@A Lone Voice,
Debra Law wrote:
Torture does NOT pale in comparison to interning US citizes. Both are reprehensible.
Our government officially apologized for violating the civil rights of Japanese-Americans. The Civil Liberties Act, signed by President Reagan, "provided $1.65 billion in restitution to 82,000 individuals of Japanese ancestry who had been subjected to evacuation, relocation and internment during World War II."
When you stop worshipping Bush's imperial presidency, maybe your head will be clear enough for you to understand that torture and abuse is never acceptable. How much restitution do we owe a human being for nearly suffocating him to death 183 times? How do we make amends to the whole world and regain our moral center? We can start by investigating and prosecuting those responsible for the torture and abuse.
Lone Voice wrote:Bush was an idiot, as I've said here many times.
Unlike you, Bush knows that abusing and torturing prisoners is both morally and legally wrong. While Bush was in office, he told the whole world that our country investigates allegations of abuse and torture and we prosecute the offenders. He has proven himself to be a duplicitous meglomaniac who caused great harm to this country. The rest of us should not follow in his footsteps.
Lone Voice wrote:You sure seem to worship at the alter of the far left, including the Obama presidency, though.
I respect the rule of law. I understand that the law applies to everyone. If this is an attribute that you find to be unique to the "far left," then what does that say about all those who are positioned to the right of the far left?
Lone Voice wrote:You are also living in an echo chamber re ‘torture.’ Just because others on the left keep repeating themselves doesn’t make it true.
A multitude of people from every segment of society, including people "on the right," condemn the torture and abuse of prisoners. We know that prisoners in the custody of our government were abused and tortured based on the information that has been released thus far. A criminal investigation is necessary to determine the full extent of our government's mistreatment of prisoners and the law breakers must be prosecuted. If we truly adhere to our core principles, then that's the way we must do things in this country.
Lone Voice wrote:While some of the repubs are agreeing with Obama, not everyone in the dem party is agreeing with him, either. It is not as clear cut of an issue as those of you on the far left would like to believe.
Whether investigating allegations of criminal conduct is agreeable to some and/or disagreeable to others is irrelevant. This is not a popularity contest. Allegations of criminal conduct must be investigated, evidence must be gathered, and the offenders must be brought to justice.
Lone Voice wrote:How about answering my question? Shouldn't the Obama admin track down FDR admin officials who were in the decision making loop re interment camps, much as Germany hunts down Nazis to this day?
I have responded to your arguments and queries as have several other posters, but you do not extend the same courtesy. If we have sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to believe that someone committed a crime in the past, and the statute of limitations does not prohibit prosecution, then yes--our present day law enforcement authorities should bring the law breakers to justice.
It may be the case that someone who held a government position in the past, whether it be 70 years ago, committed a crime and got away with it. But that possibility does not constitute an excuse for letting the government officials of the last administration to get away with recent crimes. Government officials are not above the law. The law applies to everyone, not just the lowly masses.
This needs to be posted again:
Justice Brandeis wrote:Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. . . .
Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.
OLMSTEAD v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928) (J. Brandeis, dissenting).