Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004 |
OT: "Holy Crap"
And now a moment of scared-shitless pontification. If the idea of the government turning fascist -- and I am not kidding about that characterization, and more on my street cred for using those words in a moment -- if the idea of the government turning fascist is acceptable to you, please, stop reading here and await your time in the star chamber.
Everyone else, step right this way.
For starters, read Will Carroll's blog about the Torture Memo. Yeah, the one that essentially says the government doesn't really have to do anything it doesn't want to, can make up or ignore any laws and treaties it's signed up for, and pretty much destroy the entire ediface of rule-by-law we've built up in this country.
For the record: I was a Reagan Republican, twice. The Pandora's Box with Ronnie, though, was two servings of Bush, each progressively more repulsive than the other. What's troubling me the most, though, is that even if Kerry -- whom I despise, by the way -- should get into office, what are the chances that the sadists who wrote this memo won't get fired? I don't want them demoted, reassigned, or have some piddling writeup appear in their record. The people who wrote this sick, perverted thing should be disqualified for any public office or civil service job, ever.
This should make every American who loves his country sick to his stomach.
Comments:
C'mon Rob. Yes, we are all horrified by the idea that our government would greenlight this kind of torture, but let’s get some perspective. Nothing that the administration green-lighted included hurting the prisoners in any physical way. Psychological games and humiliation were used against these unlawful combatants with the intent of saving American and Iraqi lives. I’m not saying it was right, but one could make the argument that the ends justify the means. There is a legitimate legal argument here- these people are unlawful combatants (they do not fight for any nation and they do not wear any uniform- they are terrorists, not soldiers) and are therefore excluded from the Geneva Convention.
I am not ok with what happened in Iraq, but I understand that the intentions of those behind the memo was to save lives, period. And please don’t ever compare our government to fascism ever again. With all due respect, that is a truly asinine statement.
I am not ok with what happened in Iraq, but I understand that the intentions of those behind the memo was to save lives, period. And please don’t ever compare our government to fascism ever again. With all due respect, that is a truly asinine statement.
Richard -- what they did or didn't authorize is immaterial. It's that they were contemplating torture and how to evade the law to execute it. Torture is simply immoral. This document is the sort of thing you expect to read from the archives of the Nazis or out of the Soviet gulags, not from a government agency in this country.
Just because it's something happening to "those people" (whoever "they" are) doesn't mean it couldn't eventually be turned to American citizens. The Reverend Niemöller principle applies. If we, through our inaction, allow those in power to succumb to evil, we eventually ourselves become evil, and will be ruled by it. And make no mistake, this is evil.
Just because it's something happening to "those people" (whoever "they" are) doesn't mean it couldn't eventually be turned to American citizens. The Reverend Niemöller principle applies. If we, through our inaction, allow those in power to succumb to evil, we eventually ourselves become evil, and will be ruled by it. And make no mistake, this is evil.
And by the way -- how does legally sanctioned torture and a complete disregard for rule of law not cross the threshold of "fascist", if not totalitarian?
You've completely missed the point of the memo. It had nothing to do with how to "evade the law to execute" the torture, it was simply examining whether or not the forms of torture they were green-lighting were legal. Believe it or not, they found that they were legal actions- and quite rightly.
Yes, torture is immoral. But you and I both know that the world is not black and white, good vs. evil. It is the sad truth that to be the “good guy” in this world you must sometimes make compromises with your morality. It’s the lesser of two evils. In this case, the administrations felt that those forms of interrogation would ultimately save lives and are therefore justified. Was it justified? It depends on your morality- there is no right answer.
And as for the fascism remark: Fascism is a form of government marked by a strong central authority, which controls every aspect of social and economic issues, and suppression of the opposition and press. This president is no more powerful then any president before him (in that his power is checked from several sides), the opposition and press are boisterous in their dissent, and most of all he’s a capitalist in every sense of the word- he’s practically against any government control of the economy. While I will grant you that he is a social conservative, and therefore prone to some social governance, it’s no more (and probably less) then Ronald Reagan was known for. So it looks to me it doesn’t fit a single criteria for fascism.
And now you call the President of the United States of America “evil.” I take genuine offence to that Rob. You do not know this man, nor do you know the greater scope of his policy. You can disagree with him all you like, but until you understand his motives you can not pass moral judgment on him.
Yes, torture is immoral. But you and I both know that the world is not black and white, good vs. evil. It is the sad truth that to be the “good guy” in this world you must sometimes make compromises with your morality. It’s the lesser of two evils. In this case, the administrations felt that those forms of interrogation would ultimately save lives and are therefore justified. Was it justified? It depends on your morality- there is no right answer.
And as for the fascism remark: Fascism is a form of government marked by a strong central authority, which controls every aspect of social and economic issues, and suppression of the opposition and press. This president is no more powerful then any president before him (in that his power is checked from several sides), the opposition and press are boisterous in their dissent, and most of all he’s a capitalist in every sense of the word- he’s practically against any government control of the economy. While I will grant you that he is a social conservative, and therefore prone to some social governance, it’s no more (and probably less) then Ronald Reagan was known for. So it looks to me it doesn’t fit a single criteria for fascism.
And now you call the President of the United States of America “evil.” I take genuine offence to that Rob. You do not know this man, nor do you know the greater scope of his policy. You can disagree with him all you like, but until you understand his motives you can not pass moral judgment on him.
So, indeed, the ends justify the means? Brutality in the name of civilization?
No.
We fought a war, in part, over that. We won it. One of the net results of that war was the Constitution and the first ten amendments to it, one of which specifically proscribes the use of cruel and unusual punishment. Bush swore an oath to uphold it, which apparently is meaningless to both him and his Attorney General, as well as whomsoever wrote this filthy memo.
I don't care what the "greater scope of his policy" is, torture is wrong. Coming up with legalistic excuses is wrong. This behavior is simply amoral. End of story.
No.
We fought a war, in part, over that. We won it. One of the net results of that war was the Constitution and the first ten amendments to it, one of which specifically proscribes the use of cruel and unusual punishment. Bush swore an oath to uphold it, which apparently is meaningless to both him and his Attorney General, as well as whomsoever wrote this filthy memo.
I don't care what the "greater scope of his policy" is, torture is wrong. Coming up with legalistic excuses is wrong. This behavior is simply amoral. End of story.
1) I don't recall ever stating that the ends do justify the means. In fact, I would say that in this instance they do not.
2) This is not a question of “cruel and unusual punishment” because what is happening here is not torture for retribution. What the memo outlined were legally acceptable forms of interrogation. There is a huge difference between the two.
3) Keep in mind that everyone has a different view of the world and just because someone’s doesn’t mesh with your own, it doesn’t make him or her patently evil.
I’ve said my peace. I’m done now.
2) This is not a question of “cruel and unusual punishment” because what is happening here is not torture for retribution. What the memo outlined were legally acceptable forms of interrogation. There is a huge difference between the two.
3) Keep in mind that everyone has a different view of the world and just because someone’s doesn’t mesh with your own, it doesn’t make him or her patently evil.
I’ve said my peace. I’m done now.
A quick civic lesson I picked up on the net:
Q: Are treaties law?
A: Yes. Article VI Clause 2 of the US Constitution reads as follows:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [my emphasis]
Q: How do treaties become law?
A: They are signed by the president and must be submitted to the Senate and a 2/3 vote of the Senators present is needed for approval or ratification.
Q: Is the Convention Against Torture (CAT) a treaty?
A: Yes.
Q: Did the president sign it?
A: Yes, President Reagan signed it on April 11, 1988 and the senate ratified it on October 21, 1994.
Q: Why did it take so long to be ratified?
A: Because on signing the treaty the US made a list of several reservations including this one: "That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing."
Q: What did that mean?
A: That meant that specific laws had to be passed and signed into law which essentially made torture a crime under United States Law and provided for jurisdiction by the US regardless of where torture is committed provided either the "the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender." This law is commonly referred to as either the CAT implementing legislation or the Torture Statute.
Q: So the terms of the Convention Against Torture is the law of the land in the United States, right?
A: Yes it is, with the exception of the few reservations the US made.
Q: Aren't there exceptions when torture can be justified?
A: No, Article 2 Paragraph 2 states "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."
Q: Did the United States have a reservation regarding this section?
A: No.
Q: What is the role of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government?
A: The role of the Executive Branch is to enforce the laws.
Q: Who is in charge of the Executive Branch?
A: The President of the United States.
Q: So would it be fair to say that the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States?
A: Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution states that among the president's duties "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." So although it is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution that the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, given that he is in charge of the Executive Branch and the Executive Branch enforces the laws and among his duties is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, your answer is essentially correct.
Q: So given his role as chief law enforcement officer and given the fact that the Convention Against Torture is the law of the land and given the fact that the Convention Against Torture provides for ""No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture," why would the president's legal advisers say "The president, despite domestic and international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as commander in chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture?"
A: I cannot possibly explain why.
Q: Are treaties law?
A: Yes. Article VI Clause 2 of the US Constitution reads as follows:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [my emphasis]
Q: How do treaties become law?
A: They are signed by the president and must be submitted to the Senate and a 2/3 vote of the Senators present is needed for approval or ratification.
Q: Is the Convention Against Torture (CAT) a treaty?
A: Yes.
Q: Did the president sign it?
A: Yes, President Reagan signed it on April 11, 1988 and the senate ratified it on October 21, 1994.
Q: Why did it take so long to be ratified?
A: Because on signing the treaty the US made a list of several reservations including this one: "That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing."
Q: What did that mean?
A: That meant that specific laws had to be passed and signed into law which essentially made torture a crime under United States Law and provided for jurisdiction by the US regardless of where torture is committed provided either the "the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender." This law is commonly referred to as either the CAT implementing legislation or the Torture Statute.
Q: So the terms of the Convention Against Torture is the law of the land in the United States, right?
A: Yes it is, with the exception of the few reservations the US made.
Q: Aren't there exceptions when torture can be justified?
A: No, Article 2 Paragraph 2 states "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."
Q: Did the United States have a reservation regarding this section?
A: No.
Q: What is the role of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government?
A: The role of the Executive Branch is to enforce the laws.
Q: Who is in charge of the Executive Branch?
A: The President of the United States.
Q: So would it be fair to say that the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States?
A: Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution states that among the president's duties "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." So although it is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution that the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, given that he is in charge of the Executive Branch and the Executive Branch enforces the laws and among his duties is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, your answer is essentially correct.
Q: So given his role as chief law enforcement officer and given the fact that the Convention Against Torture is the law of the land and given the fact that the Convention Against Torture provides for ""No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture," why would the president's legal advisers say "The president, despite domestic and international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as commander in chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture?"
A: I cannot possibly explain why.
# posted by 
: 6/09/2004 08:28:00 PM
: 6/09/2004 08:28:00 PM
Hey Anon, are you a lawyer? Because this guy is. He’s a good one to. In fact, he works for the US Government.
Just because we enter into a treaty that requires us to "take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction" (as Article 2 of CAT reads) doesn't mean those measures were ever taken. And even if steps were taken in that regard, it doesn't mean the entire treaty will be taken word-for-word- legislation would be based on the State Department’s recommendation.
If you go by the US State Department’s interpretation of CAT, you will find that, as I have said a couple of times before, the forms of interrogation that this administration put in place do not constitute torture. Do you think that the White House’s lawyers didn’t take current US law into account when writing that memo? They know what they’re talking about- they get paid highly to know what they’re talking about.
Just because we enter into a treaty that requires us to "take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction" (as Article 2 of CAT reads) doesn't mean those measures were ever taken. And even if steps were taken in that regard, it doesn't mean the entire treaty will be taken word-for-word- legislation would be based on the State Department’s recommendation.
If you go by the US State Department’s interpretation of CAT, you will find that, as I have said a couple of times before, the forms of interrogation that this administration put in place do not constitute torture. Do you think that the White House’s lawyers didn’t take current US law into account when writing that memo? They know what they’re talking about- they get paid highly to know what they’re talking about.
Richard -- you really, really need to read that document. It's pretty much a carte blanche for whatever they want to do. here's what happens when they decide to practice on U.S. soldiers, in the person of one Specialist Sean Baker.
By the way:
* Cross dressing: not torture.
* Rape: torture.
Else, what do you call "k. A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee"? Can we just be pretty sure that's not exactly what you'd call concensual?
* Cross dressing: not torture.
* Rape: torture.
Else, what do you call "k. A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee"? Can we just be pretty sure that's not exactly what you'd call concensual?
Rob, don't be an idiot. The administration can hardly be held accountable for the actions of soldiers in the field.
Gotcha. Bush has his senior legal aide draft a paper saying the president can do what he damn well pleases, fostering an atmosphere which percolates through the ranks down to the soldiers running the prisons. In turn, they proceed, surprise, to do whatever they damn well please.
In what way is he not to blame for this? That, Richard, is exactly the point of this memo: ha, ha, ha, and you can't stop us, and from the highest levels of government. Bush is responsible, yessirree bub.
In what way is he not to blame for this? That, Richard, is exactly the point of this memo: ha, ha, ha, and you can't stop us, and from the highest levels of government. Bush is responsible, yessirree bub.
And, oh yes, Ashcroft refuses to hand over more of this kind of thing. Recall that the document, such as we have of it, is both redacted and incomplete.
I've already started campaigning both Senatrixes to subpoena these memos. This is unconscionable behavior.
I've already started campaigning both Senatrixes to subpoena these memos. This is unconscionable behavior.
Oh, and one more thing:
It had nothing to do with how to "evade the law to execute" the torture, it was simply examining whether or not the forms of torture they were green-lighting were legal. Believe it or not, they found that they were legal actions- and quite rightly.Uh, sure. Could that be because it was on the President's say-so (cf footnote 14 on page 17)? Nicely self-referential, that. Look, we have a tripartite system of government wherein the chief executive does not get to make the laws, and has to follow those laws that are there. He doesn't get to just void the laws he wants, but not in this view: "authority to set aside the laws is 'inherent in the president.'"
It had nothing to do with how to "evade the law to execute" the torture, it was simply examining whether or not the forms of torture they were green-lighting were legal. Believe it or not, they found that they were legal actions- and quite rightly.Uh, sure. Could that be because it was on the President's say-so (cf footnote 14 on page 17)? Nicely self-referential, that. Look, we have a tripartite system of government wherein the chief executive does not get to make the laws, and has to follow those laws that are there. He doesn't get to just void the laws he wants, but not in this view: "authority to set aside the laws is 'inherent in the president.'"
Sweet Jesus- you can't actually be suggesting that the President (or anyone in the administration) somehow planned for soldiers on the ground to rape prisoners?
Rob, shit happens. It's not happening with any greater regularity then during any other war, it's just happening under a microscope. I don't care if you're against the war on its merits, but please, drop the fake indignation.
Rob, shit happens. It's not happening with any greater regularity then during any other war, it's just happening under a microscope. I don't care if you're against the war on its merits, but please, drop the fake indignation.
Planned for? God, no, of course there weren't orders specifically to go around raping anyone. That would imply accountability. But there are crimes of omission as well as crimes of commission, homicide through deranged negligence being one of them. By setting up a lawless zone in which the President's agents can claim the Nuremberg defense -- "I was under orders" -- the President becomes culpable for the prison shenanigans.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.