I don't think "bury it" is ever a good idea when talking about the government.
I bet you can't come up with even one instance where the government has buried something for so long that it has been completely forgotten, not only in the public consciousness but also from history. Hah!
Let's run with your argument. The world knows we tortured. It was well known among civil libertarians in this country that the President (or more particularly, the Vice President) believed the law didn't apply to him. What good does denying this do a) domestically and b) internationally?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So you're concerned that somehow 1) denying (or to be charitable, let's say ignore) we did these things that everyone knows we did will piss off fundamentalists less than admitting we did them and 2) you're concerned that the political party that blindly supported a bunch of criminals would object to being found to have blindly supported a bunch of criminals?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
1) Yes. More precisely, that doing so will cost lives and inhibit our progress in the Middle East.
2) More that we will be setting a precedent of airing (or worse, down the road, inventing) dirty laundry for political gain each time a President takes office--God knows things are polarized enough as it is.
EDIT: Grammar woes.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
1) Yes. More precisely, that doing so will cost lives and inhibit our progress in the Middle East.
2) More that we will be setting a precedent of using (or worse, down the road, inventing) dirty laundry to be aired each time a President takes office for political gain--God knows things are polarized enough as it is.
1) ...How the hell does that logic work? There are, as best as I can tell, four fundamental reasons that Muslims dislike the United States: our unfettered support for Israel; our military presence on Arab/holy land; our support for dictators like the Shah of Iran, the Saudi Royals, Saddam before we hated him, etc.; and the whole torturing and indefinitely detaining innocent Muslims. Perhaps it would help our cause if we removed one of those reasons (and ideally, all of them but that's a different discussion).
2) You mean like endless investigations of everything Bill Clinton did until they eventually caught him lying about a blow job so they could finally get their wish and impeach the poor bastard? That kind of invented dirty laundry politicizing the process? As opposed to, you know, war crimes. Specifically torture, which we are obligated by treaty to prosecute? Or do treaties not matter because we're the fucking United States and we do what we want.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
1) I would agree with the reasons you list and think you could probably add more to the pile, but yes, I think waving this under everybody's noses is going to inflame things more. We should remove the last reason you listed but not flaunt it.
2) Yes, like that. "The other side does it!" is not a good reason to continue being divisive. For the record, I think it would be wonderful if we could prosecute and bring to justice all those responsible without having ill effects, I just don't think the sense of moral superiority and closure we would get from it would be worth the negative effects.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
1) Why do you think that? It makes no sense. Everyone knows we tortured people! People we released have been giving interviews about being tortured for years. Denying it makes it looks worse! The cover up is always worse than the crime in the court of public opinion.
Treaties have the effect of law, second only to the Constitution itself. If people who supported torture have a problem with that, that's their problem.
I should also note that some kind of investigation has popular support approaching 70%. It's slightly lower for torture, higher for the politicization of the Justice Department and actually at 70% for the illegal wiretapping. What exactly, is the problem with listening to a supermajority of the American people?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Right, we're discussing whether and how to enforce treaties with the force of law in this instance, just like Obama decided not to enforce Federal law regarding medical marijuana in California recently. Please note that I am not in any way comparing torture to lighting up for medical purposes except to point out that he is clearly willing to exercise his executive capability to control the enforcement of law, if he believes the cause justifies it.
Would you mind linking your source(s) on that last bit regarding support for the investigation?
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Right, we're discussing whether and how to enforce treaties with the force of law in this instance, just like Obama decided not to enforce Federal law regarding medical marijuana in California recently. Please note that I am not in any way comparing torture to lighting up for medical purposes except to point out that he is clearly willing to exercise his executive capability to control the enforcement of law, if he believes the cause justifies it.
Would you mind linking your source(s) on that last bit regarding support for the investigation?
I flipped the Justice Department/wiretapping numbers, but here.
Note that a majority do not favor criminal investigations, but some kind of investigation which is what I said, and what I presume you are objecting to.
I of course, favor criminal investigations. And I think putting them in stocks outside the UN building for six months during daylight hours seems somehow appropriate, if a bit Middle Ages.
You don't get to choose whether or not to enforce treaties.
The medical marijuana example is different as in that case there is a federal law criminalizing pot in all forms that could theoretically supercede the state law that legalizes pot when used medically with a prescription. It's an actual gray area, so the administration made a choice and I'm not even sure if it's legally correct (though I think it's morally correct). As opposed to this where there are federal laws criminalizing torture and a treaty obligation under our own and international law to prosecute under those laws.
You should also note that the public opposition to investigations (generally, not criminal) is basically the same as Bush's approval ratings. I think we can safely assume it's the same group. We as a nation collectively dismissed the Bush dead enders as nutters a couple years ago, so I think pushing investigations through over their collective shit fit is A-OK.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Find me one person in the middle east who doesn't know that the US tortures people. Hell, I'll even let you count US troops, as long as we don't count bullshitting about how it's not torture when the US does it. While I'm at it, I'll let you try anyplace that's the same temperature as the middle east, including hunter gatherers in Africa and Texas.
Besides that, the bill of rights is part of the constitution, and the constitution is what we are. To quote the definition:
1. The act or process of composing, setting up, or establishing.
2.
1. The composition or structure of something; makeup.
2. The physical makeup of a person: Having a strong constitution, she had no trouble climbing the mountain.
3.
1. The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.
2. The document in which such a system is recorded.
3. Constitution The fundamental law of the United States, framed in 1787, ratified in 1789, and variously amended since then.
That means that violating the bill of rights is the same as saying that we now have no legislature and the president is, in essence, it dissolves the American government. I'd actually have an easier time arguing that the United States government never violated the constitution while Bush was in office by saying that we weren't the US while we were violating the constitution. We were actually Fundieland, where you can annaly rape brown people all day long!
Don't federal laws always supersede state laws when they conflict?
Yeah, you're right, that was a dumb argument.
Allow me to rephrase:
Federal law works something like this, as I understand it:
US Constitution is the supreme law of the land (as a sidenote, the Bush Administration decided this wasn't true and that the President's words were the supreme law of the land, which we need to stamp down fast)
Next the US Constitution explicitly makes treaties the law. (We are obligated to prosecute torture on this level) Only time treaties aren't the law is if they're ruled to be in violation of the Constitution. As an example, this was Henry Cabot Lodge's argument against ratifying the Treaty of Versailles, he feared it would take Congress' power to declare war and give it to another entity.
Then federal law, followed by state constitutions and lastly state law.
I suppose my argument is that while it seems at least sort of legitimate for the executive to de-emphasize the enforcement of certain federal laws s/he doesn't agree with, it is completely illegitimate to do the same when de-emphasizing the law would violate a treaty agreement signed by a previous President and ratified by the Senate. That is, when refusing to follow the statute would violate international law.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Find me one person in the middle east who doesn't know that the US tortures people. Hell, I'll even let you count US troops, as long as we don't count bullshitting about how it's not torture when the US does it. While I'm at it, I'll let you try anyplace that's the same temperature as the middle east, including hunter gatherers in Africa and Texas.
Besides that, the bill of rights is part of the constitution, and the constitution is what we are. To quote the definition:
1. The act or process of composing, setting up, or establishing.
2.
1. The composition or structure of something; makeup.
2. The physical makeup of a person: Having a strong constitution, she had no trouble climbing the mountain.
3.
1. The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.
2. The document in which such a system is recorded.
3. Constitution The fundamental law of the United States, framed in 1787, ratified in 1789, and variously amended since then.
That means that violating the bill of rights is the same as saying that we now have no legislature and the president is, in essence, it dissolves the American government. I'd actually have an easier time arguing that the United States government never violated the constitution while Bush was in office by saying that we weren't the US while we were violating the constitution. We were actually Fundieland, where you can annaly rape brown people all day long!
Also, what Scalfin said.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Don't federal laws always supersede state laws when they conflict?
Yeah, you're right, that was a dumb argument.
Allow me to rephrase:
Federal law works something like this, as I understand it:
US Constitution is the supreme law of the land (as a sidenote, the Bush Administration decided this wasn't true and that the President's words were the supreme law of the land, which we need to stamp down fast)
Next the US Constitution explicitly makes treaties the law. (We are obligated to prosecute torture on this level) Only time treaties aren't the law is if they're ruled to be in violation of the Constitution. As an example, this was Henry Cabot Lodge's argument against ratifying the Treaty of Versailles, he feared it would take Congress' power to declare war and give it to another entity.
Then federal law, followed by state constitutions and lastly state law.
I suppose my argument is that while it seems at least sort of legitimate for the executive to de-emphasize the enforcement of certain federal laws s/he doesn't agree with, it is completely illegitimate to do the same when de-emphasizing the law would violate a treaty agreement signed by a previous President and ratified by the Senate. That is, when refusing to follow the statute would violate international law.
Also, unless there's a more recent law (I heard about the contents of the law on the Hitler Channel [yes, you know which channel I'm talking about], so it may have changed since the time period in question), marijuana (as well as most other drugs) is only illegal for non-medical uses, which is why you can still get a prescription for various types of opium. Unfortunately, there is no federally recognized medical use for marijuana, which means that it's legal across the board in most cases, but California has a grouping for medical purposes. Now, the only contents of the imaginary federal purpose list for marijuana is that treating addiction cannot be used as a reason for prescription, while California actually has a list of grounds that a doctor can prescribe for, so the big question is whether a blank federal list can overrule a full state list.
Don't federal laws always supersede state laws when they conflict?
Yeah, you're right, that was a dumb argument.
Allow me to rephrase:
Federal law works something like this, as I understand it:
US Constitution is the supreme law of the land (as a sidenote, the Bush Administration decided this wasn't true and that the President's words were the supreme law of the land, which we need to stamp down fast)
Next the US Constitution explicitly makes treaties the law. (We are obligated to prosecute torture on this level) Only time treaties aren't the law is if they're ruled to be in violation of the Constitution. As an example, this was Henry Cabot Lodge's argument against ratifying the Treaty of Versailles, he feared it would take Congress' power to declare war and give it to another entity.
Then federal law, followed by state constitutions and lastly state law.
I suppose my argument is that while it seems at least sort of legitimate for the executive to de-emphasize the enforcement of certain federal laws s/he doesn't agree with, it is completely illegitimate to do the same when de-emphasizing the law would violate a treaty agreement signed by a previous President and ratified by the Senate. That is, when refusing to follow the statute would violate international law.
Also, unless there's a more recent law (I heard about the contents of the law on the Hitler Channel [yes, you know which channel I'm talking about], so it may have changed since the time period in question), marijuana (as well as most other drugs) is only illegal for non-medical uses, which is why you can still get a prescription for various types of opium. Unfortunately, there is no federally recognized medical use for marijuana, which means that it's legal across the board in most cases, but California has a grouping for medical purposes. Now, the only contents of the imaginary federal purpose list for marijuana is that treating addiction cannot be used as a reason for prescription, while California actually has a list of grounds that a doctor can prescribe for, so the big question is whether a blank federal list can overrule a full state list.
Well, that makes the comparison even less valid if that's true.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I should also note that some kind of investigation has popular support approaching 70%. It's slightly lower for torture, higher for the politicization of the Justice Department and actually at 70% for the illegal wiretapping. What exactly, is the problem with listening to a supermajority of the American people?
On the wiretapping thing, it was investigated and is no longer illegal. Oh, it was illegal at the time the Bush administration started it. After the information on the wiretapping went public, Congress (and Obama) voted to change the FISA laws so that what they were doing was no longer illegal. That's why the Obama administration is going to walk a very fine line if they choose to start prosecuting, but there's going to need to be evidence that they're not continuing most of the policies that got the Bush administration in trouble to begin with. Obama has pretty much publicly stated that he sees no problem with wiretapping, and he's technically right since the law was changed.
OremLK, Terrorists don't really need a new excuse, they have plenty of old ones to use. From the Crusades back in the middle ages, to the "Invasion" of Saudi Arabia to protect it from Sadam in 91, to the real Invasion of Iraq. The terrorists use these events and more to recruit for their cause, the fact that the US tortures is just icing on the cake.
In fact even if the US didn't torture Al-Quaida would probably claim that it did.
What I hate about people like you is that you seem to think that torture is "bad", but revealing the torture? thats EVEN WORSE! the idea that the act of torture is less abhorrent then the revalation of same is stupid and you should feel bad for saying so.
The reason? because it Justifies everything bad Al-Quaida says about the US.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
Yeah, I don't see how revealing that the past administration committed war crimes and letting the justice system take care of that is a bad thing.
I would think that the unwillingness to do anything to these people would be seen in a far worse light. I'm not expecting to see Bush and Cheney behind bars, I'm not an idiot, but I do expect to see some people get reamed. Even if they are just fall guys.
Yeah, I don't see how revealing that the past administration committed war crimes and letting the justice system take care of that is a bad thing.
I would think that the unwillingness to do anything to these people would be seen in a far worse light. I'm not expecting to see Bush and Cheney behind bars, I'm not an idiot, but I do expect to see some people get reamed. Even if they are just fall guys.
Never will happen as there were Democrats on the Hill that knew what was going on as well.
Emanon on
Treats Animals Right!
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I don't see how revealing that the past administration committed war crimes and letting the justice system take care of that is a bad thing.
I would think that the unwillingness to do anything to these people would be seen in a far worse light. I'm not expecting to see Bush and Cheney behind bars, I'm not an idiot, but I do expect to see some people get reamed. Even if they are just fall guys.
Never will happen as there were Democrats on the Hill that knew what was going on as well.
Throw them in jail as well.
I understand partisanship acts as some sort of force field depending on who's in power, but I hate being reminded of it.
Yeah, I don't see how revealing that the past administration committed war crimes and letting the justice system take care of that is a bad thing.
I would think that the unwillingness to do anything to these people would be seen in a far worse light. I'm not expecting to see Bush and Cheney behind bars, I'm not an idiot, but I do expect to see some people get reamed. Even if they are just fall guys.
Never will happen as there were Democrats on the Hill that knew what was going on as well.
Throw them in jail as well.
I understand partisanship acts as some sort of force field depending on who's in power, but I hate being reminded of it.
Still, will never happen. Moving on... torture (as we know it) has ended.
Emanon on
Treats Animals Right!
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Still, will never happen. Moving on... torture (as we know it) has ended.
So the only way we can go from here is either no torture or new torture.
I'd prefer the "no" option myself. Most interrogators that I know (I actually do know a few!) tell me torture is the most inneffective means of getting information from someone, and that the best way is to get what one dude calls "associated information".
Still, will never happen. Moving on... torture (as we know it) has ended.
So the only way we can go from here is either no torture or new torture.
I'd prefer the "no" option myself. Most interrogators that I know (I actually do know a few!) tell me torture is the most inneffective means of getting information from someone, and that the best way is to get what one dude calls "associated information".
Why were we using torture in the first place, if this is the case?
Still, will never happen. Moving on... torture (as we know it) has ended.
So the only way we can go from here is either no torture or new torture.
I'd prefer the "no" option myself. Most interrogators that I know (I actually do know a few!) tell me torture is the most inneffective means of getting information from someone, and that the best way is to get what one dude calls "associated information".
Why were we using torture in the first place, if this is the case?
It makes people tell you what they think you want to hear?
Numi on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Still, will never happen. Moving on... torture (as we know it) has ended.
So the only way we can go from here is either no torture or new torture.
I'd prefer the "no" option myself. Most interrogators that I know (I actually do know a few!) tell me torture is the most inneffective means of getting information from someone, and that the best way is to get what one dude calls "associated information".
Why were we using torture in the first place, if this is the case?
It gets "results", and a lof of people up top aren't worried about correct information... simply information. The entire Gitmo/torture twofer was more about appeasing brass and officials and putting on a face for the public than it was actually being effective.
There are more incompetent people up top than you think.
jungleroomx on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
There are more incompetent people up top than you think.
Well, it's counter-intuitive, right? As an ordinary person you would expect that torture would get results, even if it was unpleasant and all. But then, in one of those few coincidences in which nature is kind to humanity, it turns out that torture actually doesn't get results.
MrMister on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
There are more incompetent people up top than you think.
Well, it's counter-intuitive, right? As an ordinary person you would expect that torture would get results, even if it was unpleasant and all. But then, in one of those few coincidences in which nature is kind to humanity, it turns out that torture actually doesn't get results.
It's counter-intuitive, but it's also well documented and not exactly a secret.
Not to stereotype (which means the following sentence will stereotype), but there are a lot of nationalistic right-wingers in charge of the guns in this country
Still, will never happen. Moving on... torture (as we know it) has ended.
So the only way we can go from here is either no torture or new torture.
I'd prefer the "no" option myself. Most interrogators that I know (I actually do know a few!) tell me torture is the most inneffective means of getting information from someone, and that the best way is to get what one dude calls "associated information".
Why were we using torture in the first place, if this is the case?
It works in the movies and on TV.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I should also note that some kind of investigation has popular support approaching 70%. It's slightly lower for torture, higher for the politicization of the Justice Department and actually at 70% for the illegal wiretapping. What exactly, is the problem with listening to a supermajority of the American people?
On the wiretapping thing, it was investigated and is no longer illegal. Oh, it was illegal at the time the Bush administration started it. After the information on the wiretapping went public, Congress (and Obama) voted to change the FISA laws so that what they were doing was no longer illegal. That's why the Obama administration is going to walk a very fine line if they choose to start prosecuting, but there's going to need to be evidence that they're not continuing most of the policies that got the Bush administration in trouble to begin with. Obama has pretty much publicly stated that he sees no problem with wiretapping, and he's technically right since the law was changed.
We know, lots of us were pretty pissed about that during the campaign.
It's slightly more nuanced than that in terms of his position, but since taking office it's gone more towards the way you state it. It's one of the things I'm pretty concerned about.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I should also note that some kind of investigation has popular support approaching 70%. It's slightly lower for torture, higher for the politicization of the Justice Department and actually at 70% for the illegal wiretapping. What exactly, is the problem with listening to a supermajority of the American people?
On the wiretapping thing, it was investigated and is no longer illegal. Oh, it was illegal at the time the Bush administration started it. After the information on the wiretapping went public, Congress (and Obama) voted to change the FISA laws so that what they were doing was no longer illegal. That's why the Obama administration is going to walk a very fine line if they choose to start prosecuting, but there's going to need to be evidence that they're not continuing most of the policies that got the Bush administration in trouble to begin with. Obama has pretty much publicly stated that he sees no problem with wiretapping, and he's technically right since the law was changed.
correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't what the hullabaloo with the FISA law vote not that it made what happened legal, but that it merely granted immunity to the corporations who went along with the Bush Administration's wiretapping program and the democrats voted for it on the ground that, while it granted immunity, it also strengthened the FISA laws to prevent the abuses the previous administration committed?
I should also note that some kind of investigation has popular support approaching 70%. It's slightly lower for torture, higher for the politicization of the Justice Department and actually at 70% for the illegal wiretapping. What exactly, is the problem with listening to a supermajority of the American people?
On the wiretapping thing, it was investigated and is no longer illegal. Oh, it was illegal at the time the Bush administration started it. After the information on the wiretapping went public, Congress (and Obama) voted to change the FISA laws so that what they were doing was no longer illegal. That's why the Obama administration is going to walk a very fine line if they choose to start prosecuting, but there's going to need to be evidence that they're not continuing most of the policies that got the Bush administration in trouble to begin with. Obama has pretty much publicly stated that he sees no problem with wiretapping, and he's technically right since the law was changed.
correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't what the hullabaloo with the FISA law vote not that it made what happened legal, but that it merely granted immunity to the corporations who went along with the Bush Administration's wiretapping program and the democrats voted for it on the ground that, while it granted immunity, it also strengthened the FISA laws to prevent the abuses the previous administration committed?
Your interpretation is correct, but going through the telecoms was probably the best way to get at the wrongdoing of the Administration as it is very very hard to prove the NSA illegally and secretly spied on you, what with it being, you know, secret. It's easier if you can go through the telecoms because they should theoretically have records of cooperating if they did. At least that's how I understand it.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I should also note that some kind of investigation has popular support approaching 70%. It's slightly lower for torture, higher for the politicization of the Justice Department and actually at 70% for the illegal wiretapping. What exactly, is the problem with listening to a supermajority of the American people?
On the wiretapping thing, it was investigated and is no longer illegal. Oh, it was illegal at the time the Bush administration started it. After the information on the wiretapping went public, Congress (and Obama) voted to change the FISA laws so that what they were doing was no longer illegal. That's why the Obama administration is going to walk a very fine line if they choose to start prosecuting, but there's going to need to be evidence that they're not continuing most of the policies that got the Bush administration in trouble to begin with. Obama has pretty much publicly stated that he sees no problem with wiretapping, and he's technically right since the law was changed.
correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't what the hullabaloo with the FISA law vote not that it made what happened legal, but that it merely granted immunity to the corporations who went along with the Bush Administration's wiretapping program and the democrats voted for it on the ground that, while it granted immunity, it also strengthened the FISA laws to prevent the abuses the previous administration committed?
Your interpretation is correct, but going through the telecoms was probably the best way to get at the wrongdoing of the Administration as it is very very hard to prove the NSA illegally and secretly spied on you, what with it being, you know, secret. It's easier if you can go through the telecoms because they should theoretically have records of cooperating if they did. At least that's how I understand it.
But now they can't plead the 5th. Beyond that, I don't see too much trouble w/ pardoning those who are acting in good faith.
I should also note that some kind of investigation has popular support approaching 70%. It's slightly lower for torture, higher for the politicization of the Justice Department and actually at 70% for the illegal wiretapping. What exactly, is the problem with listening to a supermajority of the American people?
On the wiretapping thing, it was investigated and is no longer illegal. Oh, it was illegal at the time the Bush administration started it. After the information on the wiretapping went public, Congress (and Obama) voted to change the FISA laws so that what they were doing was no longer illegal. That's why the Obama administration is going to walk a very fine line if they choose to start prosecuting, but there's going to need to be evidence that they're not continuing most of the policies that got the Bush administration in trouble to begin with. Obama has pretty much publicly stated that he sees no problem with wiretapping, and he's technically right since the law was changed.
correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't what the hullabaloo with the FISA law vote not that it made what happened legal, but that it merely granted immunity to the corporations who went along with the Bush Administration's wiretapping program and the democrats voted for it on the ground that, while it granted immunity, it also strengthened the FISA laws to prevent the abuses the previous administration committed?
Your interpretation is correct, but going through the telecoms was probably the best way to get at the wrongdoing of the Administration as it is very very hard to prove the NSA illegally and secretly spied on you, what with it being, you know, secret. It's easier if you can go through the telecoms because they should theoretically have records of cooperating if they did. At least that's how I understand it.
Not entirely. The main hullabaloo had to do with the telecoms, yes, but mostly because they were the direct link to the consumer and they theoretically violated customer agreements by cooperating with the NSA in the way that they did, thus making them suable. The new rules that passed Congress basically gave the telecoms immunity so that, not only could they violate those agreement, but it would actually be illegal for the telecoms not to cooperate. When you say strengthen the FISA laws to prevent abuses, what they actually did was change the law and loosen the restrictions so that what the administration was doing was no longer an abuse. In other words, they moved the goal line.
Still, will never happen. Moving on... torture (as we know it) has ended.
So the only way we can go from here is either no torture or new torture.
I'd prefer the "no" option myself. Most interrogators that I know (I actually do know a few!) tell me torture is the most inneffective means of getting information from someone, and that the best way is to get what one dude calls "associated information".
Why were we using torture in the first place, if this is the case?
It works in the movies and on TV.
Thinking about it, are there any movies out there where the twist is that the information they got from torture was just made up? Just seems so obvious a twist I can't beleive I've not seen it before, though that said I missed the last batch of spy/thrillers like Rendition, etc
I should also note that some kind of investigation has popular support approaching 70%. It's slightly lower for torture, higher for the politicization of the Justice Department and actually at 70% for the illegal wiretapping. What exactly, is the problem with listening to a supermajority of the American people?
On the wiretapping thing, it was investigated and is no longer illegal. Oh, it was illegal at the time the Bush administration started it. After the information on the wiretapping went public, Congress (and Obama) voted to change the FISA laws so that what they were doing was no longer illegal. That's why the Obama administration is going to walk a very fine line if they choose to start prosecuting, but there's going to need to be evidence that they're not continuing most of the policies that got the Bush administration in trouble to begin with. Obama has pretty much publicly stated that he sees no problem with wiretapping, and he's technically right since the law was changed.
correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't what the hullabaloo with the FISA law vote not that it made what happened legal, but that it merely granted immunity to the corporations who went along with the Bush Administration's wiretapping program and the democrats voted for it on the ground that, while it granted immunity, it also strengthened the FISA laws to prevent the abuses the previous administration committed?
Your interpretation is correct, but going through the telecoms was probably the best way to get at the wrongdoing of the Administration as it is very very hard to prove the NSA illegally and secretly spied on you, what with it being, you know, secret. It's easier if you can go through the telecoms because they should theoretically have records of cooperating if they did. At least that's how I understand it.
Not entirely. The main hullabaloo had to do with the telecoms, yes, but mostly because they were the direct link to the consumer and they theoretically violated customer agreements by cooperating with the NSA in the way that they did, thus making them suable. The new rules that passed Congress basically gave the telecoms immunity so that, not only could they violate those agreement, but it would actually be illegal for the telecoms not to cooperate. When you say strengthen the FISA laws to prevent abuses, what they actually did was change the law and loosen the restrictions so that what the administration was doing was no longer an abuse. In other words, they moved the goal line.
Do you have a source on that, because this is the first time I've ever heard that explaination. All other times it was that it was an amendment that granted retroactive immunity.
I should also note that some kind of investigation has popular support approaching 70%. It's slightly lower for torture, higher for the politicization of the Justice Department and actually at 70% for the illegal wiretapping. What exactly, is the problem with listening to a supermajority of the American people?
On the wiretapping thing, it was investigated and is no longer illegal. Oh, it was illegal at the time the Bush administration started it. After the information on the wiretapping went public, Congress (and Obama) voted to change the FISA laws so that what they were doing was no longer illegal. That's why the Obama administration is going to walk a very fine line if they choose to start prosecuting, but there's going to need to be evidence that they're not continuing most of the policies that got the Bush administration in trouble to begin with. Obama has pretty much publicly stated that he sees no problem with wiretapping, and he's technically right since the law was changed.
correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't what the hullabaloo with the FISA law vote not that it made what happened legal, but that it merely granted immunity to the corporations who went along with the Bush Administration's wiretapping program and the democrats voted for it on the ground that, while it granted immunity, it also strengthened the FISA laws to prevent the abuses the previous administration committed?
Your interpretation is correct, but going through the telecoms was probably the best way to get at the wrongdoing of the Administration as it is very very hard to prove the NSA illegally and secretly spied on you, what with it being, you know, secret. It's easier if you can go through the telecoms because they should theoretically have records of cooperating if they did. At least that's how I understand it.
Not entirely. The main hullabaloo had to do with the telecoms, yes, but mostly because they were the direct link to the consumer and they theoretically violated customer agreements by cooperating with the NSA in the way that they did, thus making them suable. The new rules that passed Congress basically gave the telecoms immunity so that, not only could they violate those agreement, but it would actually be illegal for the telecoms not to cooperate. When you say strengthen the FISA laws to prevent abuses, what they actually did was change the law and loosen the restrictions so that what the administration was doing was no longer an abuse. In other words, they moved the goal line.
Do you have a source on that, because this is the first time I've ever heard that explaination. All other times it was that it was an amendment that granted retroactive immunity.
The retroactive immunity was the hot-button issue, so it's what everyone saw mentioned over and over, which let the other parts slip under the radar. But I read most of the above in Shadow Factory, although I can't remember off the top of my head what all his sources were for that part (Bamford had a lot of them, so I didn't look through the whole list, nor do I have a copy of the book to look through again since I borrowed it), but I've also seen it mentioned in a few other places, too.
It should be noted that the Freeper crowd apparently considers releasing the memos to be treason. Violating the Constitution and laws in order to torture brown people is okay, but shining a light on this illegal activity is treason, apparently.
Interesting, from what I'm hearing, this [act] is not good because it will only fuel and/or angry the terrorists even more (Freepers pov). Well shit...
bychance on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
Related to this, Sullivan has been running a series of commentaries today outlining the torture practises that have been emerging from Red Cross testimony, and going as so far as to post side-by-side Red Cross explanations of Bush-Cheney torture practices with Gestapo torture practices (the Bush-Cheney ones were more extreme).
I've gotta give them credit for this because the CIA and Republicans have been pushing hard against it. Like, to the point that several cabinet appointees were being threatened with filibuster if they released the memos. It looks like there may be some serious hardball in the future to get these appointees through the Senate.
Posts
I bet you can't come up with even one instance where the government has buried something for so long that it has been completely forgotten, not only in the public consciousness but also from history. Hah!
2) More that we will be setting a precedent of airing (or worse, down the road, inventing) dirty laundry for political gain each time a President takes office--God knows things are polarized enough as it is.
EDIT: Grammar woes.
1) ...How the hell does that logic work? There are, as best as I can tell, four fundamental reasons that Muslims dislike the United States: our unfettered support for Israel; our military presence on Arab/holy land; our support for dictators like the Shah of Iran, the Saudi Royals, Saddam before we hated him, etc.; and the whole torturing and indefinitely detaining innocent Muslims. Perhaps it would help our cause if we removed one of those reasons (and ideally, all of them but that's a different discussion).
2) You mean like endless investigations of everything Bill Clinton did until they eventually caught him lying about a blow job so they could finally get their wish and impeach the poor bastard? That kind of invented dirty laundry politicizing the process? As opposed to, you know, war crimes. Specifically torture, which we are obligated by treaty to prosecute? Or do treaties not matter because we're the fucking United States and we do what we want.
2) Yes, like that. "The other side does it!" is not a good reason to continue being divisive. For the record, I think it would be wonderful if we could prosecute and bring to justice all those responsible without having ill effects, I just don't think the sense of moral superiority and closure we would get from it would be worth the negative effects.
2) I'm going to say this again real slowly:
We. Are. Obligated. To. Prosecute. Torture. Because. Of. Treaties. We. Signed.
Treaties have the effect of law, second only to the Constitution itself. If people who supported torture have a problem with that, that's their problem.
I should also note that some kind of investigation has popular support approaching 70%. It's slightly lower for torture, higher for the politicization of the Justice Department and actually at 70% for the illegal wiretapping. What exactly, is the problem with listening to a supermajority of the American people?
Would you mind linking your source(s) on that last bit regarding support for the investigation?
I flipped the Justice Department/wiretapping numbers, but here.
Note that a majority do not favor criminal investigations, but some kind of investigation which is what I said, and what I presume you are objecting to.
I of course, favor criminal investigations. And I think putting them in stocks outside the UN building for six months during daylight hours seems somehow appropriate, if a bit Middle Ages.
You don't get to choose whether or not to enforce treaties.
The medical marijuana example is different as in that case there is a federal law criminalizing pot in all forms that could theoretically supercede the state law that legalizes pot when used medically with a prescription. It's an actual gray area, so the administration made a choice and I'm not even sure if it's legally correct (though I think it's morally correct). As opposed to this where there are federal laws criminalizing torture and a treaty obligation under our own and international law to prosecute under those laws.
You should also note that the public opposition to investigations (generally, not criminal) is basically the same as Bush's approval ratings. I think we can safely assume it's the same group. We as a nation collectively dismissed the Bush dead enders as nutters a couple years ago, so I think pushing investigations through over their collective shit fit is A-OK.
In any case, thanks for the link, and I'll cede that there is a strong case for mounting an investigation.
Besides that, the bill of rights is part of the constitution, and the constitution is what we are. To quote the definition:
That means that violating the bill of rights is the same as saying that we now have no legislature and the president is, in essence, it dissolves the American government. I'd actually have an easier time arguing that the United States government never violated the constitution while Bush was in office by saying that we weren't the US while we were violating the constitution. We were actually Fundieland, where you can annaly rape brown people all day long!
Yeah, you're right, that was a dumb argument.
Allow me to rephrase:
Federal law works something like this, as I understand it:
US Constitution is the supreme law of the land (as a sidenote, the Bush Administration decided this wasn't true and that the President's words were the supreme law of the land, which we need to stamp down fast)
Next the US Constitution explicitly makes treaties the law. (We are obligated to prosecute torture on this level) Only time treaties aren't the law is if they're ruled to be in violation of the Constitution. As an example, this was Henry Cabot Lodge's argument against ratifying the Treaty of Versailles, he feared it would take Congress' power to declare war and give it to another entity.
Then federal law, followed by state constitutions and lastly state law.
I suppose my argument is that while it seems at least sort of legitimate for the executive to de-emphasize the enforcement of certain federal laws s/he doesn't agree with, it is completely illegitimate to do the same when de-emphasizing the law would violate a treaty agreement signed by a previous President and ratified by the Senate. That is, when refusing to follow the statute would violate international law.
Also, what Scalfin said.
Also, unless there's a more recent law (I heard about the contents of the law on the Hitler Channel [yes, you know which channel I'm talking about], so it may have changed since the time period in question), marijuana (as well as most other drugs) is only illegal for non-medical uses, which is why you can still get a prescription for various types of opium. Unfortunately, there is no federally recognized medical use for marijuana, which means that it's legal across the board in most cases, but California has a grouping for medical purposes. Now, the only contents of the imaginary federal purpose list for marijuana is that treating addiction cannot be used as a reason for prescription, while California actually has a list of grounds that a doctor can prescribe for, so the big question is whether a blank federal list can overrule a full state list.
Well, that makes the comparison even less valid if that's true.
On the wiretapping thing, it was investigated and is no longer illegal. Oh, it was illegal at the time the Bush administration started it. After the information on the wiretapping went public, Congress (and Obama) voted to change the FISA laws so that what they were doing was no longer illegal. That's why the Obama administration is going to walk a very fine line if they choose to start prosecuting, but there's going to need to be evidence that they're not continuing most of the policies that got the Bush administration in trouble to begin with. Obama has pretty much publicly stated that he sees no problem with wiretapping, and he's technically right since the law was changed.
In fact even if the US didn't torture Al-Quaida would probably claim that it did.
What I hate about people like you is that you seem to think that torture is "bad", but revealing the torture? thats EVEN WORSE! the idea that the act of torture is less abhorrent then the revalation of same is stupid and you should feel bad for saying so.
The reason? because it Justifies everything bad Al-Quaida says about the US.
I would think that the unwillingness to do anything to these people would be seen in a far worse light. I'm not expecting to see Bush and Cheney behind bars, I'm not an idiot, but I do expect to see some people get reamed. Even if they are just fall guys.
Never will happen as there were Democrats on the Hill that knew what was going on as well.
Throw them in jail as well.
I understand partisanship acts as some sort of force field depending on who's in power, but I hate being reminded of it.
Still, will never happen. Moving on... torture (as we know it) has ended.
So the only way we can go from here is either no torture or new torture.
I'd prefer the "no" option myself. Most interrogators that I know (I actually do know a few!) tell me torture is the most inneffective means of getting information from someone, and that the best way is to get what one dude calls "associated information".
Why were we using torture in the first place, if this is the case?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
It makes people tell you what they think you want to hear?
It gets "results", and a lof of people up top aren't worried about correct information... simply information. The entire Gitmo/torture twofer was more about appeasing brass and officials and putting on a face for the public than it was actually being effective.
There are more incompetent people up top than you think.
Well, it's counter-intuitive, right? As an ordinary person you would expect that torture would get results, even if it was unpleasant and all. But then, in one of those few coincidences in which nature is kind to humanity, it turns out that torture actually doesn't get results.
It's counter-intuitive, but it's also well documented and not exactly a secret.
Not to stereotype (which means the following sentence will stereotype), but there are a lot of nationalistic right-wingers in charge of the guns in this country
It works in the movies and on TV.
We know, lots of us were pretty pissed about that during the campaign.
It's slightly more nuanced than that in terms of his position, but since taking office it's gone more towards the way you state it. It's one of the things I'm pretty concerned about.
correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't what the hullabaloo with the FISA law vote not that it made what happened legal, but that it merely granted immunity to the corporations who went along with the Bush Administration's wiretapping program and the democrats voted for it on the ground that, while it granted immunity, it also strengthened the FISA laws to prevent the abuses the previous administration committed?
Your interpretation is correct, but going through the telecoms was probably the best way to get at the wrongdoing of the Administration as it is very very hard to prove the NSA illegally and secretly spied on you, what with it being, you know, secret. It's easier if you can go through the telecoms because they should theoretically have records of cooperating if they did. At least that's how I understand it.
But now they can't plead the 5th. Beyond that, I don't see too much trouble w/ pardoning those who are acting in good faith.
Not entirely. The main hullabaloo had to do with the telecoms, yes, but mostly because they were the direct link to the consumer and they theoretically violated customer agreements by cooperating with the NSA in the way that they did, thus making them suable. The new rules that passed Congress basically gave the telecoms immunity so that, not only could they violate those agreement, but it would actually be illegal for the telecoms not to cooperate. When you say strengthen the FISA laws to prevent abuses, what they actually did was change the law and loosen the restrictions so that what the administration was doing was no longer an abuse. In other words, they moved the goal line.
Thinking about it, are there any movies out there where the twist is that the information they got from torture was just made up? Just seems so obvious a twist I can't beleive I've not seen it before, though that said I missed the last batch of spy/thrillers like Rendition, etc
Do you have a source on that, because this is the first time I've ever heard that explaination. All other times it was that it was an amendment that granted retroactive immunity.
The retroactive immunity was the hot-button issue, so it's what everyone saw mentioned over and over, which let the other parts slip under the radar. But I read most of the above in Shadow Factory, although I can't remember off the top of my head what all his sources were for that part (Bamford had a lot of them, so I didn't look through the whole list, nor do I have a copy of the book to look through again since I borrowed it), but I've also seen it mentioned in a few other places, too.
Interesting, from what I'm hearing, this [act] is not good because it will only fuel and/or angry the terrorists even more (Freepers pov). Well shit...
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I've gotta give them credit for this because the CIA and Republicans have been pushing hard against it. Like, to the point that several cabinet appointees were being threatened with filibuster if they released the memos. It looks like there may be some serious hardball in the future to get these appointees through the Senate.