AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

There is as much evidence that the enhanced interrogations were properly authorized and pronounced legal as there is evidence of any impropriety. Remember that our Congress knew of the program and repeatedly voted on a fully bipartisan basis to fund it. To do investigations and attempted prosecutions now would have far reaching and irreversible damage to our national security and would so inhibit those in charge of that so that we won't be able to recruit capable people. Those so wrapped up in their hatred of President Bush and the Republicans can't seem to see that so desperate are you to see that somebody is punished so that you can get your pound of flesh and feel righteous.

At least President Obama is big enough and smart enough to know that. He has agreed with the subsequent Congressional policy to ban waterboarding--that was also on a bipartisan basis--and has outlawed the objectionable practice. And for that I am grateful and for reasonable people, that should be sufficient.

There is as much evidence that the enhanced interrogations were properly authorized and pronounced legal as there is evidence of any impropriety.

Remember that our Congress knew of the program and repeatedly voted on a fully bipartisan basis to fund it.

To do investigations and attempted prosecutions now would have far reaching and irreversible damage to our national security and would so inhibit those in charge of that so that we won't be able to recruit capable people.

Those so wrapped up in their hatred of President Bush and the Republicans can't seem to see that so desperate are you to see that somebody is punished so that you can get your pound of flesh and feel righteous.

Do you honestly think you developed a credible metaphor.

The credible metaphor would be: if Aunt needs to shoot to defend herself, shoot, and it is legal to do so. But if you do, you will be prosecuted for murder anyway.

updated 1:09 p.m. PT, Mon., Nov . 7, 2005

PANAMA CITY, Panama - President Bush on Monday defended U.S. interrogation practices and called the treatment of terrorism suspects lawful. “We do not torture,” Bush declared in response to reports of secret CIA prisons overseas.

Bush supported an effort spearheaded by Vice President Dick Cheney to block or modify a proposed Senate-passed ban on torture.

“We’re working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it possible, more possible, to do our job,” Bush said. “There’s an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again. And so, you bet we will aggressively pursue them. But we will do so under the law.”

By Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 7, 2008
WASHINGTON -- The White House said Wednesday that the widely condemned interrogation technique known as waterboarding is legal and that President Bush could authorize the CIA to resume using the simulated-drowning method under extraordinary circumstances.

The surprise assertion from the Bush administration reopened a debate that many in Washington had considered closed. Two laws passed by Congress in recent years -- as well as a Supreme Court ruling on the treatment of detainees -- were widely interpreted to have banned the CIA's use of the extreme interrogation method.

But in remarks that were greeted with disbelief by some members of Congress and human rights groups, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that waterboarding was a legal technique that could be employed again "under certain circumstances."

Fratto said the nation's top intelligence officials "didn't rule anything out" during congressional testimony Tuesday on CIA interrogation methods, and he indicated that Bush might consider reauthorizing waterboarding or other harsh techniques in extreme cases, such as when there is "belief that an attack might be imminent."

For years, White House officials denied that the U.S. had engaged in torture but always stopped short of confirming whether waterboarding had been used. The administration's latest stance -- described by Fratto during the daily White House briefing -- was denounced Wednesday by key lawmakers. "This is a black mark on the United States," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "The White House is trying to give themselves as much of an open field here as possible. It says to others that we are prepared to use the same kinds of tactics used by the most repressive regimes and the most heinous regimes."

The White House comments came one day after CIA Director Michael V. Hayden testified publicly for the first time that the agency had used waterboarding on Al Qaeda suspects in 2002 and 2003. He also identified three prisoners, including self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who he said were the only detainees subjected to the method.

Waterboarding refers to a practice that involves strapping down a prisoner, placing a cloth over his face and dousing him with water to simulate the sensation of drowning. The technique has been traced to the Spanish Inquisition and has been the subject of war-crimes trials dating back a century.

The White House position on the issue is in some ways consistent with its long-standing efforts to expand executive power and resist attempts by Congress to rein in the president's authority.

Still, the decision to reignite the debate over waterboarding struck many in Washington as peculiar. The White House had previously argued that any discussion of CIA interrogation methods would only aid the enemy. Further, the CIA halted its use of waterboarding nearly five years ago. Calling renewed attention to the issue risks drawing fresh criticism from other countries at a time when the United States is seeking to shore up its image abroad.

The issue also has been divisive politically for Republicans. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, now the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, has led efforts to outlaw waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods previously employed by the CIA.

In a recent GOP presidential debate, McCain said it was inconceivable that "anyone could believe that [waterboarding is] not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention. It's in violation of existing law."

The leading Democratic contenders for the White House, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, have taken similar positions.

Largely because the presidential candidates are consistent on the issue, many experts consider it unlikely that the CIA would resume using the method, because agency operatives would fear prosecution under a future administration.

"On Jan. 21, 2009, there's almost certainly going to be a new president who understands that waterboarding is not only wrong but a very serious crime," said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director of Human Rights Watch.

However, Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey, challenged by senators to rule on the legality of waterboarding, declined last month to say it was illegal, even though he said he would consider it torture if he were subjected to it.

Congress has passed two laws -- the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005 and the Military Commissions Act in 2006 -- that ban the use of harsh interrogation methods and require all U.S. agencies to comply with the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions in their treatment of detainees.

In addition, the Pentagon published a new Army field manual in 2006 that limits interrogation techniques and bans harsh methods, including waterboarding, hoods and mock executions. And the Supreme Court in 2006 struck down the Bush administration's system for holding and prosecuting detainees, saying it failed to provide protections under the Geneva Conventions.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the Republican sponsors of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, said in a telephone interview Wednesday that at the time the bill was passed he was assured by the Bush administration that the law would specifically prohibit waterboarding.

Modern American Conservatism is based on certain principles and values that were basically an ideology defined as Classical Liberalism to distinguish it from the Marxism/socialism and/or big government liberalism that developed mostly in the mid or near-mid Twentieth Century.

I have a very large abstract oil painting over my bed. I love it. There is nothing wrong with it. But is it perfect? No. Close scrutiny reveals little flaws and anomalies that were obviously unintentional by the artist, but does that make the painting wrong? No. Imperfect? Yes.

Will everything be perfect if Modern American Conservatism (i.e. Classical Liberalism) is implemented across the board? No it will not because it will be implemented by imperfect people. It cannot be perfect because it cannot address every possible contingency or every mistake that will be made. But that does not change the basic soundness of it or eliminate it as a correct and adequate as a political/social discipline. There is nothing wrong with the principles/values embodied in it.

"Trickle down" is NOT a component of MACean ideology as it presumes that the have nots will automatically benefit from the prosperity of the haves. That is antithesis to MACean idelogy which is rather that the have nots become haves by doing what the haves do. Because of confidence in laissez-faire economics--this was beautifully illutrated in that Williams essay posted some weeks ago--there is far less opportunity for the have nots to do that if you weaken the haves.

So.....your king is in check. Unless you can come up with a MACean principle or value that you can show to be wrong, you will be in checkmate.

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you honestly think you developed a credible metaphor.

Yes.

Foxfyre wrote:

The credible metaphor would be: if Aunt needs to shoot to defend herself, shoot, and it is legal to do so. But if you do, you will be prosecuted for murder anyway.

There seems to be a problem with your English.

You have ignored the definition provided and ignored the challenge to refute it as a viable (and existing) political/sociological ideology.

I asked you for something concrete to be debated. Some principle of classical liberalism (MAC)ism) that you would say is wrong. You can't/couldn't/didn't do it but inserted your own opinion about what I meant rather than what I said, your own opinion about what does or does not exist rather than the principles defined. You have ignored the definition provided and ignored the challenge to refute it as a viable (and existing) political/sociological ideology.

You are checkmated.

Foxfyre wrote:

You have ignored the definition provided and ignored the challenge to refute it as a viable (and existing) political/sociological ideology.

Just in the last couple of posts, you've rejected the rule of law and prosecutions of a policy violating restrictions against arbitrary use of power - core principles of Classical Liberalism - as a politically motivated witch hunt. And then you turn around and claim triumphantly that there's nothing wrong with your version of Classical Liberalism or "MACism".

But my metaphor is accurate and to the point.

Yours appears to be born of hatred and vengefulness and ignores anything inconvenient to justification for that.

She can't be bothered to keep track of all the things she says MACs are OE.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Summary: Unless there are CLEARLY prosecutable violations evident, the new administration will not go on witch hunting expeditions in the old.

Summary: because we can use the power of obfuscation and secrecy to prevent there ever from being 'clearly' prosecutable violations evident, you wish for there to never be any investigations of past Executive branch officers, ever.

Cycloptichorn

Summary: there are no bounds to the depths of hate and loathing heaped by the looney Left upon the Right, especially the Bush administration though no Republican administration is exempt, and no limits to the damage the looney Left is willing to heap upon their country in the interest of achieving revenge.

I am glad that no matter how much I disagree with his philosophy and policy, that our President at least does not appear to be a member of the looney Left.

On December 1, 2005, Yoo appeared in a debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor Doug Cassel, a long time human rights legal scholar. During the debate Cassel asked Yoo "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?" to which Yoo replied "No treaty." Cassel followed up with " Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo..." to which Yoo replied "I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that."

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Summary: Unless there are CLEARLY prosecutable violations evident, the new administration will not go on witch hunting expeditions in the old.

Summary: because we can use the power of obfuscation and secrecy to prevent there ever from being 'clearly' prosecutable violations evident, you wish for there to never be any investigations of past Executive branch officers, ever.

Cycloptichorn

Summary: there are no bounds to the depths of hate and loathing heaped by the looney Left upon the Right, especially the Bush administration though no Republican administration is exempt, and no limits to the damage the looney Left is willing to heap upon their country in the interest of achieving revenge.

I am glad that no matter how much I disagree with his philosophy and policy, that our President at least does not appear to be a member of the looney Left.

Fox:

Your response has nothing at all to do with what I wrote here. Indeed, lacking a cogent response, you have turned to insults instead, the very thing you constantly accuse others of doing to you.

Cycloptichorn

You quite clearly inaccurately described my position. And it was insulting. And you were called on it.

I dislike returning insult for insult,

but sometimes that seems to be the only way to get some people's attention. If that is not the case with you, then perhaps you will be able to see how insulting your response was and apologize for it.

I would settle for you restating your opinion so that you do not presume to put thoughts in my head or words in my mouth that I didn't say. And it is based on your previous statement that you have fun insulting me.

Don't do that to me and you will be quite safe from any insult whatsoever from me.