Just tell them that their God-figure Reagan was the one who made sure that the international treaty was ratified. That will have the poor idiots confused and uncertain for years...
They already espouse many policies which conflict with Reagan's... while saying that those are the policies Reagan would follow. Not going to work.
EDIT: Cervetus - true, although it's an academic question anyway.
I'm not really certain I want to convince people of a conservative bent.
I guess it depends on how you want them to see the prosecution and imprisonment of the leaders they supported.
Who cares? While I understand the political necessity to make an argument for why these people must be tried, the facts point to a major breach of the law. Thus, fuck those who need this explained as their either operating from ignorance or dishonesty.
But we have a choice of which law to argue that they broke.
Since prosecution is in doubt and relies on a popular government and is politically divisive, I'd say that if you want to argue for prosecution, you should argue for it under th law that is the most clear, popularly legitimate and broadly accepted.
Wrong. It relies on a Justice Department that is not politically controlled by the White House.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The military can be loyal to the will of the people by following a Chain of Command that ends with elected representatives who answer to the people. If the representatives stop listening to us, I suggest that is the fault of the citizens for not exercising our rights. We have all the tools necessary to ensure that our representatives actually, you know, represent us. If we fail to use them, then the blame lays on our shoulders.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. You might have communicated it more clearly.
Speaker on
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
The military can be loyal to the will of the people by following a Chain of Command that ends with elected representatives who answer to the people. If the representatives stop listening to us, I suggest that is the fault of the citizens for not exercising our rights. We have all the tools necessary to ensure that our representatives actually, you know, represent us. If we fail to use them, then the blame lays on our shoulders.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. You might have communicated it more clearly.
Appearing on CBS’ Face The Nation Sunday, the former Republican presidential nominee — who was himself tortured as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese — said, "Are you going to prosecute people for giving bad legal advice?" He suggested that Washington should ignore calls to investigate who was behind government lawyers writing memos which gave legal cover to the use of torture on detainees.
"We need to put this behind us," he told host Bob Schieffer. “We need to move forward. … We need a united nation, not a divided one."
McCain reiterated that he has always opposed torture, noting that it can be a recruiting tool for America’s enemies, as was the case with news of America's mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. But prosecutions would not ultimately benefit the country, he said. He compared the current situation to President Ford’s decision to pardon President Nixon following the Watergate scandal.
"Most people in retrospect believe that the Ford pardon was right, because we moved on. We've got to move on," said McCain.
Schieffer asked if Jay Bybee, one of the authors of the memos, should be impeached or asked to resign. Bybee is now a federal judge.
"Well, resignation would be a decision he would have to make on his own," McCain said. "But he falls into the same category as everybody else, as far as giving very bad advice and misinterpreting fundamentally what the United States is all about, much less things like the Geneva Conventions. Under President Reagan, we signed an agreement against torture. We were in violation of that."
You think it matters at all, Speaker? They're going to be a pissed off rump minority regardless of where you prosecute these assholes.
It's a different argument if you force them to accept that the law was broken. You are armed with better rhetorical weapons in terms of defending ordered liberty, they are forced into nakedly arguing for tyranny.
This is how we already see the issue. The point though is to force them to accept the same initial premise.
Try to argue from the U.N. convention and you make them feel like freedom fighters resisting hostile foreign control. You want the rhetoric and sentiments of the founding generaion to be running against them, not reinforcing their mindset.
Also, in the missing the point area: I don't give a damn about political considerations.
They broke major laws both domestically and internationally and they need to go to jail.
This would be your problem.
And I would say your view that this is my problem is your problem. The political considerations argument is bullshit.
In summary, to quote Greenwald's motto for DC:
When poor and ordinary Americans who commit crimes are prosecuted and imprisoned, that is Justice.
When the same thing is done to Washington elites, that is Ugly Retribution.
Your argument is stupid. Political considerations impact EVERYTHING. The ability of the government to do anything, including prosecute crimes, is impacted by political considerations. If you want the government to do anything, then you must consider the political implications of it's actions.
Or, more specifically, Obama's ability to actually DO anything is directly effected by his ability to manage the political considerations of this mess.
You can call it "unfair" or "unjust" or whatever, but that doesn't mean it's not true. How this looks to the public is extremely important and must be taken into consideration, no matter how stupid the public is.
Through what alchemy do you expect them to stop arguing for tyranny is my point. Domestic law won't matter to them. Reality sure as hell doesn't matter. That's my point. You can't convince an irrational, scared rump minority of anything.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm not sure that these people will ever be able to admit, even to themselves, that they're arguing for tyrannical actions. Their viewpoint is basically that "It was right because we did it and we did what was right (or at least necessary)". There's no way to win against that argument if the person actually believes it.
It's Holder's, and if he feels that he can't arbitrate fairly, he needs to appoint a special prosecutor. Justice is not supposed to be political, that was one of the more serious Bush crimes we want prosecuted!
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm not sure that these people will ever be able to admit, even to themselves, that they're arguing for tyrannical actions. Their viewpoint is basically that "It was right because we did it and we did what was right (or at least necessary)". There's no way to win against that argument if the person actually believes it.
Their argument comes down to it being a matter of public safety. And a wrong minded one at that.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"- Unknown, Published by Benjamin Franklin in A Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania
Through what alchemy do you expect them to stop arguing for tyranny is my point. Domestic law won't matter to them. Reality sure as hell doesn't matter. That's my point. You can't convince an irrational, scared rump minority of anything.
If I had my druthers I'd rather have them defeated in the argument that:
"The president cannot break the law."
than;
"The president can ignore international treaties in order to protect the citizens of the United States."
The idea you seem to have that there isn't any gap in public sentiment between the two, I reject.
Anyway, Speaker, I still don't see how you expect the rump minority to accept the prosecutions of any of the Bush officials no matter how you make the argument. They won't accept it.
I mean obviously, you use domestic law, but the domestic law is based on the UN Convention on Torture, which is why we keep linking to that as it is the fundamental thing in question.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm not sure that these people will ever be able to admit, even to themselves, that they're arguing for tyrannical actions. Their viewpoint is basically that "It was right because we did it and we did what was right (or at least necessary)". There's no way to win against that argument if the person actually believes it.
Their argument comes down to it being a matter of public safety. And a wrong minded one at that.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"- Unknown, Published by Benjamin Franklin in A Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania
They would probably argue that the right to not be tortured isn't an "essential" liberty or become Manichean and claim this is a grand battle between good and evil.
Through what alchemy do you expect them to stop arguing for tyranny is my point. Domestic law won't matter to them. Reality sure as hell doesn't matter. That's my point. You can't convince an irrational, scared rump minority of anything.
If I had my druthers I'd rather have them defeated in the argument that:
"The president cannot break the law."
than;
"The president can ignore international treaties in order to protect the citizens of the United States."
The idea you seem to have that there isn't any gap in public sentiment between the two, I reject.
I think they'll take it as "you're prosecuting the President's administration for protecting us" regardless of what court you try the case in. Have you read any of the reaction on the right to the release of the torture memos? It's unhinged, even for them.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
It's Holder's, and if he feels that he can't arbitrate fairly, he needs to appoint a special prosecutor. Justice is not supposed to be political, that was one of the more serious Bush crimes we want prosecuted!
Fair enough.
Public discussion and reprocussions do not cease in the meantime.
I'm not sure that these people will ever be able to admit, even to themselves, that they're arguing for tyrannical actions. Their viewpoint is basically that "It was right because we did it and we did what was right (or at least necessary)". There's no way to win against that argument if the person actually believes it.
Their argument comes down to it being a matter of public safety. And a wrong minded one at that.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"- Unknown, Published by Benjamin Franklin in A Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania
They would probably argue that the right to not be tortured isn't an "essential" liberty or become Manichean and claim this is a grand battle between good and evil.
Hell, we're already past that point, and way past the "public safety" point. It's already been clearly demonstrated that torture doesn't make us safer, in fact makes things worse, and is useless as an interrogation tool, long before Bush was president. But now they just, quite literally, make up random bullshit to pretend that these facts aren't really facts. Such as trying to pretend they got useful information out of torturing someone several months before that person was actually capture.
Duffel on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
That was the point I was trying to get across, though evidently somewhat poorly. I appreciate why he feels that the best of a slew of bad choices is to put it behind us and try and do the things that can be done in other areas, and he may well be right.
My issue is that's very much a short term solution. It may be the best choice now, but any decent human being should find this repugnant, and even beyond the fact that this will inevitably happen again if it isn't stopped it does us world's of harm to just let this pass without condemnation. edit: To put it even more clearly, you have to decide just what price exactly being the 21st century's Good Germans is worth, exactly.
The only consolation is that there's no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity. I'm willing to accept a quiet gathering of the facts for awhile until we pass healthcare, energy, and so on and to come back to this a few years from now when Obama or the justice department can lay out an irrefutable and painstaking condemnation of everyone involved. I don't know that the GOP is going to just let us sidebar the issue, especially since it seems to be one of the few things they still have a base on, but we'll see.
This isn't terribly a new phenomenon, at least in development circles. It's really a sliding scale: on the one hand you have the truth of everything that happened that you can press for which would, to some extent, involve less direct punishment in order to get the cooperation of those that perpetrated the acts to confess, as a means to ensure national healing on the issue. See: South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Process for an example of this.
On the other side of the scale you have the search for justice which involves punishing those that committed crimes in order to bring a similar healing by holding those responsible to the rule of law. There's some east African countries that opted for this route that I can't recall off the top of my head.
The issue is that the former option will generate opposition in that you're not holding these people responsible while the latter option will generate resentment and similar opposition that the search for justice is simply a political witch hunt. For a developing country both of these are an issue since, while you do have healing, you also have the possibility for retrenchment of a given identity (ethnic, political, etc) based on their opposition to your chosen path which could then come and bite you in the ass in the coming years/decades. So you have to find a balance.
In the case of the US, given that you have a far more stable political system, the trade-offs aren't nearly as dire, but they're still there. You end up having to balance the calls for justice and trials in order to ensure this never happens again against the fact that going just that route will create opposition amongst those that didn't see it as a problem/don't think you should take that route/etc. This won't degenerate into them rising up and civil war happening, but I'd argue that it would increase the level of partisanship in the political process and/or the rancor with which disagreements will play out in the future. It might impact the ability for any manner of policy compromises to take place if they feel you're doing it purely out of partisan interest yourself.
So again, a balance needs to be found. And I don't think in all of 2-3 weeks he'd have found such a balance yet. Given the economic crisis also happening at this time I'd wager he's still trying to figure out what the best way forward is.
Anyway, Speaker, I still don't see how you expect the rump minority to accept the prosecutions of any of the Bush officials no matter how you make the argument. They won't accept it.
I mean obviously, you use domestic law, but the domestic law is based on the UN Convention on Torture, which is why we keep linking to that as it is the fundamental thing in question.
They might be less violent/vehement in their opposition if, in such prosecutions, you also pursue those Democrats that knew about it and prosecute/censure/whatever them to the extent that they should be held responsible.
It's Holder's, and if he feels that he can't arbitrate fairly, he needs to appoint a special prosecutor. Justice is not supposed to be political, that was one of the more serious Bush crimes we want prosecuted!
Fair enough.
Public discussion and reprocussions do not cease in the meantime.
Sure, I just don't think you'll ever convince the right in this country it's anything but a witch hunt. I'm much more interested in convincing people like you, who as I understand it was against prosecutions before the release of the latest batch of memos. For that I think we just need to keep releasing documentation of the programs and apparently we're getting photos (which I'm sure will be a joy to look at) soon. Eventually everyone not in the Bush dead-ender group is going to have to confront our demons and I think the call for prosecution becomes overwhelming.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Anyway, Speaker, I still don't see how you expect the rump minority to accept the prosecutions of any of the Bush officials no matter how you make the argument. They won't accept it.
I mean obviously, you use domestic law, but the domestic law is based on the UN Convention on Torture, which is why we keep linking to that as it is the fundamental thing in question.
They might be less violent/vehement in their opposition if, in such prosecutions, you also pursue those Democrats that knew about it and prosecute/censure/whatever them to the extent that they should be held responsible.
Fine with me. I'd love to know what Pelosi knew and when she knew it.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
I'm not sure that these people will ever be able to admit, even to themselves, that they're arguing for tyrannical actions. Their viewpoint is basically that "It was right because we did it and we did what was right (or at least necessary)". There's no way to win against that argument if the person actually believes it.
Their argument comes down to it being a matter of public safety. And a wrong minded one at that.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"- Unknown, Published by Benjamin Franklin in A Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania
They would probably argue that the right to not be tortured isn't an "essential" liberty or become Manichean and claim this is a grand battle between good and evil.
That first argument can be shot down pretty easily. I suspect it's why I don't get phone calls from a lot of the guys I grew up with any more. The second part is stickier, and a result of the Religious Rights decades of stupid, stupid, stupid rhetoric. Still, I think that can be deconstructed as well, it just takes a whole lot more effort. Start by pointing out that their Savior was tortured and killed for them. Then point out that suffering was dished out by an occupying military power, then maybe go to the point of why would they want to martyr these people. End by making the argument that it's better to follow the rule of law and commonly accepted humane and civilized behavior, otherwise we are just playing right into the hands of Islamic Fundamentalism. You know, the WWJD argument could help here too. The book of Revelations could make that difficult though, so I'd step carefully.
And Rasmussen biases their issue polls to support Fox's talking points. I thought everyone knew that?
When does Gallup release their updated poll? I'll be interested to see how the PR blitz by the pundits and war criminals has impacted public opinion.
It's supposed to drop on Monday. The Rasmussenn poll dropped both before the text of the memos was released and before the republicans started whipping themselves into a frenzy on the issue, so it shoudl see how those factors fall out.
Through what alchemy do you expect them to stop arguing for tyranny is my point. Domestic law won't matter to them. Reality sure as hell doesn't matter. That's my point. You can't convince an irrational, scared rump minority of anything.
If I had my druthers I'd rather have them defeated in the argument that:
"The president cannot break the law."
than;
"The president can ignore international treaties in order to protect the citizens of the United States."
The idea you seem to have that there isn't any gap in public sentiment between the two, I reject.
I think they'll take it as "you're prosecuting the President's administration for protecting us" regardless of what court you try the case in. Have you read any of the reaction on the right to the release of the torture memos? It's unhinged, even for them.
The Public is not divided into the uniformly opinioned Unhinged Rump and the uniformely opinioned New Majority.
We need some way of selecting the AG other than presidential appointment.
This is very, very true. It's maybe the most fundamental reform of the federal government I'd like to see happen.
There really isn't a better method, but it can be changed so as to improve the independence of the DOJ same as how the Fed is a somewhat apolitical independent body. Make the term of AG start midway through the President's, or make it last 6 years. Also, you can't just up and fire him.
Anyway, Speaker, I still don't see how you expect the rump minority to accept the prosecutions of any of the Bush officials no matter how you make the argument. They won't accept it.
I mean obviously, you use domestic law, but the domestic law is based on the UN Convention on Torture, which is why we keep linking to that as it is the fundamental thing in question.
They might be less violent/vehement in their opposition if, in such prosecutions, you also pursue those Democrats that knew about it and prosecute/censure/whatever them to the extent that they should be held responsible.
Posts
EDIT: Cervetus - true, although it's an academic question anyway.
Wrong. It relies on a Justice Department that is not politically controlled by the White House.
This would be your problem.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. You might have communicated it more clearly.
Thanks for helping me frame my argument.
When does Gallup release their updated poll? I'll be interested to see how the PR blitz by the pundits and war criminals has impacted public opinion.
And I would say your view that this is my problem is your problem. The political considerations argument is bullshit.
In summary, to quote Greenwald's motto for DC:
It's a different argument if you force them to accept that the law was broken. You are armed with better rhetorical weapons in terms of defending ordered liberty, they are forced into nakedly arguing for tyranny.
This is how we already see the issue. The point though is to force them to accept the same initial premise.
Try to argue from the U.N. convention and you make them feel like freedom fighters resisting hostile foreign control. You want the rhetoric and sentiments of the founding generaion to be running against them, not reinforcing their mindset.
Your argument is stupid. Political considerations impact EVERYTHING. The ability of the government to do anything, including prosecute crimes, is impacted by political considerations. If you want the government to do anything, then you must consider the political implications of it's actions.
Or, more specifically, Obama's ability to actually DO anything is directly effected by his ability to manage the political considerations of this mess.
You can call it "unfair" or "unjust" or whatever, but that doesn't mean it's not true. How this looks to the public is extremely important and must be taken into consideration, no matter how stupid the public is.
Good.
Now read the second line of the post.
Jesus.
Sure it is. On some level. He has quite a bit of control over this.
And even if he didn't, it still impacts him.
Through what alchemy do you expect them to stop arguing for tyranny is my point. Domestic law won't matter to them. Reality sure as hell doesn't matter. That's my point. You can't convince an irrational, scared rump minority of anything.
Is the choice not the administration's to make?
In any case, when this began I was more intending it to be a proposition about how conservatives should be arged with on this point.
OK, let's put it this way:
If Obama has control of this, he's politicizing the Justice Department just as much as Bush did. This is a serious problem.
Yes, because the Justice Department has never been political before Bush...
It's Holder's, and if he feels that he can't arbitrate fairly, he needs to appoint a special prosecutor. Justice is not supposed to be political, that was one of the more serious Bush crimes we want prosecuted!
This is very, very true. It's maybe the most fundamental reform of the federal government I'd like to see happen.
Their argument comes down to it being a matter of public safety. And a wrong minded one at that.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"- Unknown, Published by Benjamin Franklin in A Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania
If I had my druthers I'd rather have them defeated in the argument that:
"The president cannot break the law."
than;
"The president can ignore international treaties in order to protect the citizens of the United States."
The idea you seem to have that there isn't any gap in public sentiment between the two, I reject.
Anyway, Speaker, I still don't see how you expect the rump minority to accept the prosecutions of any of the Bush officials no matter how you make the argument. They won't accept it.
I mean obviously, you use domestic law, but the domestic law is based on the UN Convention on Torture, which is why we keep linking to that as it is the fundamental thing in question.
They would probably argue that the right to not be tortured isn't an "essential" liberty or become Manichean and claim this is a grand battle between good and evil.
I think they'll take it as "you're prosecuting the President's administration for protecting us" regardless of what court you try the case in. Have you read any of the reaction on the right to the release of the torture memos? It's unhinged, even for them.
Fair enough.
Public discussion and reprocussions do not cease in the meantime.
Hell, we're already past that point, and way past the "public safety" point. It's already been clearly demonstrated that torture doesn't make us safer, in fact makes things worse, and is useless as an interrogation tool, long before Bush was president. But now they just, quite literally, make up random bullshit to pretend that these facts aren't really facts. Such as trying to pretend they got useful information out of torturing someone several months before that person was actually capture.
This isn't terribly a new phenomenon, at least in development circles. It's really a sliding scale: on the one hand you have the truth of everything that happened that you can press for which would, to some extent, involve less direct punishment in order to get the cooperation of those that perpetrated the acts to confess, as a means to ensure national healing on the issue. See: South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Process for an example of this.
On the other side of the scale you have the search for justice which involves punishing those that committed crimes in order to bring a similar healing by holding those responsible to the rule of law. There's some east African countries that opted for this route that I can't recall off the top of my head.
The issue is that the former option will generate opposition in that you're not holding these people responsible while the latter option will generate resentment and similar opposition that the search for justice is simply a political witch hunt. For a developing country both of these are an issue since, while you do have healing, you also have the possibility for retrenchment of a given identity (ethnic, political, etc) based on their opposition to your chosen path which could then come and bite you in the ass in the coming years/decades. So you have to find a balance.
In the case of the US, given that you have a far more stable political system, the trade-offs aren't nearly as dire, but they're still there. You end up having to balance the calls for justice and trials in order to ensure this never happens again against the fact that going just that route will create opposition amongst those that didn't see it as a problem/don't think you should take that route/etc. This won't degenerate into them rising up and civil war happening, but I'd argue that it would increase the level of partisanship in the political process and/or the rancor with which disagreements will play out in the future. It might impact the ability for any manner of policy compromises to take place if they feel you're doing it purely out of partisan interest yourself.
So again, a balance needs to be found. And I don't think in all of 2-3 weeks he'd have found such a balance yet. Given the economic crisis also happening at this time I'd wager he's still trying to figure out what the best way forward is.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
They might be less violent/vehement in their opposition if, in such prosecutions, you also pursue those Democrats that knew about it and prosecute/censure/whatever them to the extent that they should be held responsible.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Sure, I just don't think you'll ever convince the right in this country it's anything but a witch hunt. I'm much more interested in convincing people like you, who as I understand it was against prosecutions before the release of the latest batch of memos. For that I think we just need to keep releasing documentation of the programs and apparently we're getting photos (which I'm sure will be a joy to look at) soon. Eventually everyone not in the Bush dead-ender group is going to have to confront our demons and I think the call for prosecution becomes overwhelming.
Fine with me. I'd love to know what Pelosi knew and when she knew it.
That first argument can be shot down pretty easily. I suspect it's why I don't get phone calls from a lot of the guys I grew up with any more. The second part is stickier, and a result of the Religious Rights decades of stupid, stupid, stupid rhetoric. Still, I think that can be deconstructed as well, it just takes a whole lot more effort. Start by pointing out that their Savior was tortured and killed for them. Then point out that suffering was dished out by an occupying military power, then maybe go to the point of why would they want to martyr these people. End by making the argument that it's better to follow the rule of law and commonly accepted humane and civilized behavior, otherwise we are just playing right into the hands of Islamic Fundamentalism. You know, the WWJD argument could help here too. The book of Revelations could make that difficult though, so I'd step carefully.
It's supposed to drop on Monday. The Rasmussenn poll dropped both before the text of the memos was released and before the republicans started whipping themselves into a frenzy on the issue, so it shoudl see how those factors fall out.
The Public is not divided into the uniformly opinioned Unhinged Rump and the uniformely opinioned New Majority.
How incredibly simplistic is that?
It's produced with the most obnoxious self-righteous flourish, is an argument from authority and adds zero illumination to any issue.
There really isn't a better method, but it can be changed so as to improve the independence of the DOJ same as how the Fed is a somewhat apolitical independent body. Make the term of AG start midway through the President's, or make it last 6 years. Also, you can't just up and fire him.
Specifically, Pelosi should be nailed to a wall.