AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

oe, She always uses that "you don't understand" ploy, and never admits she is wrong about any issue - even when people point out her own contradictions.

It's interesting to observe in people like Foxie who thinks her arguments has any legs.

All we can do is continue to challenge her whenever we can, because that's the only way we can show people readings these threads that MACs are a funny group - that provides entertainment.

No you are answering the question of whether somebody should follow orders that they know is in violation of the law.

I am asking the question of whether somebody should be investigated and/or prosecuted who believed they were following the law via the consent of Congress?

Hypotheticals. If, if, if, if. If this, if that, you argue, then there is no justification for investigating law breakers. Part of the problem is that you assume your "ifs" to be true. Another part of the problem is even if your "ifs" are true, no one is above the law. With respect to the first part of the problem, an investigation is necessary to ferret out all the facts so that we're not dealing with hypotheticals.

We have enough information to establish a prima facie case that high ranking government officials conspired to violate federal and international laws prohibiting torture. More facts are needed to determine the extent of the conspiracy and those facts may be unearthed through an investigation. You stated, however, that you are against an investigation.



Obama recognizes that any individual who tortured prisoners, but sought a legal opinion in advance of the illegal conduct and relied in good faith upon that legal opinion and did not exceed the scope of the legal opinion, has a recognizable affirmative defense if that individual is prosecuted for violating the laws against torture. The existence or nonexistence of a "good faith defense" is a fact issue to be determined by a jury. That determination does not belong to the President and it certainly does not belong to you. The President of the United States has no power or authority to immunize anyone against prosecution for past criminal acts. If and when a person is convicted of a crime, Obama has the power and authority to issue a pardon, but he does not have the power or authority to stop an investigation or a prosecution of an alleged criminal.

You assume that individuals who tortured acted in good faith without the benefit of an investigation to ferret out the facts. You assume that individuals who tortured did not exceed limitations set forth in the legal opinions without the benefit of an investigation to ferret out the facts. You assume that individuals who orchestrated the torture program did not enter into a criminal conspiracy to violate federal and international laws against torture without the benefit of an investigation to ferret out the facts.

Based on your assumptions, you argue that an investigation is not necessary and ALL individuals--from the ones at the very bottom who actually tortured to the ones at the very top who orchestrated the torture program--are entitled to a "get out of accountability for your criminal acts" free card.

You argue, if we assume certain things to be true, then an investigation is not necessary to determine if our assumptions are true or false. As OE noted, you have failed to submit an intelligent argument.

According to YOU, if Obama uses his presidential influence to squash an investigation, you will give him a high five! You have made your position known: You do not want anyone in the previous adminstration to be investigated. You accused OE of "attempting to make the previous administration the devil personified while ignoring any culpability on the part of the Congress."



You refuse to respond or explain why allegations of criminal conduct should NOT be investigated. On the other hand, you accuse OE of parroting the most partisan and uninformed leftwing rhetoric:



As an example of what you identified as "the most partisan and uninformed leftwing rhetoric," you posted an NRO article that alleges that Paul Begala mangled facts in the torture debate. Begala, an alleged uninformed leftwing partisan, said, "Our country executed Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American POWs. We excuted them for the same for the same crime we are now committing ourselves." Parados pointed out that John McCain (a person who is NOT a "leftwing partisan") said the same thing.

According to you, Begala is UNINFORMED. But, OE pointed out that Begala's statement was true. OE pointed out that John McCain's statement was true. He is not parroting the most partisan and uniformed leftwing rhetoric as you accused.

Foxfyre, who disregards the proven fact that our country has investigated and prosecuted others for the same thing that she alleges our own people should not be investigated or prosecuted for, claims that "nobody but political hacks and leftwing extremeists groups/sources have disputed the NRO story." In her next keyboard breath, however, she acknowledges that the NRO story that she posted "didn't say nobody who ever did waterboarding was executed."

Foxfyre continues to ignore the fact that torture is a crime and we have prosecuted others for committing that crime. The ultimate punishment for the crime, whether it be imprisonment for 15 years or death, does not diminish the fact that our country has investigated and prosecuted others for engaging in unlawful torture. Therefore, why shouldn't we investigate and prosecute those who are responsible for waterboarding a prisoner 183 times in one month in combination with subjecting the prisoner to a multitude of other nefarious techniques designed to make him suffer serious physical and mental pain?

Because Foxfyre was backed into a corner, she reached into her bag of modus operandi tricks and pulled out this little gem:



Let the record show:

Foxfyre made the unfounded accusations, and OE discredited her accusations.

OE responded to the issues raised by Foxfyre. Foxfyre is the one who has failed to address OE's argument.

Foxfyre, please address OE's question: If you think that violations of the law should not be investigated or prosecuted, please try and make an intelligent argument. Do not base your response on assumptions that have not been investigated and then allege an investigation is not necessary if your presumptions are presumed true. After all, if the presumption of innocence was sufficient to curtail a criminal investigation, then no criminal investigations would ever take place.

Then you agree with the President that they should not be going back into the previous administration to investigate and/or prosecute people who believed they were within the law and who clearly WERE within the law via the consent of Congress who repeatedly funded the program. To do so sets a viscious precedence that simply should be not introduced into the political system. If there was clear violations of the law, then yes. Investigate and prosecute. That is not the case here, and President Obama knows it.

Why is that so difficult for you to acknowledge?

Those who performed torture may have followed the Bush administration's legal advise, but they all lost their moral compass. Something in their brain should have told them it was wrong. It's the same with killing innocent people during war; we have seen criminal acts perpetrated during times of war by all. Many were not prosecuted, but they gave up their morals to kill innocent people without justifiable cause.

Unfortunately, the president is allowed to pardon criminals for their crimes.

No. If that is Obama's opinion, then I disagree with him. If I get a lawyer to attest me that murdering my neighbour is not a violation of the law, and I go ahead and shoot him point blank, I should not get off scot-free merely because I can point to a legal opinion stating that what I did would be okay.

Apart from that: as far as I'm aware, there is no such thing as being "within the law via the consent of Congress who repeatedly funded the program". If Congress funds an illegal program, that makes the actions of Congress illegal, too. It doesn't make the actions of those following the program legal.





Prosecuting somebody who violated the law sets a "viscious precedence that simply should be not introduced into the political system"???

You're kidding, right?




According to you. Please provide evidence that torturing detainees is not a violation of the law.




Again, as far as I know: the President can voice an opinion in this matter. It's not within his power to make the decision of which actions are constitutional and which ones are not. That decision is made by the courts, not by the President.

The 'don't inject investigations' into politics line is the dumbest, most idiotic thing I've ever heard. You're literally applauding lawbreaking and corruption and suggesting that we do not enforce the laws of America, b/c it's not convenient to do so.

What an unpatriotic thing to say! Truly ridiculous.

Defending torture will doom the right-wing in America. Keep running on the principle that we should be torturers, and that no politician should be investigated or tried for any crime they commit. Please.

Cycloptichorn

Foxie wrote:

This is perhaps the most insane statement Foxie has ever made to date. Political crimes have been prosecuted in most civilized countries.

By her own words, it is true that Foxfyre supports torture. Her reasons for doing so cannot be justified.

First: We know that our enemies may not be signatories to international laws prohibiting torture, or they may violate the law. Under SERE training, only the most physically and mentally fit soldiers are qualified to participate in the training. These physically and mentally fit soldiers are trained to survive and (hopefully) resist methods of ILLEGAL TORTURE when they are captured by the enemy. Even though we train our soldiers to survive unlawful torture, we still hold the enemy accountable for its crimes.

Second: Safeguards are built into the SERE training program wherein a soldier is allowed to signal the trainer when he has had enough and the training immediately ceases. Our prisoners, however, are not allowed to signal when they cannot tolerate the torture in order to end it. The point of torture is to push the victim past the point of tolerance in order to coerce information from their lips no matter how unreliable that information may be.

this is stupid.

the question isn't whether or not Waterboarding is torture. of course it's torture. does anyone really suppose that the practice is used to give the interviewee great pleasure ??

bullsh*t.

the question is at what point have we given up what is good about america and become just like the adversaries.

now, this guy, young Hannity says that this is not torture. he said he would allow himself to be waterboarded "for charity".



so far, no waterboarding for sean. wonder why?

on the other hand, we have Christopher Hitchens (who i usually find a little pompous, but i gotta give him props on this one), who without a lot of advance hoopla, had it done to himself. it appeared first in the magazine a couple of months ago.

let's watch this demonstration of "not torture";




is this the kind of country we want to be?

it's bizarre, but there are some who equate speaking up against this **** with "loving the terrorists". but when we do this kind of stuff, and justify it with some kind of irrational ideological blather like the enemy does, i really have a hard time telling the difference between us and them.

Well, are we going to see Sean Hannity get waterboarded this Sunday? He's going to earn $1000/second for charity. Scum.

Wow. Your irrational appeal to extremes never ends. If I had enough time to communicate all relevant facts to an attorney and to wait for a written legal opinion to cover my ass, then I also have time to pursue legal forms of interrogation that are more likely to produce far more reliable results.



Are you truly this obtuse? You're acting like we tickled someone on the feet with a feather for a few seconds, but stopped long before he wet his pants from laughing so hard. If the torture victim was not subjected to severe mental and physical pain, what incentive would he have to talk in order to end the severe mental and physical pain? If someone subjected your loved one to the same cruel and inhumane treatment that our government subjected our prisoners to hour after hour, day after day, month after month, you would be demanding investigation and punishment.

Torture is a crime. Should our country investigate allegations of crime, gather evidence, and prosecute the wrongdoers when the evidence is sufficient to prove the commission of a crime? Yes or no?

Debra, What you'll get in response from Foxie is "hee haw!"

There was no 'consent of Congress' Fox. Only 4 people in Congress were informed of what was going on and they couldn't tell anyone else and at least one of those wrote a letter of protest.

That leaves 531 members of Congress that did not give their consent because they had no idea it was going on.

Nancy Pelosi: I Was Never Told Waterboarding Was Being Used on Terror Suspects.

Despite what Republicans are saying, Nancy Pelosi insists that congressional leaders were never told that waterboarding was actually used on terror detainees.The Washington Post says, she pointed the finger of blame at the Bush administration for not following through on promises to tell her when they actually would start using such “enhanced” interrogation techniques.

The California Democrat said Thursday that though a few top lawmakers were briefed on detainees, they were not informed of specific tactics. And,

“Flat out, they never briefed us that this was happening,” she told reporters. “In that or any other briefing … we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel … opinions that they could be used.”

Read the transcript of Pelosi’s comments by clicking here.

Earlier, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-OH, criticized Pelosi and other Democratic leaders for backing the idea of investigating the use of such techniques after not raising concerns about them when the threats to the country were most imminent.

“Well, yesterday I saw a partial list of the number of members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, who were briefed on these interrogation methods and not a word was raised at the time, not one word,” Boehner told reporters. “And I think you’re going to hear more and more about the bigger picture here, that what " the war on terror after 9/11 was done in a bipartisan basis on lots of fronts. And that bigger story will be coming out.”

It would seem very easy to check out whether this is true or not. It should be easy for the republicans to produce evidence that congress was privy to the waterboarding info. Why aren't they producing this evidence?

They knew it was both morally wrong and illegal BEFORE they sought a legal opinion. The legal opinion was obtained in order to cover their asses for what they already knew was morally wrong and illegal. The acquisition of a legal opinion was simply part of the ongoing conspiracy to violate federal and international laws prohibiting cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners. Despite the acquisition of a legal opinion, the director of the FBI knew that torturing prisoners was morally wrong and illegal and the director forbid his personnel from participating in the illegal conduct.

OE gave us an example. If Foxfyre wants to murder her neighbor, and goes to a lawyer and obtains a legal opinion that states murdering her neighbor does not violate the law, and she then murders her neighbor, can she reasonably expect to escape criminal liability for her crime of murder? Good faith reliance on advice of counsel requires REASONABLENESS.

The whole world--especially intelligence gathering officers of the CIA and the military whose job it is to know the law and the limitations that the law places on their intelligence gathering conduct--knows that torture is unlawful and that waterboarding is torture. Obtaining a legal opinion that asserts a contrary opinion in an effort to avoid the limitations of anti-torture laws does not smack of "reasonable" reliance upon the advice of counsel.

I thought Foxfyre was "on the record" as placing me on ignore because I allegedly don't follow her rules of engagement.

The Geneva Conventions regarding prisoners of war, applies only to those prisoners of war who were captured while in uniform, AND who did not intentionally kill or try to kill civilians (e.g., non-murderers).

The torture of prisoners of war, who were captrured while not wearing a uniform OR who were captured while killing or attempting to kill civilians, is not prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

Toturing prisoners of war , who killed or attempted to kill civilians, in order to get information from such prisoners to save civilian lives, is not only lawful, moral, and ethical. It is also humane.

However, I personally oppose that torture which physically or mentally cripples prisoners of war.

I know ignorance of the law is no excuse, but many in government settings can get confused from being told "it's legal." Morality is another issue, and that opens up a whole new area of debate. Just look at Foxie's example of "if your family were in imminent danger..." kind of scenario.

ican, You just don't know or understand domestic and international laws. Go ply your lies to other conservatives who are ready to accept your deranged interpretations.