obama to offer the affected persons the opportunity to waive any pardon and stand trial domestically rather than standing on their pardon and being tried overseas.)
Yes, of course this would have heavy political consequences domestically. but that does not mean that if the Dems won by a sufficient margin in November, they would not be tempted. After all, despite Orin's reference to the Clinton impeachment trial, the GOP did pursue impeachment despite the fact that most of the country did not think Clinton's conduct was impeachable, mostly because the GOP base did think it was impeachable. Why would the Dems be expected to act any differently?
The Romans during the downfall of the republic began imposing proscriptions on their political enemies.
Proscriptions were used to great effect in the civil war between Marius and Sulla, and also roughly forty years later by Anthony, Octavian and Lepidus after Ceaser's death. The most famous victim of the proscriptions after Caesar's assassination was Cicero, a political opponent of Anthony, who was executed and then famously had his head and hands put on display in the forum. In many ways, the civil war between Marius and Sulla set a precedent for taking wholesale revenge upon political enemies. During the downfall of the Replublic that precedent was repeated by the Second Triumvirate.
It is hard for me to imagine how one party could conduct war crimes trials against members of the defeated opposition, withtout soon coming to regret that precedent.
Simply hysterical.
This is not something I would expect Orin Kerr to write.
[OK Comments: Let's revisit this issue in January 2009, shall we?]
I think you should attempt more issue conflation here.
Really, I do.
What is funny about all of this is not one of you leftist dimwits can name a single crime that allegedly took place.
I can just see it now. The Obama people ship a bunch of Bush people over to Germany for these "crimes" against non-citizens outside the U.S., and then the Republicans coming in four years later jail all those Obama people for violation of the civil rights of all those Bush people.
But, of course, Obama could pardon all his people before leaving office after a long four years. But then, the new Republican administration could just ship the Obama people to someplace sympathetic, like maybe Afghanistan, where different forms of capital punishment are an art form.
You mean other than the fact Clinton committed actual crimes, right?
You've delved into a gross amount of unseriousness here Orin.
[OK Comments: Really? The case that the Administration violated the FISA statute is easy to make; on the other hand, there were prety serious legal difficulties with the Clinton case from a criminal law perspective.]
For J. Nicholas Smith:
the relevant criminal statutes are FISA (for the Bells, and Yoo) and the federal statutes criminalizing torture (the War Crimes Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2441, and the anti-torture statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2340A), and the federal aiding and abetting and conspiracy statutes. See the DOJ memo repudiating Yoo's earlier memo, for a discussion of the laws prohibiting torture:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm
Of course they.
While not even recognizing the irony of the matter in so much that those are the very same activities they are accusing the President of!
Laugh out loud funny considering nobody has broken that law.
[OK Comments: The Ace, what error do you find in my analysis of that issue from December 2005?]
That's why it's a covert action!
It's another liberal circle-jerk fantasizing about prosecuting this administration for war crimes.
Or any other thing they can think of without having truth or reality intrude.
Don't forget to clean up when you're done.
By the way, I love the continued references to FISA in light of things like this:
Oh, they regrouped all right! They gave the telecoms immunity!!
Orin,
I could let this go:
That may be true if the affair was not work related, but "a pattern and practice" of conduct toward low level female employees is clearly as a matter of law of interest to a jury in a sexual harassment lawsuit. It doesn't much matter if the affair was consenual in Lewinski's case, it helps to show the pattern. I would be in favor of Congress changing the law in order to bar such "pattern and practice" testimony just as the "rape shield laws" make the sexual history of rape victims off limits. But that is my to-be preference not the as-is law.
And they merit a Napoleon XIV award.
If Hillary were the nominee and go on to win, the DOJ would be staffed by the people believing the exact same thing. And the people calling for these "war crimes" hearings would still be utterly clueless.
And when does negligence become codified as pertains to these matters? For example and via analogy, shouldn't the U.N. or Belgium or the E.U. have been brought before a tribunal after Rwanda? Indeed, Belgian and other European forces were in Rwanda when the killing began and those militaries, at least a portion of them, wanted to intervene. In general, failing to act can result in just as many deaths and mishaps, if not more, than acting in a positive sense. And that only considers the short-term consequences of action vs. inaction, long term implications would be even more difficult to gauge.
Here is a specific reference explaining why Clinton's affair was other people's business:
No, he lied about sex IN regards to a trial for sex harassment. sex with an intern. that's about as material as one could imagine.
compare with, for example, mark furhman. he lied about using the "n" word, which has exactly what material relevance to the trial of OJ Simpson for murder?
and he got a perjury and is now a convicted felon.
Clinton got what? Contempt of court or something like that?
I always find that comparison interesting.
Personally, I don't think a sitting president should even BE subject to sex harassment suits. That's ridiculous imo. But given that they are, lying about material facts in a sex harassment suit IS pretty serious. And unlike Martha Stewart (who was never proven to have committed the underlying offense), he was lying to cover up the undisputed fact that "he did it".
Again, I personally don't care who a president schtups, and I think the paula jones thang should have waited until he was a private citizen. But lying in court is lying in court.
I don't know why you assume kidnapping or the lack of any legal justification. Essentially you beg away the question before answering it.
Assume that one or more of these people were indicted in a foreign country. Rumsfeld, for example. Could he not be extradited to Germany to stand trial? His diplomatic immunity can be waived by the President (Obama). And his actions may well have constituted a crime in Germany; perhaps because someone at Gitmo was German. I don't know what the extradition treaty between the U.S. and Germany says, and its not worth looking it up because Germany is just an example, but I fail to see why he would need to be kidnapped to be tried there.
As for the legal justification, it would be because his actions violated international or German law. Anyway, that is the argument. Simply saying his actions did not violate the law hardly answers it: the hypo assumes that Germany disagrees and wants to take the case to court, and that the Dems are willing to let them because the Dems are unable to prosecute them domestically as a result of Orin's hypothetical pardons.
But the funniest part of your answer is that "extraordinary rendition" (i.e., kidnapping) is one of the crimes that Rumsfeld &Co. would presumably be charged with. Gotta love the irony.
As i've said, the "War on domestic violence" and the VAWA imo have resulted in far more erosion of defendant's rights (privacy, right to confront, right to keep and bear arms, right to due process, etc. etc.) than the war on drugs. I just find it ironic that Clinton was hoisted on the overreachingsexharassmentlaws(tm) petard that he so lovingly helped make INTO law and so enthusiastically supported. And then all the feminists who were so hot and bothered to get these laws passed, gave HIM a pass on his sexual harassment, because... well.. he's bill clinton, and he's cute, and he's one of "us".
Wasn't a principal part of OJ's defense that the police were motivated by racism? That they targeted him (and framed him) because he was a black celebrity athlete? That is my recollection.
How would the fact that one of the police officers used the "n" word not be relevant to that defense? The "n" word is usually not used by non-racists. Fuhrman's use of the word is certainly probative of his views of black people.
Nothing like that great conservative respect for the rule of law.
An act of war? Do you really believe that if Germany tried Rumsfeld against our wishes -- assume that the Germans got him because he was foolishly travelling through Berlin and not because they kidnapped him from Boca Raton -- we would go to war with Germany over it?
Not recall our ambassador or even suspend diplomatic relations, but actually start bombing them?
Now that is delusional.
get real. the same cops that bent over backwards to cut him slack cause he was a celebrity?
"How would the fact that one of the police officers used the "n" word not be relevant to that defense? The "n" word is usually not used by non-racists. Fuhrman's use of the word is certainly probative of his views of black people"
the N word is used by plenty of non-racists. Like in conversations ABOUT the "n" word, social references, etc. there is a huge difference between uttering the word, and CALLING somebody an "N".
regardless, the evidence he used the "n" word was in a script interview he did in regards to (i believe it was a screenplay... might have been a book) and he was doing stream of consciousness story ideas etc. during this taped interview for this piece of DRAMA.
iow, it's like saying Ice T has personally advocated that he wants to murder police officers because in one of his songs, the character is referred to as a "cop killer" and the song speaks from that pov. or like saying steve earle was advocating for terrorism by doing a song from the frame of reference of john walker lindh.
Furhman should have admitted he has used the "N" word before. I would bet the vast majority of people have used that word in SOME context at some point of their life. It doesn't mean one is a racist.
Did furhman lie? yes. he HAD used the "N" word at least during the script interview. was it material? get real. does he deserve a PERJURY conviction for it? cmon. it was a tangential, immaterial attack on HIS character vs. something actually relevant to the case.
and again - compare. he got PERJURY. he's now a convicted felon. He can't even possess a firearm for pete's sake. Clinton who committed a blatant self-serving material lie in order to cover up something that actually was incrimninating (that he'd been screwing around with an intern) in regards to a sex harassment suit... got a slap on da wrist.
I'm decrying the double standard. But if (and i don't concede this) what furhman did was perjury, then CLEARLY what clinton did was perjury.
If you, or anyone else, has a serious point to make that torture is a "policy dispute", then make it. Because what this Administration has done IS obscene.
It's not the number of crimes I was referring to, it was their quality. And yes, torturing a single person is on the same moral level as holding that person in slavery or raping him/her or marching him/her into a gas chamber.
It is an argument for an internationally-sponsored trial, in an international forum, for violations of ius cogens such as the Torture Convention.
Who cares what the US public thinks about it? A crime is a crime.
I remember the left in hysterics about that!
I think you should keep this silly behavior up. Really, it speaks volumes about the modern American left.
Don't go down that road unless you think you can defend Clinton's 140 last-minute, willy-nilly, shady pardons of a bunch of well-connected common criminals as examples of respect for the rule of law.
The Framers saw the power to pardon primarily as a means of keeping or restoring domestic peace -- a way to take the issue of legal revenge for wrongs to the nation off the table, in order to let the country move forward. It amounts to an explicit recognition that sometimes enforcing the law isn't the best thing for the nation. Pardoning guys like Yoo would be a lot more in line with that intent than most of Clinton's pardons (and, to be fair, those of some other modern presidents). If Bush doesn't do it, Obama or McCain would be wise to.
I don't see how the fact that he recounted his views in a script interview or that it was stream of consciousness absolves him from a conclusion that he is a racist. He clearly was not talking about the use of the word in any sort of analytical sense. "Yeah we work with niggers and gangs." Why would you put it that way if you are talking about the history of the word?
Clearly they were both guilty of perjury. The fact that Clinton got away with it does not mean that we should let everyone get way with it because otherwise it would be a double standard.
When the defendant's case is predicated on his claim that he is being persecuted by racist cops, the fact that one of the lead detectives bragged about using a racial epithet is definitely relevant and material to the defense. It would render the rest of Fuhrman's testimony unbelievable.
You say it was an attack on his (Fuhrman's) character, but only by way of impeachment. Since when is impeachment of a principal prosecution witness irrelevant to a trial?
As for the consequences of his perjury conviction, maybe he should have thought of that before he perjured himself?
It would be highly ironic if Bush got prosecuted after Obama takes office, given the way he quashed all prosecutions of Clinton after HE left office. But it still wouldn't surprise me.
One is policyand strategy disputes- things like the decision to invade Iraq with unfinished business in Afganistan, the decision to use WMD's as the reason for invasion, the decision to treat the "War on Terror" as something different than the ususal police/intelligence issue, etc. I may disagree with them, but they are not criminal. Making policy decisions is exactly what I'm paying senior officials (such as the President) to do! If I don't like their policies, I try to vote them out, not jail them.
The other is actual violations of US law, such as the torture of prisoners (sorry, redefining torture the way Mr. Yoo suggested doesn't cut it- we all know in our hearts what torture is), and the monitoring of communications in violation of FISA. These are criminal acts, just as Clinton's lying was, and are subject to criminal prosecution. The political leanings of the Administration are (or should be) irrelevant (bothe "left" and "right" wing governments can and have done terrible things!)- it's either a crime or it's not. I don't care what's in your heart or what your intentions were- that's for a judge/jury to consider.
I have no idea about the bulk of Clinton's pardons, though I disagreed with the pardon of Rich. So what?
During the impeachment we heard endless bloviating from right-wingers about "rule of law," and "no man is above the law," etc., ad nauseam.
Suddenly all that's forgotten. "Gee, the torturers meant well."
Yeah. Right.
LM,
How about investigations, then, maybe, trials.
Investigations, of course. And then? I won't speculate, but criminal prosecution is one possible outcomes of an investigation.
Torture for one. The administration has admitted that it has authorized waterboarding, which most of the world considers torture, and even if it isn't, it is a violation of the Convention Against Torture (which requires signatories, of which we are one, to ban more than simply torture). Additionally, Rumsfeld admitted to a war crime in a televised news conference when he said that he told the military to hide detainees from the Red Cross in Iraq at the behest of George Tenet.
Those two are without even having to think about it.
"'Gee, the torturers meant well.' Yeah. Right."
What's your explanaton? You think Bush, Yoo, et al. have been getting some kind of sadistic sexual satisfaction out of all this?
Seriously, I don't see how you can argue that they didn't mean well. Even if you think their methods were misguided to the point of depravity, and were ultimately counterproductive, I don't know how you can conclude that their motive was anything other than protecting American lives.
Absolutely.
You don't need to prove that torture took place (though you probably could). All you need to prove is that there are reasonable grounds for a criminal investigation. It's only the right which convicts first and investigates later.
that is simply ridiculous. only to a jury member with sand in their head.
Hahahahaha! That's so funny...wait. You're serious, aren't you?
It matters a lot what the public thinks! If the US doesn't consider it a crime, then its not. That how the legal system works. Additionally, absent a specific (US) penal law that GWB et al. has violated, there is no crime. In the US we don't prosecute ppl for crimes that aren't on the books.
hold on a second, I was busy playing lacrosse and I missed what you typed. Can you repeat it?
Confederates weren't tried for treason because the cases would have been tried to juries drawn from the state and district where the crime was committed. The jury pools would have thus been overwhelmingly pro-defendant and every single case would have ended in acquittal. The Supreme Court would certainly have reversed any case tried elsewhere.
What a convincing argument. Obviously you have a firm grasp on the meaning of the words "probative,""relevant" and "material."
But go ahead, defend Mark Fuhrman if you must. He is such a sympathetic character! Long after the rest of America has forgotten about him, you can pine away for his lost 2nd amendment rights and his right to drop N bombs wherever he goes, without consequence.
And then there is his right to lie about it on the stand and get away with it, because of the heretofore unheard of "script interview" exception to the perjury law. If only Libby had thought of that!
Those are both true, but they're not the same thing. If someone is prosecuted for something the public doesn't think should be illegal, there may be political consequences but that won't prevent a conviction.
i also have a firm grasp of smokescreen and chewbacca defense. even if furhman WANTED to frame oj (which is absurd, but assume it), he couldn't have. there were metric a**loads of evidence against the guy for pete's sake.
yes. because unequal justice is no justice at all. he gets perjury because he's unliked by the media. clinton gets contempt. and clinton was easily MORE guilty (in that it was clearly material).
fwiw, even after his conviction (he took a plea), he was instrumental in bringing cold case murderer Michael Skakel to justice. and he helped in a serial killer case in eastern wa. not only is he a sympathetic character, but he's done great benefit to society.
and it's ridiculous he can't carry a gun because of a nonviolent quasi-felony.
I never said he had the RIGHT to lie about it. i said the exact opposite. he lied, and it was wrong.
but don't fail in erecting your strawmen 1 by 1. i said the punishment was unequal and unjust. i didn't say he had the right. in fact, I said he was clearly WRONG to do what he did.
So no, when you mouth pablum like that you really sound more foolish than you think you do.
...Whats missing in this fantasy prosecution is a charge, or charges, that cite specific laws violated by specific acts of specific people. All well and good to claim that we all know what torture is, that " most of the world " considers waterboarding torture. Without a specific violation of law, a listing of the elements of that offense and how the defendant's actions constitute a violation of those elements, you won't get the junior court officer in a three man podunk department to buy off and send it to the prosecuter.
...Get specific, or get lost. Come back when you've got a case.
""It's only the right which convicts first and investigates later."
hold on a second, I was busy playing lacrosse and I missed what you typed. Can you repeat it?"
You da MAN!
There's no chance that the public will allow any president to start waiving the immunity of his predecessor's cabinet members in order to ship them off for public trial in a foreign country for actions taken in office. Don't make the mistake of projecting your revenge fantasy onto the public.
"An act of war? Do you really believe that if Germany tried Rumsfeld against our wishes -- assume that the Germans got him because he was foolishly travelling through Berlin and not because they kidnapped him from Boca Raton -- we would go to war with Germany over it?
Why would we have to? In the worst imaginable case we'd send a team over to take back our man by force. And the administration would have 90% public support for doing so.
Leave the punishment to the historians.
Its really disturbing how the left-wing disinformation campaign on US detention and interrogation policy has come home to roost. We've got a whole generation radicalized on lies--including otherwise smart people like Mark. geez.
Orin,
I'd love some objective evidence about Bush's record that indicates the pardon window is open. I am not of course ruling out pardons completely but I stick to my prediction that they will only be by request and carefully vetted. Such as the CIA agents that actually did the water boarding, and not the policy makers.
It is not my experience that smart people can long be satisfied by the narrow world view Mark evinces. YMMV.
For would-be guardians of the Republic who claim to be seriously concerned about criminal violations on the part of the government, yet quickly descend into left/right, red sox/yankees sniping, either:
(a) You've been divided. And conquered.
(b) You're not really serious.
David Warner--- Forget the Yankees or Red Sox. Go Cardinals!
Exactly right. It is worth noting that a leading cause of the fall of the Roman republic was the fanatical determination of the contending political factions not merely to defeat their opponents politically, but to prosecute them after they left office. Caesar crossed the Rubicon because if he gave up his armies, he faced conviction on trumped up charges, exile, and political oblivion, none of which was acceptable to him. If a President inevitably faces trial after he leaves office, there is a strong incentive to find a way not to leave office. Either the Leftists fruitcakes are unaware of this (it's boring old white European male history, after all), or they don't care.
It was wonderfully informative to see the Lithwick video. It is evocative, as no mere written description could, of the kind of prating fool that inhabits today's media.
The thread is a collection of the Mahatmas that populate our middle class, and will elect Obama in November. But "friends", if you think he will countenance any show trials, you are nuts. Perceptive policitian that he is, he knows how this would play in a workingman's bar in Aliquippa PA.
I love the poster who looks down on Mark Fuhrman. If you can find me a Los Angeles cop who hasn't used the term "nigger" when referring to a black criminal, I would like to meet him. He certainly would not have used it in reference to an presumed aristo like OJ Simpson. And as to Fuhrman and police generally, let me quote Rudyard Kipling:
For it's "Tommy this and Tommy that and chuck 'im out, the brute"
But it's "saviour of his country" when the guns begin to shoot.
I could go on for several pages, but that will do for now.
Technically, that's a Godwin confirmation: It's a prediction, not a rule.
You could say the same thing about the politicization of crimes.
You have to wonder given the beliefs of some of the posters on this thread about why a president would ever obey any law passed by Congress with which he disagreed - either a law passed over his veto or one in existence when he took office.
After all, he won't be removed from office through impeachment, since he can always count on his own partisans in the Senate in voting against convicting him and there will never be 67 or more senators from one party. And according to these posters, prosecuting him after he leaves office would be criminalizing a political dispute.
So there is really no downside for him to ignore any law they think is silly, at least as long as the action has the remotest connection to a his official duties. The key is for him to make sure he has people at OLC who will bless anything he wants to do, irrespective of whether that blessing is consistent with the law. Then he can argue that he was relying on advice from attorneys at Justice, so how can he be prosecuted for it? This doesn't work for private actors who claim to have been relying on (bad) advice from their attorneys, but for some reason, it works for government attorneys. (They should change the name of OLC to the Dept. of Indulgences.)
I suppose this is welcome news for Obama if he is elected, or McCain for that matter. It's great news for anyone who likes executive supremecy in general or really doesn't like the idea of separation of powers. But it seems hard to square with a constitution in which the president has to follow the law, whether he agreed to it or not.
Once you concede the latter point, then it is easy to see how a president or his staff could be prosecuted for a "political dispute" after the end of the administration -- it can happen when the dispute is not merely political, but involves the violation of a law, such as FISA or the anti-torture statute or perjury statutes (with respect to Congressional testimony). Because it will always be easier to violate the law and then call it a political dispute than it will be to work to change or repeal it so that you can act consistently with the law. And it is easy to see the consequences of giving a pass to anyone for violating laws in this context: there goes your deterrence to future violations by the other party.
Of course, Clinton couldn't use this defense because his misconduct had nothing to do with his official duties. But that hardly means the principle isn't useful to the Democrats.
Perhaps I was being sloppy with the word "everyone" -- I should have been more specific, as in "everyone who might actually face future criminal charges." I think the example of Scooter Libby is the most clear sign; Bush took care of Scooter to get him out of jail, and he refused to rule out a full pardon later. Anyway, I'm a bit surprised that folks have taken issue with this prediction: I didn't expect it to be particularly controversial. I guess we'll see in a few months.
Random:
I was asking what the legal impediment would be to this, not the political impediment. That's why I said "Yes, of course this would have heavy political consequences domestically."
In any case, don't make the mistake of projecting your fantasies of Bush the Hero onto the public. Bush is going to leave office with perhaps the lowest approval rating of any president in the last century. If Bush were to start pardoning his staff members to protect them from future prosecution, it is quite possible that the public would view attempts to bring them to justice -- even abroad -- in a different light. Particularly after an investigation showed what they had been up to.
The Chinese Uiger's do not want to be repatriated to China. we could of course do what the Brits are doing, which is releasing the ratbags into their own population.
The Canadian killer has already been addressed in earlier posts. These posts missed that the whole is a nest of vipers. The father and one son died fighting Jihad. This son is lucky to be alive. The mother stayed home in Canada to stoke the fires of Jihad, which she still does.
The fact that there was lots of evidence against OJ has no bearing on whether Fuhrman's perjury was material to OJ's defense. Simpson's whole defense was based on a claim of being framed, which in turn was based on a claim of racist cops (he said that is why they framed him). So evidence of racism by the cops is obviously material to his defense, and the use of the N-word by those cops is obviously evidence of racism, even if it is not conclusive in itself.
Clinton got contempt because they couldn't prove the perjury in the criminal context (before the grand jury) and they don't usually prosecute for perjury in a civil context (which they could prove). So it looked political. Fuhrman was guilty in a criminal context and it was easy to prove because they had him on tape. There is no double standard there. If Clinton had been proved to have lied in a criminal context, he would have been out of a job.
But in any case, if you are willing to give Fuhrman a pass because of his other good deeds, wouldn't that get Clinton off too? Are you really arguing that Clinton never did anything of benefit to society as president?
...Bush is going to leave office with perhaps the lowest approval rating of any president in the last century. If Bush were to start pardoning his staff members to protect them from future prosecution, it is quite possible that the public would view attempts to bring them to justice -- even abroad -- in a different light. Particularly after an investigation showed what they had been up to."
You really need separate your viceral hatred of the president and all things Bush, and therefore all things that that are good and right with the American way of life, from reality.
The facts are that there is little that the Bush administration has done illegally during his term. The masses of gobbldyook foisted on the public by the Liberals of this country will only work for so long.
Eventually, the man in the street will begin to wake up to the bullshit. I look forward to that day.
Clear up for me, Orin, whether you are talking about Clinton's sexcapades, which do not rise to the level of high crimes or misdemeanors, or to Clinton, as an officer of the court and titular head of the Department of Justice, lying under oath? If it's the latter, please explain its triviality more thoroughly.
I suppose I'd be the poster you're referring to, and I'd note that I'm definitely not voting for Obama this fall. (I haven't decided whether to hold my nose and vote for McCain or sit out the presidential ballot entirely.) That said, corrupt cops -- by which I mean cops who can't be bothered with the truth in court when they think it might interfere with their idea of justice -- worry me more than criminals. I don't so much need "Tommy's" gun for criminals; I have my own, thanks. Roughly 18,000 homicides and innumerable other violent crimes per year -- which somehow manage to occur despite the existence of the police -- plus Warren v. D.C. and cases like it have convinced me that I shouldn't count on "Tommy" to do much more than take a few notes after the fact.
It's nice to know that you think that whatever the Bush administration did that you consider illegal was comparable to the Holocaust and to slavery.
Now I can read anything else you write with that wisdom in mind.
Title 18, Chapter 113C, Section 2340:
(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;
[I would say wrapping someone's face with plastic or cloth and pouring water over that person's nose and mouth involves "the threat of imminent death", torture memo notwithstanding]
(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.
[Jurisdiction section omitted: any American national or any foreigner physically present in the U.S. is subject to the law]
(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.
So why, exactly, is it beyond the pale to suggest that this pretty plainly worded statute does not cover those Bush Administration officials present during the meetings in which it was agreed that detainees could be subject to waterboarding?
I have always assumed that is your occupation, so you understand the concept of criminal law. Please answer what exact crime by statute that Professor Yoo committed--along with the elements of the crime.
Please don't blather "war crimes." I would like specific sections of the United States Code. I am particularly troubled by you, as a "Public Defender" (if that indeed is your occupation) apparently advocating the criminalization of giving legal advice. For John Yoo to be criminally liable, he would have had to step outside of his role of a lawyer in giving legal advice and actually facilitate a crime.
IMPEACH! PROSECUTE! DON'T LET HIM GET AWAY WITH IT!
p.s. Speaking as a conservative who is no Bush fan, I'm going to really enjoy watching libs self-immolate while tearing down someone who isn't even in power.
Do you think it is impossible that giving legal advice could be a crime?
You would say that "wrapping someone's face with plastic or cloth and pouring water over that person's nose and mouth involves "the threat of imminent death", torture memo notwithstanding" but I note the actual language, which also uses the term "prolonged mental harm"--a phrase that you could drive an 18 wheeler through sideways.
Obama will not allow anything to go forward for purely practical reasons.
It would consume incredible political oxygen. It would be a distraction and would overshadow everything else. Its the same reason Pelosi killed any impeachment efforts.
Plus, 75%/80% of GOP voters still support President Bush. They would demand their Senators and Reps to counterattack. Dems may have big majorities but they are still going to, especially in the Senate, need GOP co-operation sometimes.
Someone above said:
Don't you think Obama and other actual adults, unlike many people here, know that?
Indict my leaders, kill yours is the next logical step. Is that what people really want?
Maybe you can safely prosecute nobodies like Yoo or Addington. (That will be very brave of you, BTW.)
But if you come after Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld, be prepared for the whirlwind.
So, does that mean that GWB might consider declaring some sort of overwhelming national emergency shortly before the elections? He could simply put off the elections for the duration of the emergency - and if the Army backs him up he is President-for-Life, because the GWOT will last as long as necessary. (since a war on a word or a concept is per se unwinnable)
I, of course, do not actually think GWB is willing to subvert the constitution that much, but it is instructive to remember the administration use of the terror alert system during the 2004 elections. Everytime the Democrats or Kerry got a boost in the polls, or the Republicans or Bush took a hit, we suddenly were inundated with increased terror alerts (Orange!, Yellow! Hot Pink!) and pleas to go out a support Home Depot by buying duct tape and plastic sheeting.
That's not quite right. I'm convinced torture has occurred; hell, the Administration has admitted it. I have good reason to believe, on the basis of the public record, that people like Yoo and Rumsfeld are among those responsible. That's why there needs to be a full investigation.
Those in this thread who demand "proof" before even undertaking that investigation are the ones who are demonstrating the absurdity of their position. Investigations are undertaken to establish the proof; if we already had proof, there'd be no need to investigate.
I guess I'll have to label my snark as such. My sarcastic voice is sounding too much like my real one. Understandable when it comes to the Bush defenders and torture -- parody is dead. But if you read enough of these threads, with the likes of Holsinger and others calling for summary execution of the detainees, then perhaps you'd reconsider which side you want to be on.
You can read anything you want. I didn't say that, but since lots of people here missed my point I'll rephrase it.
The context was the claim that "we shouldn't politicize policy disputes". My response was intended to demonstrate that some crimes are so horrific that no reasonable person can treat them as "policy disputes". In my second post I challenged Dave N. to defend torture as a "policy dispute" and he has ignored that; so has everyone else. That's because there's no such argument to be made.
My specific references to the Holocaust and slavery were to give examples of the types of acts which could not possibly be considered "policy disputes". Similar conduct would be rape or child molestation. Torture falls into the same category. The comparison I was making was not to the number of people involved, but to the moral quality of the crime.
Witness the success of the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs
(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—
. . .
(C) the threat of imminent death . . .
While it's clear that waterboarding is terrifying when it's happening, it's not clear to me that it causes "prolonged mental harm." Still less is it clear that those who performed or ordered waterboarding intended to cause prolonged harm (as opposed to scaring KSM or whoever into talking right then and there).
To tie back to Orin's original point, if the legality of waterboarding is questionable, adn the goal behind it (protecting the country from terrorism) was laudable, an awful lot of people are going to be sympathetic to any defendant who's charged with a "war crime" for doing it, or ordering others to do it.
In interpreting the statute, it's helpful to look at precedent. If you do that, you'll see that waterboarding is a paradigm example of torture and has always been treated as such. See, e.g., here.
It doesn't matter whether those claims or not: what matters is that people believe them. And that's mostly related to how loudly and confidently conservative media folks assert them, not to the actual truth of the matter.
There is the Judicial Confirmation Process to prove how well this concept of self-restraint works.
Members of the United States military take an oath to uphold the Constitution. I suspect very few, if any, would support a coup by ANY President--even one they otherwise support.
But mcdonald, go get your gun and survivor gear, I hear there's folks in Idaho who will be happy to welcome you (and the circle will be complete).
Also, Bush's own State Department has declared that "submersion of the head in water" is a form of torture. The following is from the State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices, regarding Tunisia (2/28/05):
(Emphasis added.) The following is from the State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices, regarding Kenya (2/23/01):
Waterboarding and "submersion of the head in water" are variations on this: using water to asphyxiate. It's hard to imagine that one is torture and the other is not.
Please note that sleep deprivation was also called a form of torture. We do that, and it was authorized by Bush. FBI emails proving this are discussed here, and can be read here and here.
So while we condemn other countries for torture, we've been doing it ourselves, under Bush's Executive Order. So aside from being a war criminal, he's also a hypocrite.
Prolonged mental harm as a result of torture is assumed by the statute. That was explained here.
The statute doesn't require that. It only requires an intention "to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." And there is no exemption for 'I intended to do that but it was for the purpose of saving my country.' The court can decide if any such extenuating circumstances should be taken into account.
And waterboarding would not be so effective in getting people to talk (either truthfully or not) if it did not indeed "inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering."
I think Bush has been the worst president of the last century, possibly the worst ever. Have you considered that at some point your ability to think objectively might have gotten lost?
"The senators on the oversight committees have been briefed for years on the specifics. The Senate chose twice not to pass legislation banning waterboarding. Now they have stirred up a ruckus that forces them to take another vote in order to avoid being called hypocrites.
This subject has been exaggerated for political gain.”
If "waterboarding" is "torture" as defined by US statute (and not as used by popular media), please explain why it would be necessary for the Senate to later (twice) consider banning the practice? In any prosecution, the government must prove that the act violates a criminal statute as written, and not as, using a post hoc analysis, someone might have wish it had been written.
And how about Pelosi, it seems that she at least aquiesced to waterboarding, and maybe even pushed for more:
It seems to me that a high ranking congressperson putting pressure on the CIA to use harsher techniques is at least as guilty as Yoo or Addington.
Maybe you missed the point. I was attempting to point out the absurdities of comparing Bush with Ceasar in the earlier comment. Had you finished reading my comment you would have seen the part where I explicitly stated that I did not seriously think that GWB would actually do that. As a former Army Infantry NCO (E-6(p) when I separated), I am well aware of the oath all soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen take. I also do not seriously think that the Army would participate in what would amount to a coup d'etat.
Interesting that you conflate loony left with right-wing survivalists in your comment. I always thought the two were diametrically opposed.
I, however, am not a leftist, a survivalist or a gun owner. I'm just a guy who mostly wants to be left alone to take care of my family.
Is justice something that South America specializes in nowadays? Between all of the narco-terrorists, tinpot dictators, organized crime and death squads, I hadn't noticed. Anyhow, I'm sure George Bush weeps at the thought of never being able to visit your wonderful continent.
You are making a specious claim that has been made many times before. You are suggesting that when a GOP Congress defeated the Kennedy amendment in 2006, that this was tantamount to the legalization/endorsement of waterboarding. Trouble is, that amendment mentioned lots of things besides waterboarding. It also mentioned, for example, burning and electric shocks. So are those things legal now, too? If they're not, then why would it be necessary for the Senate to "consider banning" them?
More detail on this here.
"My specific references to the Holocaust and slavery were to give examples of the types of acts which could not possibly be considered "policy disputes". Similar conduct would be rape or child molestation. Torture falls into the same category. The comparison I was making was not to the number of people involved, but to the moral quality of the crime." Mark Field
Yes, and destroying the earth with a Star Wars styled death ray could not possibly be considered within a "policy dispute" discussion either, so you might have forwarded that argument as well. That way, the Holocaust, slavery, destroying the earth with a death ray - and waterboarding - can all be clearly seen as something other than mere policy disputes.
And I see the earlier suggested contrast - for purposes of gauging what actually needs to be done in grim, real-world situations - with the realities in Sudan and Zimbabwe have been ignored as well. As has the discussion that pertains to negligence in these policy decision areas. So yes, much has been ignored.
Then, once it's allowed that there are some very grim, real-world situations that need to be addressed, need to be faced up to, despite the manifest and varied problems involved, it will additionally need to be allowed that not everything will be handled in a pristine manner, that contingency will play its part, that some people are going to have to get their hands dirty. Not the Dahlias and Mark Fields of the world, because they will ever be standing over and above those nasty realities, not over eager, shall we say, to get their own hands dirty. Rather, leave Saddam & Sons in power and indulge in self-applauding behavior, for being apathetic, for being negligent, for not getting their hands dirty. And of course the left and related precincts are studiously forgetful about how many of their numbers were protesting and inveighing against going into Afghanistan after 9/11 - more studious, memory hole forgetfulness.
As to waterboarding more specifically, it is a modified and mitigated form of torture at worst. It's a worthy discussion - as long as the participants are sober minded and not given to facile Holocaust analogies and Bush=Hitler/Stalin styled accusations.
Somewhere in the area of 400,000 former South Vietnamese were not waterboarded, but were variously slaughtered in the wake of the U.S. forsaking it's promises, post-April, 1975 - and after nearly all U.S. forces had left the theater. That's a bit of memory hold negligence we'll never hear the Left hold themselves to account for; they're too busy admiring themselves for not getting their hands dirty.
How exactly is "the army" going to back him up? The Old Guard, the US Army unit stationed in the DC area, is pretty good at marching and one of its units did deploy, but at best they are unsupported infantry as stationed.
The closest Marine base is a training base with no combat units.
Both the FBI and DC Police have more armor than either military force in the DC area. An attempt by the military to insert combat units into DC would require a road movement from North Carolina, or the US Air Force to airlift a unit-- which is a massive undertaking.
The Marine Corps could, could maybe, self deploy its LAR unit with its own C-130s, but that would require a road movement of 40 miles still from their DC area base and they would require heavy cover from Marine air even if the Corps helo lifted in supporting 155 arty.
Taking a city against armed and armor supported opposing forces requires armor, arty, and air cover. That sort of military power is just not in the DC area.
Note to self: leave the sarcasm/irony/satire to Sarcastro. Readers don't seem to get it unless it explicitly stated in the nom de plume.
happyshooter: please reference my 12:44 post on the subject.
Unless, of course, you are just entering into a hypothetical discussion of how to take DC by military force? If so, I am not qualified to argue that point. My training is exclusively in small-unit tactics (squad and platoon level). I must leave large scale strategy to the field grade and flag officers. And, of course, to internet commentators.
How many times does this argument have to be refuted before the point sinks in?
Trainees are volunteers. They know that the waterboarding is going to stop. They know it's not going to be repeated endlessly. They know there are strict limits on what can be done. They are not being held in indefinite detention.
Do you truly not see any difference?
Your argument is like saying that if someone deliberately barrels into me and knocks me down and lands on top of me it's not a crime because hey, that happens to football players all the time. Or like saying there's no such thing as rape because women have sex all the time.
The statute applies only to people held in "custody." That excludes volunteers participating in a training exercise. Anti-torture laws are not concerned with the treatment of someone who is a volunteer, and consents to a certain experience. Those laws are concerning the treatment of prisoners.
Also, when you know that you're experiencing a training exercise, the terror of not being able to breathe is undoubtedly somewhat mitigated by the fact that you know that the person holding you is very highly motivated to make sure that you don't die. (I now see that byomtov has also explained this.)
I tend to agree. And I think this helps explain why congress has been so limp in upholding the law. And this, in turn, explains why approval of congress is so low.
Next up, gaius will argue that drowning someone in lemonade is OK, since the State Dept complaint was about drowning someone in water.
Waterboarding and submersion are both ways of using water to asphyxiate. The former is attractive because it's easier to implement. For example, it doesn't require a large tub, and a lot of water, and a means of inverting the prisoner.
He's obviously not asphyxiating you (which is what waterboarding is all about). But even if he was, he would not be violating anti-torture statutes, since you are submitting to the procedure as a volunteer.
While I'm concerned about criminals everywhere, I have a special duty to be concerned about criminals who are on my payroll.
The "forgetfulness" is all yours. Bush achieved his highest approval ratings (90%) on 10/9/01, which was immediately after he invaded Afghanistan. Those are the highest ratings for any president, ever.
Really?
There are women having sex all the time?
Where can I find these women?
Where can I find these women?
If you have to ask, you ain't never gonna know.
I still agree with OK that the Addington or Yoo strategies were acting to protect the country and were made in good faith versus a Dr. Mengele looking for some sick kicks. As a result, I would not support war crime prosecution of either men.
Maybe disbarrment for the poorly-written opinions that impacted a lot of lives directly with the bad advice...if Clinton lost his for perjury, then that's appropriate punishment for these two...
Good point. What the United States is allegedly doing (water boarding) is different from what we have prosecuted others such as the Japanese for (water torture) largely because it doesn’t end with filling up someone’s stomach full of water and stomping on their belly until it bursts.
That would be true if they were helpless and powerless, and people were advocating punishment without a careful legal process.
But they will not be helpless and powerless. They would have the services of top-rate lawyers, tremendous financial support if they need it, and as full a set of rights as any accused individual has ever had.
As noted above, I don't think there is any international law that would be applicable that we have signed as a treaty. If you want to present such a treaty, have at it.
Which gets us extradition to Germany. I don't see extradition working here. Plenty of public policy and Constitutional reasons for our courts to refuse, even assuming that there were mechanisms in place that would allow an American citizen to be deported from the U.S. there for trial for a crime that wasn't committed there.Oh, I hadn't realized that Rumsfeld had actively participated in such extraordinary renditions. Was he the one who was flying the plane? Or maybe in the group that allegedly grabbed the terrorists off the street? I thought that was the CIA.
Seriously though, I am unaware of any situations where a citizen of one country was captured by us in his own country and removed from that country without permission of his country's government through extraordinary rendition.
The Republicans at least impeached Bill. What did you get from Nancy with the Frozen Face?
Burning off testicles with a torch
Boring holes into bone with an electric drill
Peeling off skin with a pair of pliers
This is torture
Scaring someone by making it difficult to breath for three minutes isn't torture
I do like admire your chutzba -- i.e., your argument is specious because I disagreed with that argument in one of my prior comments (see link to my prior comment). A "because I say so" argument isn't a legal argument.
Your argument that the Kennedy amendment would also have prohibited other practices (e.g., burning, etc.) doesn't wash when considering whether waterboarding is torture. You can bring in burning and some other practices the Kennedy Amendment would have specifically prohibited under the causes physical injury language of the existing law.
Waterboarding is different. Waterboarding doesn't cause physical injury. It invokes the choking reflex -- causing muscles around the larynx to spasm. But, no water enters the lungs, so there is no threat of death.
Applying law to the facts, the statute is ambiguous, so the defense that waterboarding isn't "torture" as defined by the statute wins -- and the rejection of amendments to specify waterboarding as "torture" as defined by the statute is a strong one.
Neither will Pelosi or Reid. Like they were not interested in 2007 to launch huge investigations.
Obama and Pelosi won't do it because they can't control the political and media fallout. They want to do things and keep office, not risk a GOP rebound.
There will be no prosecutions, American or otherwise. No extradition of US citizens to some international kangaroo court and no arrests of any high-ranking member of the administration that travels abroad.
> 1) It will create (or reinforce) the impression that the pardonees did something requiring a pardon.
Ah, so you, who identify yourself with the accused, want people to just assume guilt. I guess your pro-defendant views only extend to Democrats.
And of course they did something to need a pardon. They are republicans, who might be followed by a Democrat administration. And if you think there is more to it than that, you are deluding yourself.
Another Kevin
Shorter you: “Bush Bad! Grrrr!”
Guest 101
> There's also a broad gulf between receiving a blow job and engaging the governmental apparatus of the United States in a years-long campaign of systematic torture and kidnapping in violation of domestic and international law.
First off, read the charges. B.C. was charged with perjury. And guess what? He did it. And his Department of Justice has thrown people in jail for less, yes, even when it is a lie about sex.
Second, the claim of torture is on a narrow and disputed reading of domestic law. (By the way, lamer, international law doesn’t have a thing to say on this.) and as for “kidnapping” well, Mr. Clinton engaged in the same activities, and you didn’t want him impeached, right?
In other words, you want to convince them for being Republicans.
Sarcastro
> See, if the President does it, that means it's not illegal.
Thank you for giving us the Democratic hallucination of how Democrats see republicans. Of course there is only one party that doesn’t believe in punishing perjury, cash in the fridge, VIPP loansm, etc. If there is one party that believes in protecting those who do wrong if they belong to the right party, it is the Democrats.
WCB
> it's about as likely to happen as that Bush impeachment you've all been desparately seeking for the past two years.
Two years? Try the last 7. I remember Bruce Ackerman predicting that Bush would be impeached for something, anything, before he was sworn in.
> The criminalization of policy disputes is about the worst thing that could ever happen to this country - regardless of ideology or party affiliation.
Sadly, its already happening.
MarkField
> Sure, and the Holocaust was just a policy dispute. So was slavery.
Ah, so listening in on bin Laden’s phone calls is as bad rounding up avowedly innocent people and killing and enslaving them. So is dunking a terrorist in water. Good to know.
> If you, or anyone else, has a serious point to make that torture is a "policy dispute",
Whether or not it is torture is a policy dispute.
Jgshapiro
Right, and in that scenario, you can indict them for extraordinary rendition, too, right? /sarcasm
Its funny how the left’s principles don’t seem to apply when talking about republicans. Its almost as if they are actually siding with the terrorists.
Bruce Hayden
You’re assuming Afghanistan won’t be terror controlled after 4 years of obama... Or as I like to call him, Noobius Maximus.
Chris Cooke
The first statute that you cited was simply about “war crimes” without a very clear definition. It’s a circular argument. Ditto for your torture law. Now if you look around, you find a definition:
> an act ... 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
And what counts as severe physical or mental pain or suffering? If you think these words have a clear enough meaning to justify punishment you are joking. There is a long-standing principle of interpretation of criminal law called the doctrine of lenity, that is designed to prevent exactly what you want: creative reading of the law to harm an unpopular target.
Ricardo
> I would say wrapping someone's face with plastic or cloth and pouring water over that person's nose and mouth involves "the threat of imminent death", torture memo notwithstanding
Uh, no, a threat requires communication. You have to have some reason to believe they will not stop and your own bigotry against America doesn’t count.
Bytomtov
> Do you think it is impossible that giving legal advice could be a crime?
Yes, under a little thing called the first amendment, fascist.
Anyway, the thread gets stupider from there.
For Orin, I say that pardons are only necessary because of the lunacy of the modern left. And that is only necessary if McCain is not president.
Meanwhile, if Obama is president, I suspect that he won’t allow prosecutions because soon as president he will suddenly understand why the so-called “war crimes” are justified.
Fixed that for you.
I want to apologize. I misread your post. I ended up commenting on something you did not state--but that certain lunatics on the left have. So I doubly apologize for confusing you with them.
In theory, that could be true. In this particular case, it isn't.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Giving legal advice certainly can be a crime, just as it can be a fraud.
You desperately need a course in reading comprehension. Apart from Ace's comments above (way above), the most unintelligent part of this thread is your mis-summary of it and your response to your mis-summarized posts.
Anyway, your "summary" of Chris Cooke's post answers your own question about what is torture: an act ... 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. Obviously water torture/water boarding fits within this definition, at least to anyone who hasn't assumed the answer in advance. Triggering the choking reflex is quite clearly physical or mental suffering.
And no, sorry, I am not on the left. But your assumption that anyone who believes Bush has committed a crime is on the left shows how far out of reality you have checked.
I despise the interrogation policy, but that's a disagreement, not a war crime. To me it's very clearly wrong, but to many others it's not. This is something that should be settled but clearly is not yet settled based on the cacophony that results whenever the subject is raised.
do you have an issue with reading comprehension? half of my time in response to you is correcting your misstatements of what i said.
i did not say furhman should have gotten a pass. i said it was unequal justice, and it was (imo) not even perjury, since I still have not heard a convincing argument that it was material.
regardless, for a guy with a perfect record (e.g no past criminal convictions) etc. i think a deferred prosecution or some sort of continued without a finding would have been consistent with how i have seen others treated in similar cases - others who are not cops vilified by the media as racists.
what you keep missing (you previously stated that i was claiming furhman did no wrong and shouldn't have been punished - clearly you misstated my position, and I corrected you) is that i am not giving a furhman a pass. I am saying the perjury and convicted felon status is way out of line with how a civilian with zero criminal record would have been treated in similar circumstances. or how president clinton was treated.
You have some juvenile ideas about countries like Germany.
It is surely quite certain the German government would not like seeing Rumsfeld before a German court. So it would do much to avoid it.
But - if it were the other way, it would be very hard for an American "team" to free him. Germany is no banana republic. It could easily end with some dead team members and some team members for life in a German prison. And the end of NATO, by the way.
So that is why I said you are willing to give Fuhrman a pass. You say that he did great benefit to society, so let's let the perjury go; he doesn't deserve a felony conviction for it. But then you want Clinton in jail for the same crime, and clearly, Clinton did at least as much benefit to society as president as Fuhrman did re Skakel and some serial killer case, so why wouldn't Clinton get a pass too?
But you are also saying that Clinton should have been convicted of perjury and it was a double standard that he wasn't. Except that Clinton was also a civilian with zero criminal record. And the only perjury proved with respect to Clinton was perjury in a civil context, not in a criminal context, where it is usually dealt with much more harshly.
So I think your claims of a double standard are hogwash. Either neither should be in prison, or just Fuhrman, since Fuhrman's criminal-case perjury was more damning than Clinton's civil-case perjury.
Further to byomtov's explanation of why it's not torture if you volunteer for it, by your reasoning Johnny Knoxville has done more to eliminate torture than anyone in history.
There’s another angle to it as well that some people may want to consider. The Bush administration’s actions, at least in part, as they pertain to protecting (or expanding depending on your POV) the powers of the executive branch have been driven by a belief that those powers have been eroded by and encroached on by the post-Watergate “reforms.” If a President Obama or President McCain were to fail to protect those privileges, it could lead to future administrations taking even greater steps towards protecting (or expanding) the power of the executive branch.
In which case, those calling for investigations, prosecutions or extraditions may be setting themselves up for some day yearning for the “openness of the Bush administration” . . .
Too young to have experienced the Carter Administration?
"Both the Clinton impeachment and Bush "accountability trials" are sad examples of the extreme partisanship that has infected our governmental processes."
Except, of course, there is pretty good direct evidence that Clinton committed perjury (he eventually all but admitted it).
Just curious WRT waterboarding. Will the people who waterboarded others in protest against the government be prosecuted? Can you murder someone as a form of protest against capital punishment and not be prosecuted? I highly doubt it.
Can you volunteer to be murdered? Remember, we're talking war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc.
So if a group of soldiers goes into a village and pays prostitutes to have sex it's the exact same thing if a group of soldiers goes into a village and rapes all of the women? Right.
"And for the obtuse, let me spell it out for you. There is a far greater gulf between prostitution and rape than between murder and war crimes (including torture). I'd bet that the libertarians hereabouts would gladly lump the latter three, while having problems tossing in the former."
For the really, really obtuse: if it's such a horrific crime that we need to prosecute Bush for war crimes, then the protestors should be prosecuted as well. Of course, a rational person might note that if the Bush administration did in fact torture people (three, if you believe both the Bush administration and that waterboarding is torture), it was allegedly to protect the nation. The really, really, really, really obtuse would then assert that the protestors did what they did for the good of the nation. How many of those protestors were protesting the Clinton administration engaging in extraordinary rendition? Is all of this enough of a point for you?
No. It doesn't begin to address the difference between being waterboarded voluntarily, under what can safely be assumed to be controlled conditions, and being subjected to it involuntarily, with no idea what the limits are.
What part of "against your will" don't you understand? If I set my own hair on fire, it's many things, but torture isn't one of them.
Neither Bush, nor anyone else in the administration should be prosecuted for war crimes (or anything else) unless there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial. In order to gather that evidence there needs to be an investigation. There are enough credible allegations out there to warrant an investigation. Perhaps everyone making the allegations are lying. Or maybe it's collective BDS.
Actually we know of two cases where non-terrorists were rendered and tortured. In the first case, torture was alleged at a CIA facility in Afghanistan (el-Masri that I linked to above). In the second, a Canadian citizen (Maher Arar) was rendered to Syria to allegedly be tortured. Both are a violation of US law and the Convention Against Torture Treaty.
Now I'm not sure about you, but if I were to pick someone up off the street, lock them in my basement and beat the crap out of them to protect my family, I would be sitting in a jail cell waiting for trial. What most administration defenders suggest is that we shouldn't even investigate the allegations. So much for the rule of law.
Tu quoque. Anytime I hear "Clinton did it!" I'm reminded of the South Park episode with "Simpsons did it!" I treat that type of argument with the same level of respect.
Uh, the particular acts Clinton apparently committed were not "adultery" under the law in effect at the time. They would, however, have constituted the felony of "sodomy" under a law (D.C. Code § 22-3502) that was effectively repealed on September 14, 1993 (or before the acts in question took place).
I swear, the only symptom of BDS more obvious than criticizing George Bush is defending Bill Clinton.
1. waterboarding might be defined as torture!
(it is arguable- see posts above about its use as a training technique, not fitting technical definition of grave bodily harm etc).
2. Then once we have defined waterboarding as torture and the administration admits to waterboarding a handful of terrorists- suddenly all of the posts are war crimes for torture?
Take all of the hysterical posts above and replace war cirmes, and torture with waterboard two terrorists to get vital information to stop further crimes and terrorist attacks - and it just doesn't pass a smell test-
so harp on TORTURE and WAR CRIMES- not say waterboarding- a very considered policy, with congressional notification that waterboarded a very small number. Just keep yelling WAR CRIMES.
All that Dahlia and the extreme left and extreme libertarians are showing is why the majority of americans will never trust them with the nation's security.
If this type of silliness comes out before the election- there is no way Obama will be elected. What a great platform- toss over for show trials officials in an administration for waterboarding in a few specific case- something the majority of americans wojuld likely agree with in those specific cases.
Keep it up- If it goes on long enough it might end up letting the Republicians gain seats in the senate.
I'm not so sure. I think that depends on the quality of the blow job.
What the effete left fails to realize and that people go through so-called torture all the time:
waterboarding - hardly torture. Our troops volunteer for it and it sounds like something you would do on vacation. "Hey man, let's go down to the beach and do some waterboarding!"
sodomy - have you ever been to San Fransicko? Given the left's fondness for gay rights, you would think sodomy would be a bonus, not torture.
sleep deprivation - I know plenty of people that have worked long hours.
electrodes to genitals, beatings - sicko leftists do this all the time and they PAY for it! Look at all of the S&M dungeons.
genital mutilation, removing fingernails - go check out BME. If people are willing to do it to themselves, it surely can't be torture.
stress positions - have you ever tried yoga? Yeesh.
hypothermia, extreme temperatures - so now camping, climbing mountains, living in the desert is considered torture? Hah! Silly leftists! Look at me, I'm an Eskimo, I'm living in a constant state of torture.
Exactly! Just look at all of the intelligence we got out of Arar and el-Masri. And one thing we can be sure of is if the administration tells us these are the only people they have tortured, it is 100% gospel. All real conservatives know you should trust the government.
Yes -- the one is grounds for moral outrage and removal from office. The other is merely a war crime.
Remind me - what was your reaction when the previous CA attorney general said that he thought it would be good if the Enron folks were raped in prison?
Orin: To what crimes are you referring?
Its easy to say you would investigate and prosecute an outgoing head of state and his staff, but there is much risk there also. Its called tit for tat. You will not always be in power. There is a lot of Real Politik going on in the background.
All big governments have things they want to hide from their citizens. It would be better if they didn't, but that does not change the truth. Nobody wants to start this pissing contest, there is too much to lose and too little to gain.
Saying "Bush lied, people died" gets you much more political capital than prosecuting Bush et al. Just like saying "Bush stole the election" is much sexier than the real story. Think of the long drawn out trial, boring facts and all the people involved on both sides of the aisle that would not like to point out their past support.
Do I think it would be interesting to find out exactly what happened? Yes. Is it possible with our current political situation in this country. Not really, at least not if I want to hear the unbiased truth from either side.
We prosecuted Japanese for using techniques that seem indistinguishable from what we are allegedly doing. For example, consider the following account (pdf):
US authorities claimed Genji Mineno poured water down the nostrils of George De Witt Stoddard and William O. Cash, and that this comprised an act of torture (without any reference to "stomping on their belly").
I would be interested in knowing your basis for feeling confident that what we do is materially different than pouring water down someone's nostrils.
Aside from that, it would be good to know your basis for feeling confident that we're not also "filling up someone’s stomach full of water and stomping on their belly until it bursts."
In my prior comments, I didn't just disagree with your argument. I proved it was specious.
You're completely neglecting to address the issue. If burning was already illegal, why was it mentioned in the amendment?
If the rejection of the amendment tells us that waterboarding is legal, why doesn't it also tell us that burning and electric shock are legal?
Whether or not waterboarding causes physical injury is strictly a matter of duration. Waterboarding is a method of asphyxiation. Asphyxiation leads to brain damage and death within a short period of time, for 100% of humans. You should show us your proof that we have never sustained waterboarding long enough to cause brain damage or death.
By the way, one more problem with your "physical injury" argument is that electric shock can be done in a manner which induces great pain but causes no physical injury. Therefore you claim that electric shock is legal, right? If not, why not?
According to Malcolm Nance, water enters the lungs. If you claim he's wrong, show us your proof.
Asphyxiation, by definition, embodies the threat of death. It's strictly a question of duration. And asphyxiation doesn't necessarily mean that water enters the lungs. It only means that the lungs are deprived of oxygen. And depriving the lungs of oxygen is precisely the point of waterboarding.
Let us know if you have any proof that waterboarding did indeed "stop further crimes and terrorist attacks."
Comments like this puzzle me. What difference would it make to anyone what I, an otherwise obscure lawyer, think of a statement made by someone else years ago about an event that never happened? Assume I laughed gleefully -- would that make torture somehow right? Would that make it ok for the Enron execs to be raped?
No. The Convention Against Torture expressly excludes ALL defenses. In that sense it's like child molestation. The only way to avoid conviction is to show that (a) you didn't do it; or (b) you did do it, but what you did was not, as a matter of law, within the definition of the crime.
Great. So the prez can do whatever he likes, breaks whatever laws he sees fit, and we should do nothing about it. Where were you guys when Clinton was impeached? Did that destabilize the country?
What about Nixon? He was run out of office, and I think that actually helped the country more than it destabilized it. That Ford pardoned Nixon just shows that Nixon did something wrong that he needed a pardon for.
Perhaps if Nixon were actually presecuted, then we wouldn't have Bush running around the law like he does.
Oct 7, 2001, bombing in Afghanistan begins
Nov 9, 2001, Mazar e Sharif falls
Dec 6, 2001, Khandahar falls
Dec 21, 2001, new Afghani govt. sworn in
Now, some quotes from both moderate and from less moderate leftist quarters during that same time period:
Oct 8, 2001, "My daughter ... thinks we should fly an American flag out our window. Definitely not, I say: The flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war." The Nation, Katha Pollitt
Oct 24, 2001, "The U.S. road out of the quagmire in Central Asia ultimately passes through the U.N." WaPo, James Hoagland
Oct 31, 2001, "Could Afghanistan become another Vietnam? Is the United States facing another stalemate on the other side of the world? Premature the questions may be, three weeks after the fighting began. Unreasonable they are not, ..., echoes of Vietnam are unavoidable." NYT, R W Apple
Nov 4, 2001, "The administration has bungled the challenge. ... The war effort is in deep trouble. The United States is not headed into a quagmire; it's already in one. The U.S. is not losing the first round against the Taliban; it has already lost it." LATimes, Jacob Heilbrunn
Nov 4, 2001, "Americans must face a hard reality: massive military force is not a winning weapon against these enemies. It makes the problem worse. In contrast, a strategy that emphasizes clever diplomacy, intelligence gathering, and carefully selected military strikes might produce success eventually if we pursue it with patience and tenacity." NYT, John Mearsheimer
Dec, 2001, "Anthrax did not come from a cave in Afghanistan, ... Ashcroft is using the FBI as one weapon, the IRS as another weapon, and leaks to the right-wing media as another weapon ..." Jesse Jackson
Jan 20, 2002, "This present government in America I just find disgusting ... When I see an American flag flying, it's a joke." Robert Altman
Sept, 2001, Britain's New Statesman rhetorically asks if the victims of 9/11 were truly innocent, and answers with an equivocal "yes" and "no" in its commentary.
Jan, 2002, "... in fact the attacks [in Afghanistan] are a continuation and escalation of a war for the colonial subjugation of the Middle East that has been fought more or less continuously since World War II between the USA and its proxy state Israel ..." Radical Philosophy 111, Jan/Feb 2002, pp. 11-19, Andrew Chitty
It was during this period as well that the U.N.'s sanctions against the regime of Saddam & Sons in Iraq, initially imposed after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, was being referred to as the U.S.-led sanctions that were purportedly killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children and Iraqis in general - despite ample and available evidence to the contrary.
It was during this period that the casualties in Afghanistan, civilian casualties most emphatically, were being advanced as propaganda, as evidence of U.S.-led neo-colonial mischief and malevolence by the anti-war Left of that period.
Etc. Etc. ...
This is all worth some pointed emphasis, in part, because as recently as a few months ago, MoveOn.org operatives such as Tom Matzzie were advancing similar rhetoric against the campaign in Iraq. It was the thuggish Tom Matzzie for example - as a MoveOn.org operative - who initiated the "General Betray Us" campaign in 2007 at a time when the evidence was coming in that the surge strategy was taking hold, was beginning to have a notably positive effect, receiving approval from Iraqis themselves as well as from commentators in the west. Etc. Etc. ...
Besides, it's far from clear that all the quotes on that list you copied from somewhere (Andrew Chitty completely gives it away, if there were any doubt) reflect disapproval of the Afghan War. Questioning how a war is going, and what the best way to end it is, does not mean that one was "inveighing against" it to begin with.
Find more intelligent sites to copy and paste from.
You should tell us where they came from. Many or most of them seem to be lifted from here. Unfortunately, John Hawkins has a track record of promoting phony quotes. Like here, where he alleges Bill Clinton said this:
Let us know if you can find a legitimate source for that quote. Likewise for the ones you listed, so they can be evaluated in context. That way we can see if they opposed the invasion entirely (which is what you claimed), or if they had a different complaint (as byomtov said).
Aside from that, many of those quotes are prescient. You are correct that certain people warned about a quagmire in Afghanistan. They were right. I remember when Bush said this (9/27/04):
From Stars and Stripes, today:
Gosh, how could that be? I thought "Taliban no longer is in existence?" Those who warned about a quagmire were right. Bush was wrong.
Jesse Jackson was also prescient when he said this:
McCain et al promoted the idea that the anthrax came from Iraq. McCain was wrong.
I don't understand your point. Michael B was specifically refuting Jukeboxgrad's allegation that everyone was in love with GWB at the time of the Afghan war. He provided specific examples and you sneer because it is a cut-and-paste. But you do not refute that those were the positions of some leftist luminaries.
Robert Altman's comment is particularly repugnant; Katha Pollitt's only mildly less so because I did't know who she was before doing a quick Google search. I was however, amused that Camille Paglia referred to her as a "whiny troll, an unscrupulous and unreliable critic and a cultural philistine...She's a good example of the phony prep-school/trust-fund leftism suffusing the incestuously interwined Ivy League cliques who run the corrupt East Coast literary and magazine establishment."
Now THAT's an insult. Blog posts are pedestrian by comparison.
I'm assuming you wrote those words before you saw what I posted here (although I also think bytomtov was clear enough in his objection, and you are failing to address his objection).
And you fail to respond to mine. Do you agree with Robert Altman or Katha Pollitt's sentiments?
If either of them (or any of the other quoted speakers) did not say what is purported, you would think they would have provided a denial. Since you are the expert at finding links, provide the links with the denial. If these are inaccurate statements, I am sure you will do so. Or have you already tried and found out they are accurate?
Three points in response:
1. When someone claims that 90% of the people approved of Bush it is no counterargument at all to find quotes from people who didn't. Obviously, 10% didn't approve of Bush, so identifying some of them says absolutely nothing about whether 90% did approve. Jukeboxgrad disn't say "everyone." He said "90%."
2. Some of the quotes provided do not indicate disapproval. Apple's quote, for example, addresses the progress of the war, not the wisdom of going into it to begin with. And what does a paraphrase of something that appeared in a British publication have to do with American attitudes? And who is Andrew Chitty, anyway? Is he the new Ward Churchill?
3. When you do a cut-and-paste job from some site called "rightwingnews" you don't do your credibility a lot of good. Maybe they're accurate, maybe not, but they would be a lot more convincing if they came from a recognized source.
Pollitt made her obnoxious point on September 20, 2001.
I verified both quotes rather easily.
Fine. But is that where Michael B. got them?
In any case, evn if all the quotes are accurate, it doesn't change my point, which is simple arithmetic. If 90% approve then 10% don't.
If a high school principal says, "90% of our graduates go to college," it is no refutation to say, "What about John and Susan? They didn't go."
OK. They're part of the other 10%.
Sorry, but that's baloney. If NYT puts a phony quote on the front page, the source is likely to find out, and issue a denial. But I doubt that Robert Altman ever heard of John Hawkins and a site called Right Wing News.
There are tons of phony quotes floating around on right-wing sites like that, and it would be silly and futile for anyone to track them all down and issue denials. And where is the denial supposed to be posted? By the way, one reason it would be silly to issue denials is that it would only draw attention to the quote, and raise the profile of the person doing the dishonest quoting. And that person would simply deny the denial.
I have better things to do than try to validate someone else's questionable quotes. If you really think they can be validated so easily and quickly, then you should go ahead and do so (I see you have done so for precisely one). And I'm not necessarily claiming they are all not accurate. I'm pointing out that it's impossible to evaluate the quote in context, because links are not provided. And I also know that Hawkins has a track record of promoting bogus quotes, and that seems to be the source for many of these quotes.
Yes, which only proves that there are lots of people like michael b, who promote quotes without referring to a legitimate source.
The link you cited is to mediaresearch.org, which has no greater credibility than John Hawkins.
Thanks, that's actually a link to a primary source. Now tell me why one quote from someone I never heard of proves the claim that was made (that "many" protested against the invasion of Afghanistan). Replace "many" with 'a handful' and you'll be getting closer to the truth.
Thanks for starting this rabbit. It brought out all the loons. And gave me a good addition to my blog.
In sum, the original quotes - together with the original dates and the original sources - are provided, with only one or two exceptions. Op-ed and news-ed styled commentary was not relied upon whatsoever, neither from the left of center nor from the right of center secondary sources.
As to the 90%/10% polling question in the immediate wake of 9/11 and what that reflects more specifically as applied to the Afghanistan campaign, I wouldn't pretend to know. I certainly wouldn't pretend to know with the degree of specificity and certainty byomtov and jukeboxclown are claiming. Indeed, jbc, in providing the link, openly admits the question was not about Afghanistan specifically but reflected a general polling question, one directed to U.S. citizens at large, not the Left and related precincts. I would more simply note my own original comment, now with emphasis, was to indicate "... the left and related precincts are studiously forgetful about how many of their numbers were protesting and inveighing against going into Afghanistan after 9/11 ..."
(As to polling numbers, it's worth noting Congress recently "achieved" a single digit approval rating for the first time in the history of that particular polling question. I strongly doubt that falls into a simplistic 10%/90% divide as well.)
I love this site.
If you're going to smear Mark Field, don't you think you ought to make up your mind whether he's a fascist or a communist? Because if you leave it ambiguous like that, people might not take your comment... you know... seriously.
This thread is - by far - the most juvenile, worthless trash I've ever seen on VC.
You obviously haven't gotten the latest memo from Jonah Goldberg. Facist = liberal = communist. Geez, get with the program.
Do you want provide evidence that the mediaresearch.org isnot reputable, other than you don't like Brent Bozell. You are a great practioner in drive-by smearing--and providing nothing to substantiate assertions that you hope everyone else takes as fact.
You are the one that demands absolute 100% proof for everything, except your own smears.
As to the Altman quote, which you have evidently challenged, I found it referenced in such disparate sources as People Magazine, the Guardian newspaper in London, and the IMDB movie database.
There are of course others. And I note that you didn't deny that Altman said it--rather you simply dismiss it. Of course, that is how you operate. YOU smear with abandon without any sources on a regular basis.
But by all means, go for it, Nutroots!
I actually don't know if Jonah drew that conclusion or not. I gave him credit only because it follows naturally from his thesis, the old liberal/communist slander, and the commutative rule.
If he didn't think of it, I'm sure he wishes he had.
Your "decidedly left-wing source" said this:
This is how many times the author used the phrase "the left:" 10. This is how many times the author used the phrase "the right:" zero (except for one instance where the word was used in a different sense).
You have a funny way of defining words like "decidedly left-wing." Just like you have a funny way of defining words like "many" (as in "many … were protesting").
Next time you intend to show proof based on "original sources," you might want to consider doing this: provide original sources. You didn't. And one of the two secondary sources you used is known for promoting phony quotes. When you rely on a source like that, the quote itself is suspect, and it's difficult or impossible to evaluate the quote in the original context. Which is the proper way to evaluate a quote.
But it's no surprise to see you distort facts by using second-hand sources that obscure the original context. That's essentially what you did here.
mediaresearch.org is not reputable because Bozell is a proven liar. He said this:
Proof that this is a lie is here. More proof can be found via here.
The smearer is you. You should show us some examples of me making factual claims where I was not willing or able to present proof. If you can't present examples then you should present an apology.
What I've said multiple times is that a quote out-of-context, via a secondary source, is relatively meaningless. And at this point, we've seen a primary source for exactly one of the quotes that was cited (Pollitt). We also haven't seen an explanation for why a handful of questionable quotes are supposed to be seen as proof of what "many" people allegedly did.
I could come with multiple examples (and I have in the past). But you are a partisan hack and I waste my time and breath doing so.
First of all the truth is not a smear.
Second, Fascist and Communists are not opposite ends of the political spectrum. And both rule by demonizing their enemies. I thought MarkField’s strategy was an excellent example of how you begin the process. No?
At little more study of history and a little less bumper sticker thought is highly recommended.
You made this accusation:
I've asked you for examples. You claim you have provided such examples "in the past." Really? Then it should be easy for you to point to them. What's stopping you?
We're also waiting for you to explain why you cited a known liar (Bozell).
I will give you the sneering last word here. You have accused John McCain of getting his first assignment through Admiral's Action by providing an ambiguous quote from a biography. No names, no actual proof. Instead you repeat things ad nauseam.
On the Catholic thread, you couldn't even get it through your thick head that there is a difference between Baptists and Catholics. Instead you kept repeating it over and over without realizing how idiotic you actually sounded. David Nieporent and others have called you on other things.
I enjoy an intelligent discussion. You seem to like spewing talking points and making misleading arguments. That makes you a hack--an intelligent hack, I acknowlege--but still a hack.
I have never claimed I know this for a fact. But based on common sense, it seems to be a distinct possibility. It just doesn't make sense for the Navy to put its largest squadron in the hands of someone with this much executive experience: none.
If McCain signed SF-180, we would know a lot more. Why doesn't he just do that? And why is this job not even mentioned in his official campaign bio? And why did the job last just 13 months, with him deciding to leave the Navy instead of continuing to advance in rank?
I notice that you haven't made even a pretense of addressing these questions.
I don't claim to know for a fact something I don't know for a fact. If you're looking for an example of someone doing that, you should start here and here.
That thread is here. Baptists are barely mentioned. You mentioned Baptists this many times: zero. So I have no idea what you're talking about.
More accusations with no proof. Here's an idea: show prove for your prior allegations before you invent new ones. We're still waiting for you to prove this one:
Timberg is a Naval Academy grad, a Marine, and a Vietnam vet. I cited him. You can claim you don't like him, and you don't like what he said, but you can't claim I didn't use "any sources."
We're still waiting for you to explain why you take Bozell seriously, even though he is a proven liar.
After reading George Will's column today, I thought of you.
Your latest smear of Mark Field as some kind of lynch-mob provocateur is reprehensible. It's also blatantly dishonest. Mark has repeatedly made clear that punishment only follows conviction at trial, which requires indictment on the findings of a proper investigation. He's said nothing that could be honestly construed as demanding less than the full Constitutional due process that defines precisely what a lynch mob is not. It's pretty ironic that you'd note the potential evil of demonizing your enemies and then twist Mark's words into a risible nexus between his actual views and the very mentality he objects to.
This makes twice that I've followed the link to your blog. "Fool me once..." so mea culpa. The crickets infesting your comment threads suggest I may be your entire readership. That may explain why Mark doesn't seem very concerned about your nonsense.
Mark Field is not calling for a lynching. He is calling for an investigation (as I am). And if the investigation provides grounds for proceeding I have no doubt he will want the accused to have as full a set of legal protections as possible (as I would).
The fact is that it's people like moneyrunner, not Mark Field, who want to lock up anyone they don't like without any sort of process whatsoever.
Thank you for your comments. I beg to disagree. Of course I don’t expect you to incite a mob to hang members of the Bush administration from convenient trees. Stalin didn’t do that either. He had trails, and verdicts; all perfectly legal. But we’ll have history be the judge.
However, you may want to note that even before the Nuremberg trials begin, there are people who are noticing the “totalitarian temptation” or what Jonah Goldberg refers to as “liberal fascism.” Editorial: Wine-and-cheese thuggery
If you are outraged that I remarked a similarity to Markfield’s suggestion that the way to begin the pogrom is to “begin slowly with the least sympathetic defendants and develop the evidence in some detail. As public disgust builds, so will the desire to see punishment inflicted.” I need only point to the fact that those were not my words, they were yours. I need only point out the similarity between what MarkField is recommending and the way that mob in 1908 worked.
I’m not a lawyer. Perhaps that’s the way things are done in legal circles. But in non-legal circles, it’s the way you create mob justice. It’s the way you lynch innocent people. Or do you think advocates of mob justice should not be challenged if they are on your side?
So far as I can tell, there's no barrier to impeaching a president after he leaves office. Of course, the meatiest part of the punishment, removal from office, is irrelevant. The disqualification on future holding of any office of honor trust or profit would have a few effects:
-- Stripping Bush of the benefits of the post-presidency (pension, paid office and staff, Secret Service protection, etc.).
-- Likely preventing the appointment of either to any future, largely honorary post (such as on a bipartisan national commission of the sort that looked into the 9/11 attacks or membership on any of the myriad advisory boards that exist).
-- Potentially (depending on the meaning of "office of honor) preventing either from awards often granted to ex-presidents, such as the Medal of Freedom).
-- Consider whether a conviction of impeachment would also strip a president of any immunity from prosecution he might enjoy by virtue of being a former head of state. (Not my area of law, so I'm not sure if there is any in the first place).
Why wait until after their departures?
Politically, it'd be easier to impeach an ex-president than a sitting one. Furthermore, the cost of any defense to impeachment would presumably be borne by the ex-officials, rather than by the executive branch. (A collateral punishment, to be sure, as I expect that a defense would cost $millions).
Both Bush and Cheney have substantial personal wealth and likely will have remunerative opportunities in the private sector, so the effect of any conviction of impeachment would not leave them in dire financial straits.
The trial itself would permit compelling testimony from administration figures knowledgeable about whatever the House Democrats were to cobble together to make up the charges.
Assuming that the Democrats do as well as even optimistic Republicans predict, they'll gain seats in the House and approach 60 in the Senate. Even if they couldn't get the 66 Senate votes needed for conviction, they'd likely get at least the 50 necessary to make the act a "sense of the Senate" rebuke. If the Democrats do better than expected, 66 votes may be within reach, especially if it becomes an campaign issue against blue state Republicans, few of whom will want to be carrying water for the administration that led to the party's return to the wasteland that is the minority.
Impeachment, as a process, doesn't involve the presidency, thus an enlarged Democratic majority could pursue it with a president McCain. Likewise, with a President Obama, it might serve to make him look moderate. He can talk about wanting to right the wrongs of the past without having to support -- or even while opposing -- the impeachment process.
Thoughts?
Once Obama is elected prez, the right will spend all their time trying to impeach him. That will keep the dems so busy, they won't have time to think about Bush anymore.
Entertaining thought. Does the offical who is impeached have to be living?
That should appeal: a pre-crime trial based on past crimes. It would automatically disqualify an entire generation of Chicago pols.
Of course there’s always Madame Defarge; always knitting. So perhaps there is a longer history.
You think that comparing Stalin's show trials to the American criminal justice system makes your smear more legitimate?
That's right, and he was responding to Orin's conjecture about politics, not crime and punishment. The latter is the exclusive province of a criminal justice system that operates regardless of public opinion. Despite what you may think, the mob has no voice inside an American courtroom. And Mark was absolutely clear that no one should be deprived of their full Constitutional due process.
So yes, what you said was outrageous. That you're defending it here is even more so. You should be ashamed.
Sure, if by "similar" you mean "opposite." Mark was suggesting a political strategy to optimize public response to Constitutionally constrained criminal proceedings. The 1908 mob was the criminal proceeding. If you don't see the difference, I can't imagine why you'd have any problem with Stalin's idea of justice.
You're the one who is lynching an innocent person. And if the universe is ever turned so upside down that you and I find ourselves on the same side, I promise I will challenge you if you do anything this despicable.
I’m not lynching anyone, my friend. Simply reminding everyone how injustice is perpetrated.
That’s how an 84 year old black man got lynched.
You people would be funny of you were not so dangerous. You sit there behind your computer screens and seriously argue that members of the Bush administration should be subjected to a Nuremburg style trial; trials were held to try people for murdering - among other things - six million Jews. My family was in constant danger of this during the occupation. So this means something to me; it’s not an abstraction.
By invoking Nuremberg you compare the Bush administration to Nazis and mass murderers and then expect others to say “That sounds like a reasonable idea?” Do you have any idea how daft you sound?
And you have the gall to call me despicable? You are not morally different from the mobsters in 1908; you just have softer hands.
You haven't addressed a single one of my responses. You simply deny smearing Mark Field, and then you do more of it.
Did I invoke Nuremberg? Did Mark Field? No. You did, yet you attribute it to us. But what the hell -- facts are no impediment to your BS, right?
Did I call you despicable? No. I said what you're doing to Mark Field is despicable. Which it is, for the reasons I explained, which reasons you ignore lest the truth intrude on your slimy character attacks.
Are you despicable? That's not for me to say. I leave it to God and anyone qualified to make such judgments. As for your assessment of my moral worth, I won't be losing any sleep over it.
Do other countries' prosecutors get to harass US citizens and residents by indicting them? There's a saying, possibly valid only in the US, that a DA can indict a ham sandwich.
-dk