Apr 21 2009
CHENEY CALLS FOR RELEASE OF MEMOS, OBAMA NOT PHASED
Today on Hannity, Dick Cheney called for the release of memos showing results of interrogation efforts. President Obama has once again kept another campaign promise for open government and a redress of CIA tactics. In the spirit of addressing the wrongs of the Bush administration, Obama has called for a review of those CIA tactics and vowed to change the agency’s policies toward torturing suspects.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney, on the other hand has come out to defend those tactics and has frequented the cable circuit to defend his actions. Former Vice President Cheney says he knows how successful the interrogation techniques were in collecting intelligence for the United States and wants that information to be released to the public as well as the legal memos explaining the decision to allow the heavily criticized methods.
Cheney, who has become the unwanted voice of the republican party, asserts that any technique is legal so long as it elicits good information. Cheney says “look at the results”. Is Cheney crazy or what? Some of the suspects were waterboarded hundreds of times. How do we know the information these suspects gave us is even credible? I am certain that after being tortured a few hundred times, some suspects would make up any scenario, just so the torture would stop.
Cheney is still the most dangerous man in America and he just doesn’t get it. In America, we do not torture people. We stopped that sort of thing (so we thought) back in the dark ages. We live in a modern, principled society. The end does not always justify the means. In these types of cases, one can’t point to the information gathered by torture and claim success against terrorism. The torturer has become no better than the terrorists. Why Cheney doesn’t seem to understand that principle is beyond this blogger. Releasing more documents that show successful interrogations doesn’t do anything but criminalize the actions of the Bush administration. If Mr. Cheney were implicated, which he won’t be, he might feel different about releasing more memos. It seems Cheney is smart enough to never allow the trail to lead to him, and in this case, it wont be any different. Ask Libby!
Harrison 1st of all there is no god, 2nd there is no evidence this program provided any real actionable intel. 3rd the man is a war criminal. ndfence, has a good point he is a dangerous man. I don’t know if he is the most dangerous in america but he makes charles manson look like a mother theresa.
I added a few more points on this topic at my place.
You show your bias when you say that Cheney has “become the unwanted voice of the republican party…”. How the hell would you know? You’re a libtard telling your readers what Republicans think? Get real. Republicans love Cheney, because he’s a no-nonsense politician who obviously cares about protecting Americans, unlike the members of your party who did everything in their power to provide aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime.
Every time Democrat politicians went on television and said that the war was lost and made claims that our soldiers were terrorists who invaded innocent people’s homes during the middle of the night, that was providing aid and comfort to the enemy. You people have no shame at all anymore.
You claim that there is no evidence to prove that the techniques worked, while at the same time you scoff at Cheney who’s trying to get the information made public that does show that the techniques worked. This is liberalism at its best!
And talk about “not getting it”: you left-wingers just cannot get it through your thick skulls that waterboarding and all the other techniques used for interrogating men who want to kill us are not torture. You people are stuck on stupid.
And the Geneva Convention stipulates that an enemy combatant who does not wear a uniform or an arm-band to signal that they belong to an organized army, are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. That means that even if we did use torture, it would have been legal, you moron.
It’s very convenient for you pajama generals on the left to say your little cliches like “The torturer has become no better than the terrorists. ” and “help me, I’ve wet me pants….”.
Name a single item in the memos that is torture. Not two or three, but a single item. And remember weenie, torture is a legal issue. According to the Geneva Convention, and every other country on the planet, the items listed in the memos as interrogation techniques are not considered torture.
It seems that Bush Derangement Syndrome is still affecting this blogger.
When a state commits public education, someone should be held responsible.
Scafmars, You bet I show bias. The name of this blog is Ndfenceofobama, how could I not show bias? I have published your comments as you made them without editing your poorly reasoned opinion. My readers and comment submitters know this blog to be a place where good debate takes place, a place without childish name calling or profanity. I have let your comments stand as I am sure my readership will defend the position I have taken on the issue. Cheney was and is a criminal. Any investigation will lead directly to him. Who cares what information was solicited? That is tantamount to commiting bank robbery to help the poor. As for naming a single item that is torture, How about waterboarding someone a few hundred times? What is that? It doesnt matter if Cheney changed the law to help accomplish the crime? Interrogation techniques such as waterboarding are and always have been torture. You dont seem to get the fact that if we allow someone, anyone to be tortured, soon it will be acceptable to torture anyone, as long as good intelligence can be gathered. As for me not knowing what I am talking about as far as Cheney- 20% approval rating!!!!!! Do you really think Republicans want him running off at the mouth defending the last 8 years? The last 8 years can not be defended by anyone of sound mind.
The results dont matter if they are gained by criminal means. You guys kill me. The implications of this are severe and grave. Our rights as citizens will be jeopardized if we continue on this path. What about police who get evidence without warrants or are allowed to torture suspects to gain admissions or information about other crimes. Has any ever heard of the “fruits of the poisonous tree” doctrine?
ndfence,
Im amazed at how incompetent the attacks by SCAFM on you have been, I don’t think his positions are even cogent. Its rare we are close on isssues but when it comes to this I think you are striking pretty damn close to the mark, Cheney is a criminal and there is no evidence of actionable intel comming from torturing people. Furthermore it is unethical. We have already tasted some of the fruits of the poisonous tree. We dont need more.
Respect
Harrison, This type of treatment always starts somewhere. The government knows no boundaries. Look at the secret court where wiretaps are routinely given the okay. Now, we are starting to see abuses there. This torture thing will lead down a slippery slope. It may only be three guys we know of, but I am sure there are many more. If these guys are so bad, and so guilty, why not criminally charge them with something and let them have their day in court, along with the other hostiles we are holding? Harrison, If you seriously believe these three are the only ones who got tortured, you have the wool pulled so far over your eyes…
You guys just love that bs story about how the plot to bomb the library tower was stopped. Here’s the real facts about that alibi.
Oh, and Obama’s Director of Intelligence said, in addition to there being some good information generated from torture, that what they got wasn’t worth the cost in terms of blowback to the U.S. From the New York Times, he said:
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”
Ndfence,
Mr. Holder has a moral and legal responsibility to prosecute those responsible for torture (which is a war crime and crime against humanity). The president has given indications that he does not intend to prosecute, but it really is not his call, Mr. Holder as head of the Just-is Department is the one who should be bringing charges against these war criminals and by not doing so he is committing malfeasance. There is no morally defensible reason not to bring Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang to trial. They have besmirched our nation’s already tarnished reputation in the world. To bring them to trial would be a powerful message to the rest of the world that the USA intends to respect human rights and international law.
Dsent, While I agree that what happened was criminal, to prosecute would involve a witch hunt. First, there is the legal department that gave the go ahead after certain laws and executive orders were issued or changed to accomodate the torture. That in itself may be constitute some crime, but who is the worse offender, the those who tortured or those who ordered it? The ones who carried out the act were following what would appear to be legal orders. Those who ordered it, covered their tracks by having the laws changed and by acting under executive orders. So going after anyone may prove to cumbersome and also would appear partisan-all this at a time when we are facing greater issues. The costs associated with a full length investigation would probably be great- remember Whitewater, Watergate, and Clinton’s impeachment trial- two out of three resulted in millions spent with no one being prosecuted and taxpayers footing the bill. It would probably take years to get anyone of them into court. By that time, the republicans may be in control again ( I doubt it), and then issue full scale pardons ala Libby.
ndfence,
You have got to be kidding me? Witch hunt? I don’t understand that at all. And yes those who wrote the legal briefs rationalizing how this was legal are culpable bybee et al should be hung out to dry. I mean you are acting like it would just be too inconvenient or expensive to bring WAR CRIMINALS to justice. These guys committed crimes against humanity. Would you say the Nuremberg trials should have been avoided due to the cost? These are not small matters like Clinton getting a BJ, these are war crimes we are talking about and the lives of thousands of people have been affected by their policies. I mean it’s a shame it would be so incontinent and expensive to prosecute but we have laws for a reason and the rationalization that to prosecute those who break them is just too expensive doesn’t hold water. Furthermore it serves to undermine the serious nature of the offences. Watergate was nothing by comparison, this is about as serious as it gets. I am greatly disappointed to hear that kind of response, I think if your loved ones had been tortured you might feel differently. Legal president needs to be set, for too long Presidents have had immunity from crimes committed while in office and look where it has gotten us; lies to start wars and crimes against humanity. If these crimes don’t merit prosecution I guess nothing does, let’s just close our criminal courts because they are too expensive. Many people died because of these tactics, innocent people. Where is your moral indignation? To speak of the cost is an insult to all those who have been tortured needlessly. We have money for 2 wars, money to bail out failed banks and corporations I think we can put up the money to prosecute war criminals. The ones who carried out the orders were not carrying out legal orders at all and I don’t know how you can say orders to torture people appeared to be legal, torture is against domestic and international law and has been for years. The US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention and to the International Convention on Torture. I can’t imagine what it would take to evoke a mandate for a criminal investigation if war crimes and crimes against humanity is insufficient. Wow I call that moral complacency and ethical lethargy.
The challenge lies in the executive orders and the changes in the laws that allowed this. Those who wrote briefs are only offering legal opinions and to attempt to prosecute them is out of bounds, without precedent, and a threat to our present legal system which offers protection for such opinions. We must remember, not all legal opinions are correct, but they are a protected source of our legal system. No one is mandated to follow a legal opinion not issued by a court. However, those employees who were just following what would be tantamount to military orders or executive orders probably wouldnt be prosecuted with any degree of success. I am nogt saying it would cost too much to prosecute. I am saying rit would cost too much to prosecute to not get any convictions. None of this stuff has ever been tried in a US Court. The challenge to executive orders, prosecuting presidents and cabinet members for exercise of the powers of office, legal opinions by the justice dept, prosecution of low ranking officials following direct orders, military commanders complicit for following orders of the commander in chief, all this would be precedent setting matters sure to be stalled, appealed, countered, etc, all the way up to the highest court. It would take years and years maybe even to get any of it into court. If by that time, any case would be heard, the American public’s sentiment would be against it because of delays, money, and partisan fighting. I do not think it is worth all that. Moral complacency and ethical lethargy may be the cost of building a stronger country and changing the way we approach future challenges of like subjects. I find it counterproductive to go hunting for ghosts that will never stand trial. These guys werent stupid. They made sure to change laws and issue executive orders before proceeding, making sure it was legal. And there are those who still support this type of thing. One more thing Dsent; What would make you think that a court that wont grant detainees (being held without charges for years) fair and legal hearings, would dare take up issue of prosecuting Bush officials for torture? The court has already ruled- these terrorist suspects have no rights of any kind.
I wish I could answer your question, unfortunately I do not understand it. Executive orders do not change the law and there were no changes in law that made torture legal. What court ruled that terrorist suspects have no rights? Could you direct me to the ruling? As for the due process, again you are suggesting that the legal process is to cumbersome to execute, if that is the case and war criminals are un-prosecutable, then of what value is law? There is no doubt that the law was broken regardless of whether or not bybee and Yoo can or would be prosecuted. There is no doubt that torture was administratively executed. Legal briefs to rationalize torture do not make it legal. And how on earth is our country made stronger by allowing war crimes and crimes against humanity to be the prerogative of a president? If it takes years so be it. Why does the time it would take matter? We are supposed to be a nation of laws not men. And this is not a partisan issue regardless of how the press wants to play it, it is a matter of law! To allow the president to break the law and not prosecute him because its too complicated does not make us a stronger nation it strips us of what makes us strong, namely the law. Again would you be so dismissive about prosecution if your loved ones had been tortured? We are not talking about hunting ghosts we are talking about prosecution of the principals who approved of torture. That is not as complicated as you are making it out to be. They are on record as approving of it, Mr. Holder has said in no uncertain terms that waterboarding is torture, ergo, it follows that it is his responsibility to bring charges against those who have confessed to approving of it and ordering it. Furthermore you are simply assuming that no trial would be forthcoming. We have clear and direct statements that represent confessions of war crimes. Again your only complaint about prosecution seems the complexity of bringing a case. It is not up to the court to take the case it is up to the Just-is Department to bring it to the court, which is why I don’t understand your question. In June 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that the president’s war powers are not “a blank check.” The court said that a U.S. citizen held in a Navy brig in South Carolina and nearly 600 suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives held in Cuba have a right to contest their detentions. So I really have no idea what you’re talking about. Nothing the Bush administration did changes the laws prohibiting torture, NOTHING. They just said what they were doing wasn’t torture. But Mr. Holder is on record as saying it was. Either we are a nation of laws or we are a nation of men and if we surrender the law to the power of the executive, the democracy is lost, not made stronger.
Look, in June of 2008 Boumediene v. Bush a divided Court ruled 5-4, the justices struck down parts of the 2006 Military Commissions Act that stripped U.S. courts of jurisdiction over the habeas petitions filed by foreign nationals detained at the Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba. The ruling ordered swift habeas hearings for the detainees. Legal president stands for the detainees rights. And fundamental is their right not be tortured. The law is supreme no president should be allowed to commit war crimes simply because it would be difficult to get him into court. That is absurd. If that’s the case then the president is not subject to the law and again our democracy is lost.
Dsent, Where have you been for the last few years? While you were away, we have been holding “enemy combatants” on Guantanamo for years without charging hardly any of them. The courts dont have to say anything about their rights, we see it in action. As for the changes in laws- Read this article from the Washington Post 2006;
Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody does not apply to people held at the military prison.
In federal court yesterday and in legal filings, Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee’s lawyers described as “systematic torture.”
Attorneys say Mohammed Bawazir, detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison, above, was subjected to tactics amounting to torture. (By Joe Skipper — Reuters)
Guantanamo Detainees
Timeline
A history of major events and milestones at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
Detainee Database
View the largest list of names made public thus far, comprising men whose identities have appeared in media reports, on Arabic Web sites and in legal documents.
Who’s Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Welcome to Pottersville
.:::John???:::. - MySpace Blog
Behind Enemy Lines
Full List of Blogs (244 links) »
Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web
Save & Share
Tag This Article
Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Subheadline
Byline
2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Subheadline Blurb None
3. Tag This Article
Government lawyers have argued that another portion of that same law, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, removes general access to U.S. courts for all Guantanamo Bay captives. Therefore, they said, Mohammed Bawazir, a Yemeni national held since May 2002, cannot claim protection under the anti-torture provisions.
Bawazir’s attorneys contend that “extremely painful” new tactics used by the government to force-feed him and end his hunger strike amount to torture.
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler said in a hearing yesterday that she found allegations of aggressive U.S. military tactics used to break the detainee hunger strike “extremely disturbing” and possibly against U.S. and international law. But Justice Department lawyers argued that even if the tactics were considered in violation of McCain’s language, detainees at Guantanamo would have no recourse to challenge them in court.
In Bawazir’s case, the government claims that it had to forcefully intervene in a hunger strike that was causing his weight to drop dangerously. In January, officials strapped Bawazir into a special chair, put a larger tube than they had previously used through his nose and kept him restrained for nearly two hours at a time to make sure he did not purge the food he was being given, the government and Bawazir’s attorneys said.
Richard Murphy Jr., Bawazir’s attorney, said his client gave in to the new techniques and began eating solid food days after the first use of the restraint chair. Murphy said the military deliberately made the process painful and embarrassing, noting that Bawazir soiled himself because of the approach.
Kessler said getting to the root of the allegations is an “urgent matter.”
“These allegations . . . describe disgusting treatment, that if proven, is treatment that is cruel, profoundly disturbing and violative of” U.S. and foreign treaties banning torture, Kessler told the government’s lawyers. She said she needs more information, but made clear she is considering banning the use of larger nasal-gastric tubes and the restraint chair.
In court filings, the Justice Department lawyers argued that language in the law written by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) gives Guantanamo Bay detainees access to the courts only to appeal their enemy combatant status determinations and convictions by military commissions.
“Unfortunately, I think the government’s right; it’s a correct reading of the law,” said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. “The law says you can’t torture detainees at Guantanamo, but it also says you can’t enforce that law in the courts.”
Thomas Wilner, a lawyer representing several detainees at Guantanamo, agreed that the law cannot be enforced. “This is what Guantanamo was about to begin with, a place to keep detainees out of the U.S. precisely so they can say they can’t go to court,” Wilner said.
Dsent, Guantanamo was built outside US territory to avert laws about torture. No one there really has any rights. If they did, they would have access (immediate access) to courts. That has not happened. Ask the families of the prisoners that have been held there for years.
As for prosecution, there is no real public sentiment calling for that. Most people dont care. Prosecuting anyone will never happen, never. So all this debate about dragging Bush people into court is moot. I will post a retraction of my article if it happens. If it doesnt happen, I challenge you to do the same.
Ndfence,
I’ve been right here paying attention for the last few years and I have some understanding of the applicable laws. You said “The court has already ruled these terrorist suspects have no rights of any kind.” and that is simply incorrect. I have given you two examples of where the courts affirmed they did have rights. The detainee’s access to the court system or their location does not make it legal to torture them; torture is against the law period, and is a war crime and crime against humanity. It doesn’t matter where the torture takes place its still against the law. For US officials to approve it is for them to violate our laws and international laws. Even what you presented illustrates that, Judge Kessler said as much.
I don’t understand what you are suggesting I should retract; I have not made inaccurate statements. The apathy of the US electorate as regards war crimes committed by the executive and his principles is not something I am denying I am all too aware of public apathy that’s why we are having this discourse. But the law doesn’t change just because people are morally complacent. And it is that complacency which allows such crimes to continue unabated. One does not support the dispensation of justice or work for justice because it can be obtained; it is done simply because it’s the Right thing to do. I will continue to support the idea of bringing war criminals to trial whether or not it happens because it is the Right thing to do; regardless of how apathetic and complacent my fellow countrymen are. I don’t like watching my country go down the same road the Nazis went down and you can count on me raising my voice in opposition when I see such things happening. I have nothing to retract I am standing on principle. These actions are precedent stetting and to allow them to go unchallenged is to allow them to happen again and it is as they say a slippery slope. Public opinion is manipulable, the media orchestrates it to a large degree and they are not calling for justice to be done. That can change. I’m not saying it will but it can. And people of conscience will work for justice in spite of the ethical malaise that is so predominant in the country right now. People use to be apathetic about black people having civil rights now we have a black man in the White House, so things can change. However, having Mr. Obama in the White House does not protect us from the precedent the Bush administration has set with these crimes, you know enough about history to understand that nations can become very brutal, and that brutality can increase dramatically when left unchallenged. We are not free of the Fascist tactics of the Bush administration; Obama is also supporting indefinite detention with out charge or trial in violation of what the courts have already ruled. So we still have a President who is acting like he is above the law. That’s a dangerous thing. In spite of his righteous liberal demeanor Obama is using the same Presidential power that Bush did to undermine the Judiciary. We are not out of the woods by a damn site. Vigilance and determination to hold our leaders accountable to the law is of paramount importance in saving our democracy. I care about having a democracy, I care about checks and balances, I care about the rule of law and I am not apathetic about human rights I think they are of the utmost importance and worth fighting for, least they be taken from all of us. The President needs to realize he is not above the law and that the Judiciary has the authority to check his actions, it is his responsibility to follow the rule of law. It is not his prerogative to order extrajudicial detentions.
Dsent, Did you bother to read the article above?
In court filings, the Justice Department lawyers argued that language in the law written by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) gives Guantanamo Bay detainees access to the courts only to appeal their enemy combatant status determinations and convictions by military commissions.
“Unfortunately, I think the government’s right; it’s a correct reading of the law,” said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. “The law says you can’t torture detainees at Guantanamo, but it also says you can’t enforce that law in the courts.”
Thomas Wilner, a lawyer representing several detainees at Guantanamo, agreed that the law cannot be enforced. “This is what Guantanamo was about to begin with, a place to keep detainees out of the U.S. precisely so they can say they can’t go to court,” Wilner said.
Dsent,
Moral complaceny is a purely subjective term on your part. As for public sentiment, public sentiment has been known to be the driving force behind many laws, and social movements. It is the public that demands changes in laws.
I read it in detail and repeatedly but I do wonder if you read what I write. Because I addressed that before you even posted it, check your dates… June of 2008 Boumediene v. Bush a divided Court ruled 5-4, the justices struck down parts of the 2006 Military Commissions Act that stripped U.S. courts of jurisdiction over the habeas petitions filed by foreign nationals detained at the Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba. The ruling ordered swift habeas hearings for the detainees.
Those rulings have to do with detainee’s access to legal proceedings in the US. I am talking about the policy made in Washington DC; the fact that detainees have “restricted access” to our legal system does not make Bush administration officials immune to prosecution for war crimes. The location of those tortured has nothing to do with the legality of the policy. It is the policy that is criminal.
I also have no idea what you’re talking about when you say that my use of the term “moral complacency” is subjective. When people don’t care to see war criminals brought to trial what would you call that? War crimes and crimes against humanity are moral issues are they not? And to be indifferent or to not want to hold those responsible accountable for their actions is something I feel is rightly called moral complacency.
Furthermore you still didn’t cop, you claimed the court said these detainees had no rights, and that is wrong, no court has said anything like that. In fact the Boumediene v. Bush decision clearly confirmed their right to habeas petitions. And even the 2004 Supreme Court ruling found that al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives held in Gitmo have the right to contest their detentions. The President was abusing his power as well as detainees; Presidential power is getting out of control.
Additionally, this is the road to fascism; extra-judicial detention, torture and wars of aggression perpetrated on lies. Look out sister our democracy is in serious jeopardy, either we uphold the rule of law and defend our system of checks and balances or we allow the President to reign supreme. I will come down on the side of checks and balances and the rule of law every time.
While I feel that holding anyone without charges is wrong, my point in saying the court has spoken is this; the detainees are still there, most without charges, regardless of any Supreme Court Ruling. Habeus Corpus is only valid if someone can actually exercise the right. How many detainees have had Habeus Corpus hearings? Another point I am getting at is the American people by and large do not care about suspected terrorists rights. While I stand against torturing anyone, there is a vast number of Americans who do not care that these individuals were tortured. Your moral stance, while you may feel is right, is subjective. All our opinions are. No one can be the voice of morality for a society. Society, itself, must decide the issues. And right now it does not appear that the American people care much about torturing suspected terrorists. Another point I continue to hold is that no one is going to be prosecuted for it. For reasons that are far reaching, our legal system was not set up to properly deal with all the issues this presents because this sort of thing has never happened in this manner. There is a heavy precedent of legal doctrine that deals with Executive Orders and times of war that give the President the authority to make executive decisions. Whether or not that was abused, who abused it, and what the law was at the time it was abused, are all points of legal arguments that would take years for a court to sort out. The Justice department can prefer charges, but any half wit defense lawyer can make a case that the prosecution can not make a prima facie case. And in that event, no court would hear further arguments. Furthermore, I do not believe the moral conscience of the American people is so bothered to care that much to make an issue out of it.
You say “the court has spoken” but the court did not say what you claimed they said. The court said those people have rights. And yet those rights have not been recognized…hmm
The American people by and large don’t give a damn about politics. And yet even you, who obviously do care, seem unconcerned over the rule of law, checks and balances or holding the executive accountable for their actions.
If you don’t like the term moral complacency, how about the term ethical malaise? When torture is not of importance to people, I call that moral complacency or ethical malaise. The rule of law is about a sense of morality or ethics, torture is against the law and considered a serious ethical issue, and when issues such as torture are not of importance to people what other terms do you have for me other than complacency or malaise?
The fact that the executive has avoided accountability, and not been subject to our system of checks and balances, is to me, a very serious issue. And I have not been arguing that what I am petitioning for is likely to come to pass, I’m just saying it is of value. And it is important to our democracy. Furthermore the fact that the American people don’t care much about torture is, well…simply sad.
Fascism is not on the march in this country it is at a dead run. Our democracy is going in the toilet and there aint much hope, you are right, no one gives a damn. People could be going into the ovens and as long as American Idol doesn’t get interrupted few people will bat an eye. And I haven’t been taking a moral stance (although it is moral) I have been talking about a legal stance because I care about the rule of law and our democracy. I assume you do to. So why do you not feel it is of importance to hold the President accountable to the law? Common people are subject to the law, if a hooker can go to jail for selling her ass, and it is her ass to sell, but a president can have people tortured, people who are innocent and he gets a sweet retirement deal, don’t you find that disturbing? Why on earth should a President be less accountable to the law than an ordinary citizen? The President should be more accountable. What’s wrong with this picture?
And by the way, thank you for engaging me in this discourse I have enjoyed it tremendously, I think for citizens to discuss the happenings within their government is critical to a healthy democracy, you are a good sport. Thanx for playing.
The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
–Plato
I appreciate your comments and the fact that you stick to your guns. I agree with a lot of what you have said and like how you debate the points. You always stay on task. Alot of other bloggers could learn alot from you. My only other thought on what you said is this; we all knew what Bush and his cronies were doing when it was happening and no one bothered to step in to stop it. It wasn’t even an issue then. In some ways we may have benefited from the criminality and now find ourselves in a hypocritical stance by demanding accountability. Seems a bit reprehensible to me.
Have you checked out Denford Magora’s Zimbabwe Blog? You might like to see what is going on over there- talk about executive abuses!
Did you get my comment on adding pictures? Yesterday, I got 125 hits from google images. Email me and I will tell you how.
I enjoyed our discourse more than I can say. I did get your comment and I will be including pictures much more often in my blogs, my email is dannydissent@yahoo.com I welcome any suggestions and or advice,I am a newbie in this venue and respect your obvious advanced position in this sphere. Thanx for so much of your time and attention. and nice Plato quote. I dont knwo the blog you refered to. Thanx for your kind words. BTW I was on task dissenting against Bush’s tactics from the time he took office. Peace and much RESPECT
Oops I didn’t mention I dont know how to direct email people from blog sites, sorry I’m a bit ignorant as to how to operate here.
I just want to say, I’m glad someone is in defense of Obama. He’s handling things extremely well, considering the circumstances. Lets face it, the Republicans are a joke right about now. You’d have to be an idiot not to see that.
As for waterboarding, you cant claim to be a 21st century, civilized nation and use dark age, uncivilized methods. You can’t lead by example, when your army acts like crooks.
This conversation is interesting, but pointless. The answers are second grade logic.
Nelly,
Um the USA has been using waterboarding and Mr. Obama who you say is “handling things extremely well” is not inclined to prosecute those who approved of it or did it, and he is approving of extra-judicial imprisonment. I don’t know how you call that “handling things extremely well”… But maybe I just care too much about the rule of law.