Jay Leno Nails It!
Jay Leno says it all. (June 10)
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.
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?
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.
Comments
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!
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."
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]
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.
(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.
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.
Originally posted by dviant
unnamed lawyer's
Jay S. Bybee
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
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.
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.
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..
Now the Left is not even trying to obfuscate its comparisons of Bush to Saddam.
The NYT is a liberal hack operation.
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
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
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.
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!
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.