55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 08:23 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:
Quote:
I would hope that anybody who breaks the law or is responsible for a crime would be held responsible. You're essentially arguing that, if the current administration breaks the law, too, they could also be prosecuted once they're out of office.


Ok, given the premise, if we are going to enforce a law (given that it was a U.S. law that the enhanced interrogation techniques were illegal at the time they were employed) then shouldn't all those that not only committed the 'crime' but those who so authorized be prosecuted as well? If we are lucky maybe the AG can turn Pelosi to implicate Barney Frank and Chris Dodd with the promise of a lighter sentence!

Of course its not that simple, after all ,the sainted Geneva Convention applys to uniformed declared belligerents Like WWII Japanese and American soldiers not to illegal combatants. But I don't readily accept these absolutely last resort techniques as applied with medical assistance in attendance that some of our own troops are subjected to actually rise to nail pulling, testical electrfying, et al. Especially when viewed within the context of the "ticking bomb "scenario.

JM
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 08:27 pm
@JamesMorrison,
Medical staff in attendance is an oxymoron when they are witnessing torture.

Those two medical staff should lose their license to practice "medicine."
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 08:40 pm
Paging Dr. Mengele, you're wanted in the torture observatory.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 08:52 pm
@Debra Law,
BTW, James Morrison, do you know about the Nazi medical experiments done by doctors during WWII? Even US doctors performed experiments on humans that is tantamount to torture after WWII. Get informed.

US experiments:
http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html

Nazi human experimentation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Doctors from Hell: The Horrific Account of Nazi Experiments on Humans. ... Office of Human Subjects Research. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing ...
[url]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation[/url] - 94k
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 08:58 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Here's the link to Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 09:32 pm
It will be interesting to see what the next administration will do, with the precedence set by the Obama admin and the Democrat congress appearing ready to chase Bush admin lawyers:

No statue of limitations on murder; will Janet Reno be prosecuted for homicide?

Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and their actions leading to the foreclosure crisis; fair game by a repub admin?

Maybe Murtha will finally go down for ABSCAM?

Blagojevich... Who knows what will come out of this circus? Enough for a repub admin to go after Rahm Emanuel after Obama leaves office?

The current admin and dem party congress holding hearings and prosecuting the previous admin will cause payback in the future, watch and see.

Unless, of course, the Obama admin is successful in corrupting the US Census in 2010 and later grants amnesty and voting rights to the 12 million people here illegally. Then, we may certainly see consecutive dem admins…

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 09:50 pm
@A Lone Voice,
ALV, Which domestic or international laws did they break?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  3  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 12:03 am
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:
The current admin and dem party congress holding hearings and prosecuting the previous admin will cause payback in the future, watch and see.


"Our" guy got a blow job and you ordered up the guillotine. "Your" guy conspired to violate federal and international law prohibiting torture, and you warn that his crimes must be swept under a rug or else payback will be a bitch. So what? Your threat means nothing. The Republicans have never bestowed any special benefit upon any Democrat by looking the other way if they thought they could smear a Democrat with allegations of wrongdoing.

This was posted before, but the hypocrisy of your position which you share with Peggy Noonan deserves a second look. Here's what she said about Republicans when they went after Clinton:

"The Democrats had long labeled the impeachment debate a distraction from the urgent business of a great nation. But the Republicans argued that the pursuit of justice is the business of a great nation. In winning this point, they caught the falling flag, producing a triumph for the rule of law, a reassertion of the belief that no man is above it, and a rebuke for an arrogance that had grown imperial," - Peggy Noonan, December 21. 1998.

Here's what she said about the Obama Administration when it released evidence of Bush's crimes against humanity:

"It’s hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, ‘Oh, much good will come of that.’ Sometimes in life you want to keep walking… Some of life has to be mysterious." - Peggy Noonan, April 19, 2009.

Please explain why the pursuit of justice is NOT the business of a great nation when Republicans are the law breakers? Why can't the rule of law triumph? Why do Republicans think they are above the law? Why do you desire to protect Bush's imperial presidency? Other than your threat that payback will be a bitch, why must we sweep Bush's crimes under a rug?
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 12:37 am
This is the policy of the United States of America:

Quote:
‘Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005

SEC. 1091. SENSE OF CONGRESS AND POLICY CONCERNING PERSONS DETAINED BY THE UNITED STATES.

(b) POLICY."It is the policy of the United States to"

(2) investigate and prosecute, as appropriate, all alleged instances of unlawful treatment of detainees in a manner consistent with the international obligations, laws, or policies of the United States;



Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 01:00 am
@Debra Law,
Fox's M.O. has been mapped out a number of times here on A2K. No matter how many people separately come to the same conclusions, Fox will reject them all.

There must be something wrong with us, her arguments are perfect.

I've asked her to identify what is wrong with MAC and she has yet to accept the challenge. Hell, it's not even a challenge, just a request for some intellectual honesty. She's too afraid to show any weakness; too insecure in her stance.

Maybe if she never answers the question, it will just go away. Maybe I'll just stop wanting the answer.

T
K
O
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 08:59 am
@Debra Law,
That's an interesting find, considering the most conservatives on these threads still look up to Reagan as their guiding light. Now, they have contradicted themselves on this issue.

They always put themselves into a box, and don't realize the irony.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 01:20 pm
Quote:
58% Oppose Further Investigation of U.S. Torture Allegations
Saturday, April 25, 2009

President Obama and Senate Democratic leaders are opposed to more investigations of how the Bush administration treated terrorism suspects, and 58% of U.S. voters agree with them. A number of congressional Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are pushing for a wider probe.

Just 28% think the Obama administration should do further investigating of how suspected terrorists were questioned during the Bush years, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.

While the Bush administration’s handling of terrorism suspects has been a highly charged political issue,

Democrats are evenly divided over whether further investigation is necessary. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans and 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party are against more investigating.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of liberals believe more investigating is called for, but 78% of conservatives disagree.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/58_oppose_further_investigation_of_u_s_torture_allegations


0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 01:24 pm
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

Fox's M.O. has been mapped out a number of times here on A2K. No matter how many people separately come to the same conclusions, Fox will reject them all.

There must be something wrong with us, her arguments are perfect.

I've asked her to identify what is wrong with MAC and she has yet to accept the challenge. Hell, it's not even a challenge, just a request for some intellectual honesty. She's too afraid to show any weakness; too insecure in her stance.

Maybe if she never answers the question, it will just go away. Maybe I'll just stop wanting the answer.

T
K
O


You're the one who chose to argue via ad hominem and personal insult. You're still doing it. And you're the one who advised us all that discussing this was not worth your time. I dont' think its worth my time arguing with people who seem to take pleasure in insulting and/or trying to hurt other people and participate in discussions for what appears to be no other reason.

However. . . .

I don't think ANYTHING specifically is wrong with Modern American Conservatism as the MACs have defined it, at least on those points on which we agree. There is much to accuse when the principles embodied in the philosophy are not followed.

Perhaps you could take any one of those definitions, however, and explain what is wrong with it.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 01:29 pm
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 captured while not wearing a uniform OR who were captured while killing or attempting to kill civilians, are not protected from torture by the Geneva Conventions. Thus, the torture of such prisoners is not prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

Torturing 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. Torture of those prisoners of war not covered by the Geneva Conventions and which did not physically or mentally cripple them, did enable US interrogators to obtain information that enabled the US military to save civilian lives.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 01:35 pm
@ican711nm,
Nice try but no cupie doll for you! It's against "our" laws which supercedes Geneva Convention laws.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 01:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
So are you saying that if our laws contradict the Geneva Convention then our laws apply?

Do you seriously mean that?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 01:39 pm
Both Bush’s and Obama’s budgets include on budget and off budget costs. In particular, both budgets include the costs of USA military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama is forecasting a deficit over his 8 year term of office, 2009 thru 2016, of $6,789 billion, or more than 3 times Bush’s 2001 thru 2008 deficit of $1,962 billion, in order to rescue the USA’s economy.

Obama and his supporters are simpletons. They say the best way to solve the problems created by Bush’s excessive spending and lending and rescue the USA’s economy, is to INCREASE instead of decrease that excessive spending and lending.

However, if they do not want to rescue the USA's economy and instead want to replace our economy with something else, then they are simpletons plus something else!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 01:40 pm
@Debra Law,
Conservatives live on threats and fears. That's their only MO that has failed them miserably from the big stuff (Iraq War) to the minute stuff (terrorist threats against the US). They'll never learn.

How many terrorists do they think can get VISAs to come to the US? Are they going to bring bombs and guns with them on the airplane?

If they make any threats on the airplane, how long do they think they'll last?

Most Americans are now aware and will attack and kill terrorists on airplanes if need be. They are not going to let terrorists control any airplane flying into the US - from any place.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 01:47 pm
I really don't want to debate whatever merits or lack thereof there are for torture, however it is described, and for whatever reason it might be authorized on this thread. That has been done ad nauseum on several other threads.

I am interested that our President does not set an ugly precedent regarding investigating policy of the previous administration that will almost certainly come back to haunt his and all future administrations. So far it appears that he will not despite the caterwauling from some of the leftwing extremists. And he deserves high praise for that.

I don't need all the fingers on one hand, much less the thumb, to count the times I have agreed with David Broder about much of anything, but I do frequently read him as he tends to be less hysterical and more thoughtful and utilize better scholarship than most leftwing pundits. Here he got it right:

Quote:
April 26, 2009
Stop the Scapegoating
By David Broder

WASHINGTON -- If ever there is a time for President Obama to trust his instincts and stick to his guns, that time is now, when he is being pressured to change his mind about closing the books on the "torture" policies of the past.

Obama, to his credit, has ended one of the darkest chapters of American history, when certain terrorist suspects were whisked off to secret prisons and subjected to waterboarding and other forms of painful coercion in hopes of extracting information about threats to the United States.

He was right to do this. But he was just as right to declare that there should be no prosecution of those who carried out what had been the policy of the United States government. And he was right, when he sent out his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, to declare that the same amnesty should apply to the lawyers and bureaucrats who devised and justified the Bush administration practices.

But now Obama is being lobbied by politicians and voters who want something more -- the humiliation and/or punishment of those responsible for the policies of the past. They are looking for individual scalps -- or, at least, careers and reputations.

Their argument is that without identifying and punishing the perpetrators, there can be no accountability -- and therefore no deterrent lesson for future administrations. It is a plausible-sounding rationale, but it cloaks an unworthy desire for vengeance.

Obama has opposed even the blandest form of investigation, a so-called truth commission, and has shown himself willing to confront this kind of populist anger. When the grass roots was stirred by the desire for vengeance against the AIG officers who received contractual bonuses from government bailout funds, Obama bought time by questioning the tactic. Quickly the patently unconstitutional 90 percent tax the House wanted to slap on those bonuses was forgotten.

The torture issue is much more serious, and Obama needs to take it on himself, as he started to do -- not pass the buck to Attorney General Eric Holder, as he seemed to be suggesting in his later statements on the issue.

Obama is being blamed by some for unleashing the furies with his decision to override the objections of past and current national intelligence officials and release four highly sensitive memos detailing the methods that were used on some "high-value" detainees.

Again, he was right to do so, because these policies were carried out in the name of the American people, and it is only just that we the people confront what we did. Squeamishness is not justified in this case.

But having vowed to end the practices, Obama should use all the influence of his office to stop the retroactive search for scapegoats.

This is not another 9/11 situation, when nearly 3,000 Americans were killed. We had to investigate the flawed performances and gaps in the system, and make the necessary repairs to reduce the chances of a deadly repetition.

The torture memos represented a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places -- the White House, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department -- by the proper officials.

One administration later, a different group of individuals occupying the same offices have -- thankfully -- made the opposite decision. Do they now go back and investigate or indict their predecessors?

That way, inevitably, lies endless political warfare. It would set the precedent for turning all future policy disagreements into political or criminal vendettas. That way lies untold bitterness -- and injustice.

Suppose that Obama backs down and Holder or someone else starts hauling Bush administration lawyers and operatives into hearings and courtrooms.

Suppose the investigators decide the country does not want to see the former president and vice president in the dock. Then underlings pay the price while big shots go free. But at some point, if he is at all a man of honor, George W. Bush would feel bound to say: That was my policy. I was the president. If you want to indict anyone for it, indict me.

Is that where we want to go? I don't think so. Obama can prevent it by sticking to his guns.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/26/stop_the_scapegoating_96169.html


mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 01:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
How many terrorists do they think can get VISAs to come to the US


How many illegal immigrants have VISA's to come to the US?

While I am NOT saying that those here illegally are terrorists, they are a good example of how porous our borders are.
What would stop them from going to Mexico and then just walking across our border?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 05/05/2025 at 09:19:40