Jay Leno Nails It!

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Jay Leno says it all. (June 10)



Quote:

According to the "New York Times", last year White House lawyers concluded that President Bush could legally order interrogators to torture and even kill people in the interest of national security - so if that's legal, what the hell are we charging Saddam Hussein with?



Indeed. What more is there to say? The Bush administration has authorized itself to do everything Saddam did. And done it. From pre-emptive war to hostage taking to rape rooms. (Well, no poison gas yet, that we know of.)



And it presents a real problem: the IRC has pointed out that Saddam is, quite properly, being treated as a POW. But on June 30th, the occupation ends, legal fiction or not. That means all POWs without pending "penal charges" must be released.



So. What are they going to charge Saddam with?



"Hating Freedom" is a crime, so perhaps we'll charge Saddam with being a Freedom Hater.



The problem is I need an answer better than, "We're "good" and they are evil. So anything we do is therefore good and justified because we're fighting evil. Why do you hate America?" Unfortunately I'm never going to get one.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 34
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    I think the key phase these is, "According to the 'New York Times'".
  • Reply 2 of 34
    dviantdviant Posts: 483member
    It's kind of sad when anti-Bush fever somehow enables a person to equate the actions of a vicious dictator like Saddam with a report of alleged conclusion of an unnamed lawyer's as fact and guilt. But hey I guess if theres something bad in sentence with the word "Bush" in it, then he must have done it! Proof enough for me!
  • Reply 3 of 34
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dviant

    It's kind of sad when anti-Bush fever somehow enables a person to equate the actions of a vicious dictator like Saddam with a report of alleged conclusion of an unnamed lawyer's as fact and guilt. But hey I guess if theres something bad in sentence with the word "Bush" in it, then he must have done it! Proof enough for me!



    It's kind of sad when leader-love somehow prohibits a person from seeing there's little difference between a brutal dictator who suspends the rule of law at his whim and an elected leader who suspends the rule of law at his whim. But hey, I guess if the sentence has the word "Bush" in it, it must be ok! Proof enough for me!
  • Reply 4 of 34
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    I think the key phase these is, "According to the 'New York Times'".



    Actually, the key phrase is "White House lawyers concluded that President Bush could legally order interrogators to torture and even kill people in the interest of national security."
  • Reply 5 of 34
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    Wouldn't it be swell if we could all read those lawyer's notes and decide for ourselves? I wonder why Congress doesn't ask Mr. Ashcroft to at least release the memos to them?
  • Reply 6 of 34
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Heh. I'm sure you're being sarcastic here, but for the sake of those who won't, here you go:



    Washington Post on the story



    PDF of torture approval memo



    Bit of the Ashcroft transcript in which he refuses to disclose the memos when asked by the Senate panel whether he would disclose them if so ordered:



    "DURBIN: I respect that.



    But under which standard are you denying this committee the memos, either executive privilege or a specific statutory authority created by Congress exempting your constitutional responsibility to disclose? Under which are you refusing to disclose these memos?



    ASHCROFT: I am refusing to disclose these memos because I believe it is essential to the operation of the executive branch that the president have the opportunity to get information from his attorney general that is confidential and that the responsibility to do that is a function of the executive branch and a necessity that is protected by the doctrine of the separation of powers in the Constitution.



    DURBIN: Sir, Attorney General, with all due respect, your personal belief is not a law, and you are not citing a law and you are not claiming executive privilege. And, frankly, that is what contempt of Congress is all about.



    You have to give us a specific legal authority which gives you the right to say no or the president has to claim privilege. And you've done neither.



    I think this committee has a responsibility to move forward on this."



    Full transcript



    Cheers

    Scott



    [Edit: My sense is that they didn't order him to simply because they'd have to charge him with contempt of congress as their next move. I suspect that this is where the real politcking is coming into play]
  • Reply 7 of 34
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    Actually the key word phrase is "According to." It doesn't matter if it was the TImes, the Washington Post, Newsweek or any other. The words "according to" mean that someone is making an allegation that the lawyers made these conclusions, not that it has been proven that this is in reality the case.



    I guess that doesn't mater much though. Time will tell, and that's what coherent people will wait for before they get sand in their vaginas over a Jay Leno comment.
  • Reply 8 of 34
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Well it's" according to" because Bush Co. is a secretive, lying bastard.



    Quote:

    (Well, no poison gas yet, that we know of.)



    Nope but those new coal power plant regs and any other environmental regs might as well be. Hey we're probably doing more damage to Americans than Iraqis thanks to Bush's War on the Environment.
  • Reply 9 of 34
    dviantdviant Posts: 483member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    It's kind of sad when leader-love somehow prohibits a person from seeing there's little difference between a brutal dictator who suspends the rule of law at his whim and an elected leader who suspends the rule of law at his whim. But hey, I guess if the sentence has the word "Bush" in it, it must be ok! Proof enough for me!



    You let me know when Bush drops a nasty combination of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and VX on some American town. Then I might see your point.
  • Reply 10 of 34
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dviant

    unnamed lawyer's







    Jay S. Bybee
  • Reply 11 of 34
    dviantdviant Posts: 483member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant





    Jay S. Bybee




    If only I could have seen into the future a few posts below where he was in a linked article! I was responding to the initial post ya know. :P
  • Reply 12 of 34
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Towel

    Wouldn't it be swell if we could all read those lawyer's notes and decide for ourselves? I wonder why Congress doesn't ask Mr. Ashcroft to at least release the memos to them?



    I believe that would require a "Writ of Douchebaggery" for Ashcroft to release those records.
  • Reply 13 of 34
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dviant

    If only I could have seen into the future a few posts below where he was in a linked article! I was responding to the initial post ya know. :P



    Of course, my point is that you should really read up on it before formulating a position and argument, particularly when a premise of your argument is undermined by minor research.
  • Reply 14 of 34
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dviant

    You let me know when Bush drops a nasty combination of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and VX on some American town. Then I might see your point.



    Actually, if this VX tank in Newport, Indiana is not dealth with properly soon, we'll have that situation..





  • Reply 15 of 34
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,918member
    Jesus H. Christ.



    Now the Left is not even trying to obfuscate its comparisons of Bush to Saddam.



    The NYT is a liberal hack operation.



  • Reply 16 of 34
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    Heh. I'm sure you're being sarcastic here, but for the sake of those who won't, here you go:



    Washington Post on the story



    PDF of torture approval memo



    Bit of the Ashcroft transcript in which he refuses to disclose the memos when asked by the Senate panel whether he would disclose them if so ordered:



    "DURBIN: I respect that.



    But under which standard are you denying this committee the memos, either executive privilege or a specific statutory authority created by Congress exempting your constitutional responsibility to disclose? Under which are you refusing to disclose these memos?



    ASHCROFT: I am refusing to disclose these memos because I believe it is essential to the operation of the executive branch that the president have the opportunity to get information from his attorney general that is confidential and that the responsibility to do that is a function of the executive branch and a necessity that is protected by the doctrine of the separation of powers in the Constitution.



    DURBIN: Sir, Attorney General, with all due respect, your personal belief is not a law, and you are not citing a law and you are not claiming executive privilege. And, frankly, that is what contempt of Congress is all about.



    You have to give us a specific legal authority which gives you the right to say no or the president has to claim privilege. And you've done neither.



    I think this committee has a responsibility to move forward on this."



    Full transcript



    Cheers

    Scott



    [Edit: My sense is that they didn't order him to simply because they'd have to charge him with contempt of congress as their next move. I suspect that this is where the real politcking is coming into play]




    Or in short
  • Reply 17 of 34
    formerlurkerformerlurker Posts: 2,686member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Jesus H. Christ.



    Now the Left is not even trying to obfuscate its comparisons of Bush to Saddam.



    The NYT is a liberal hack operation.




    Actually, the memos in question were first published by that notorious liberal hack operation, The Wall Street Journal.



    LINK
  • Reply 18 of 34
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Jesus H. Christ.



    Now the Left is not even trying to obfuscate its comparisons of Bush to Saddam.



    The NYT is a liberal hack operation.




    It's three parts sarcasm, one part truth, blend well, garnish with salt.
  • Reply 19 of 34
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,918member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FormerLurker

    Actually, the memos in question were first published by that notorious liberal hack operation, The Wall Street Journal.



    LINK






    Until I see the directive from the President that authorizes torture, I don't care. Anything short of this is meaningless. Ashcroft also has a point regarding withholding the memos. The White House has to be able to solicit legal advice without the fear that the advice could become public.



    None of this will matter to the "John Ashcroft is Hitler" crowd. Freedom of Speech, dude!
  • Reply 20 of 34
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Until I see the directive from the President that authorizes torture, I don't care. Anything short of this is meaningless. ... None of this will matter to the "John Ashcroft is Hitler" crowd.



    Since you brought up Hitler, show me the directive from Hitler that authorized the holocaust. Not all executives leave paper trails, particularly when authorizing nasty things. That doesn't, however, obviate their ultimate responsibility, even in a court of law.
Sign In or Register to comment.