@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:I WAS talking about a specific administration and several administrations. I certainly am in favor of torture or any other means if the alternative is to see my loved ones or hundreds or thousands of innocent people murdered, maimed, mutilated. You are on the record as coming down on that side yourself. I am 100% positive that nobody on this thread would not come down on that side when faced with only those choices.
You're misrepresenting my position. I am indeed on the record, and my position is certainly not that I'm "in favor of torture".
I said didn't know what I would do when faced with a "ticking bomb" scenario (by the way, it's important to notice that
none of the cases that have been published so far fell into that category).
In fact, my words were that if I violated the law,
I would expect to be brought before a court and sentenced. That's the exact opposite of your position those violations of the law should
not be prosecuted.
No need to make **** up, right?
Foxfyre wrote:You are absolutely holding the previous administration to a higher standard if you think there is sufficient justification to warrant a witchhunt looking for somebody who might have deviated from policy or broken a law. Given the tens or hundreds of thousands of people involved in government, not to mention those who work in cooperation with or as extensions of government, it is a certainty that something could be uncovered in such an investigation no matter whose administration it was.
So what? Then investigate those violations, no matter what administration we're talking about.
See, the thing is that you're not consistent: you claim you're in favour of the rule of law, but then go on to argue that a previous administration should neither be investigated nor prosecuted for violating the law.
My position, on the other hand, is simply to investigate
anybody who breaks the law - no matter which party he's affiliated with. I've said so numerous times. One would think you would have had time to understand that fairly simple principle by now.
Foxfyre wrote:I have presented my opinion, as well as that of the large majority of the country, that there is insufficient evidence of unauthorized intentional wrong doing by the previous administration to justify a special investigation--call it witchhunt--pushed by those who could care less about the welfare of the country but who presume the moral authority to punish those they don't like.
There's absolutely zero reason not to prosecute violations of the law, merely because you think that those violations were authorized or unintentional. An authorized violation of the law is still a violation of the law. In that case, those who authorized it should be prosecuted along with those who committed it. An unintentional violation of the law is still a violation of the law. Ignorance of the law is no defense against prosecution.
And your insults about "those who could care less about the welfare of the country but who presume the moral authority to punish those they don't like" merely add to the argument that you have no interest in the rule of law. For you, this is all just a matter of partisanship, and nobody else could possibly be motivated by anything other than what motivates you: rooting for your team, protecting those you agree with politically and hunting down those you disagree with.
Foxfyre wrote:It isn't a matter of breaking the law but rather holding accountable those who followed an unpopular policy authorized and funded by the U.S. Congress and the Administration.
Congress never authorized torture or "enhanced interrogation". The White House presumed to do so all on its own, based on opinion of a bunch of lawyers that bought into the doctrine of the neoconservatives.
And as you know very well, the final instance in matters of constitutionality is the Supreme Court - not the White House, not Congress.
Foxfyre wrote:It is a matter of setting a precedence for that kind of thing and putting each new administration under a cloud that will render them far less effective in carrying out their Constitutionally mandated duties.
"That kind of thing" being the prosecution of a previous administration for violating the Constitution, and "their Constitutionally mandated duties" being the protection of the Constitution.
Your argument boils down to this: if the previous administration were to be prosecuted for violating the Constitution, then a new administration would be far less effective in protecting the Constitution, because it couldn't violate the Constitution without fear of being prosecuted.
Now, let me ask you a simple question: Do you think that, in order to protect the Constitution, the President should be allowed to occasionally violate the Constitution?
