Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditCongressman Jerrold Nadler is pushing for torture investigations by the legislative and executive branches of government -- a new, select congressional committee and a special prosecutor at the Justice Department.
President Obama and Congressional leaders, of course, have been wary of this approach. Yet historically, the exposure of government misconduct has often led to both congressional and independent investigations. Iran-Contra, for example, catalyzed congressional hearings, a presidential commission and a special prosecutor -- each working on separate tracks to investigate, take testimony and try to hold some government officials accountable.
Nadler was recently asked about his efforts by MSNBC host Ed Schultz, who observed that Obama does not want to rely on a criminal investigation to "go down this road." Since the OLC memos were released, many observers have wrongly discussed this issue as if it were up to the President. In response, Nadler slices through that falsehood and warns that the White House would be abusing its power if it tried to dictate prosecutions:
I don't think [Obama] does, but I think he knows that it's not his right or duty to make that decision. We were very critical of the Bush administration for politicizing the Justice Department in the US attorneys case, and others -- for deciding who to prosecute, who not to prosecute, and so forth. It is not up to the White House; it would be an abuse of power for the White House to decide that there ought to be prosecutions or there should not be prosecutions. That's up to the Justice Department, which is supposed to be independent in these matters. They have to investigate and make the decisions on a straight legal basis where the facts indicate.
Exactly. The entire exchange is worth watching (video below).
After the interview, Schultz takes the issue to a media roundtable, including New Yorker journalist Ryan Lizza, who comes out for a criminal investigation regardless of Obama's other considerations. "I'm with Nadler on this, we gotta find out what happened," he said. Lizza also discussed concerns about CIA morale and interference with Obama's agenda:
"There's never a good time to investigate this kind of thing, and sure we could all wait until the war on terror is going to be over to do it, but when is that going to be?"
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
well...hate the torture and all...but...
apparantly some of the top secret info on the torturing stuff revealed to mr. obama that in fact useful information was gleaned from torture which may have stopped an attack...
so...
no torture prosecutions!!!!
hey...i'm against torture in general myself, but if i DID torture some goddam eveil ass terrorist and thereby stopped an horrific attack on my country...
i'd still not run about BRAGGING like a dick (cheney).
NEVER BRAG ABOUT TORTURE!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/06/2009 @ 1:03pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/06/2009 @ 1:03pm
Heard Limbaugh at lunch. Interestingly, he continually used the word "torture"...not the code-words "intensive interrogation"...defending it naturally with Andrew McCarthy of NR.
Odd...since that means Rush is unconsciously (or consciously) acknowledging that Bush DID lie when he said "We don't torture"!??!?!??
Posted by Mask at 05/06/2009 @ 1:32pm
<Since the OLC memos were released, many observers have wrongly discussed this issue as if it were up to the President. In response, Nadler slices through that falsehood and warns that the White House would be abusing its power if it tried to dictate prosecutions:
I don't think [Obama] does, but I think he knows that it's not his right or duty to make that decision. We were very critical of the Bush administration for politicizing the Justice Department in the US attorneys case, and others -- for deciding who to prosecute, who not to prosecute, and so forth. It is not up to the White House; it would be an abuse of power for the White House to decide that there ought to be prosecutions or there should not be prosecutions. That's up to the Justice Department, which is supposed to be independent in these matters. They have to investigate and make the decisions on a straight legal basis where the facts indicate.
Exactly.>
Ari, perhaps you and Cong Nadler should go by the law on this. It is not independent but a part of the Executive Dept and thus reports to the President.
<In 1870, after the post-Civil War increase in the amount of litigation involving the United States necessitated the very expensive retention of a large number of private attorneys to handle the workload, a concerned Congress passed the Act to Establish the Department of Justice, ch. 150, 16 Stat. 162 (1870) setting it up as "an executive department of the government of the United States" with the Attorney General as its head. Officially coming into existence on July 1, 1870, the Department of Justice, pursuant to the 1870 Act, was to handle the legal business of the United States.>
http://www.usdoj.gov/02organizations/
Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 1:32pm
Collect the data. Weigh the information. Check the outrage meter. Email your local politician. Make a donation. Make a sign. Put it in your front yard. Get a free latte. Purchase a travel mug. Focus on Dick Cheney. Throw in a dash of George Bush. A pinch of Rumsfield. Put everything in a blender. Add another dash of reality.
Enjoy. America the beautiful.
Posted by ficheye at 05/06/2009 @ 1:34pm
the DOJ Mission statement and duties of the AG
<The mission of the Office of the Attorney General is to supervise and direct the administration and operation of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Bureau of Prisons, Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals Service, which are all within the Department of Justice.
The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:
Represent the United States in legal matters.
Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.
Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.
Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate. Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.>
I don't find doing the bidding of Congress anywhere in there.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 1:35pm
"I don't find doing the bidding of Congress anywhere in there."----Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 1:35pm
(Larry's favorite part in "Star Wars")
Governor Tarkin: The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.
General Tagge: But that's impossible. How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?
Governor Tarkin: The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station.
Posted by Mask at 05/06/2009 @ 3:00pm
Posted by Mask at 05/06/2009 @ 3:00pm
Point out where I and the DOJ are wrong.
Do you see any role for Congress in the law or the DOJ mission and duties?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 3:17pm
Posted by Mask at 05/06/2009 @ 1:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i just remember the press conference not long ago where O got grilled on the torture thing by some reporters and it dawned upon me that...
its not so much the fact that he wants to move on and bring the country together thats keeping him from unleashing the dogs, but rather that the torture really DID result in useful info that stopped an attack...
not that he liked it...but what can you do?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/06/2009 @ 3:40pm
not that he liked it...but what can you do?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/06/2009 @ 3:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
There's two things on this from my perspective. The first is that the Bush administration was by far the dumbest most idiotic group of morons ever to run this country. The proof is in the pudding. They actually admitted to giving the go ahead to waterboard and documented it to boot.
The other thing is that some form of torture has been and probably always will be used in attempt to get someone to talk. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that a hell of a lot worse techniques were used via the wink and nod approval system, but admitting this on the world stage as idiot Dickhead Cheney did is completely stupid.
Since we actually have laws against these practices and the White House was up to it's neck in this, I don't see anyway of coming clean on this issue now aside from going through a formal investigation and trial route. In short, the Bush administration did this to themselves. Not only that, they drug the nation into a war in Iraq for no damn logical reason whatsoever. I have pretty much no pity for Cheney but maybe a little for Bush because I think W may have been left out in the dark on some of this...then again, maybe not.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/06/2009 @ 3:58pm
Mission statement from the DOJ website:
"To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans."
Posted by FLaim at 05/06/2009 @ 5:07pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/06/2009 @ 3:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
like i said...
if you do something sketchy...don't brag about it...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/06/2009 @ 5:36pm
Do you see any role for Congress in the law or the DOJ mission and duties?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 3:17pm
A role for Congress in the law--hell, they make the laws, don't they?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/06/2009 @ 5:49pm
Do you see any role for Congress in the law...----Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 3:17pm
That's absurd...what the heck role in "the law" would a LEGISLATURE have!?!!??!?
Posted by Mask at 05/06/2009 @ 6:56pm
That's absurd...what the heck role in "the law" would a LEGISLATURE have!?!!??!?
Posted by Mask at 05/06/2009 @ 6:56pm
In the law that created the Department of Justice. They wrote the law, but they did not create a role of accountability for the Justice Dept to anyone but the president in the law.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 9:23pm
"apparantly some of the top secret info on the torturing stuff revealed to mr. obama that in fact useful information was gleaned from torture which may have stopped an attack..."
That is a big assumption on your part. If we follow that logic then i should be able to go steal someone's car that they aren't using and drive it to work so i can feed my children to keep them from going out and killing someone for money.
Also, you don't know that the "useful information" could have been gleaned from the professional interrogators from the FBI and Air Force.
The problem with all of this is that the CIA was really in charge of interrogations. And Bush 43 called for the practice and for the CIA to run it. Lets not forget the G. Bush 41 was Director of the CIA at one point. Rove has known Bush 41 since 1973 and has been with the family ever since. Rumsfeld has known Bush 41 since the Ford Administration. And Cheney was also part of the Ford administration. Anyone remember Iran/Contra?
Investigations have to be done, and they have to be done correctly.
Posted by o4tuna at 05/06/2009 @ 9:37pm
The presidential Oath of Office specifically commits the president to upholding the law:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Torture is illegal under domestic law and under international laws to which the US is a signatory and thus to which the US president is also duty bound .
If President Obama and members of his cabinet, specifically Attorney General Eric Holder, fail to obey the law, the should be impeached.
Posted by HuSan at 05/06/2009 @ 10:30pm
True, if Obama refuses to allow the law to be just-- like the previous admin and continues to use the DoJ as a personal Gestapo rather than to follow the laws of the USA-- congress is actually at a place now that it could impeach a very popular president! Think that would happen to Obama right now? No. But congress was always meant to be more powerful than the exec.
Do dems want to do the right thing and follow the law; does Obama?
Obama loses nothing by simply allowing the law to follow its due course, slowly and methodically. His way. If the hsuB/cHeney admin fall on the sword, how does that harm the CIA? It doesn't! The new con repubs are already slotted for extinction a la Rump Limppaw. So let congress get pumped up. Obama will keep feeding congress and We the people morsels of truth, making us lean and mean, then at the right time-- the main course!
Getting the pots and pans greased, measuring cups out, cooking utensils, chopping block, spice...
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/06/2009 @ 10:38pm
In the law that created the Department of Justice. They wrote the law, but they did not create a role of accountability for the Justice Dept to anyone but the president in the law.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 9:23pm
So then the President isn't legally accountable to anyone?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2009 @ 11:13pm
So then the President isn't legally accountable to anyone? Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2009 @ 11:13pm
Isn't that a pretty good summary of what John Yoo stated? He'd be so much fun at a barbecue. Wonder if he's a vegetarian?
Posted by ficheye at 05/06/2009 @ 11:26pm
Posted by o4tuna at 05/06/2009 @ 9:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
uh...hate to get all "there's a bear in the woods" 2009 but...
what if one of those waterboarding sessions prevented...10,000 deaths and chaos...ww3?
lol!!!
crazy, i know, but i tend to think that i might crack under torture...the old field manual of the army recognizes the rigors of torture...
but...you know...
if you have to do something sketchy based on unique circumstances for your country...YOU STILL DON'T BRAG ABOUT IT.
you take it to your grave.
but sure, lets have a circus why don't we? barry o seems like such an insensitive, poor judgement, fool. i'm sure he saw nothing in the briefings he figured justified his current course of action...
it'll make for good tv
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/06/2009 @ 11:40pm
So then the President isn't legally accountable to anyone?---Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2009 @ 11:13pm
You've just summarized Larry's view of the Constitutional authority of the President.
Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 08:07am
It seems to me that all we do in this country especially in the government. Is both sides spend all their time attacking each other and are obsessed with revenge and retribution. Instead of forging ahead to better the welfare of the country. I thought that maybe the president was taking the high road. And was more interested in forging ahead. Instead of spending all his time thinking gee I'm in power now let's sit around and get revenge on the other party.
Posted by oldtinker at 05/07/2009 @ 08:14am
Posted by oldtinker at 05/07/2009 @ 08:14am
When WERE these "glory days" of bipartisanship exactly?
Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 08:19am
but rather that the torture really DID result in useful info that stopped an attack... Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/06/2009 @ 3:40pm
I getting really tired of hearing this outright lie repeated over and over especially on FOX. Then you have all the idiots spreading it around everywhere else. I'm surprised no one here has called them on it. If somone has I apologize.
The Bush Administration claimed that an attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles was thwarted in February 2002. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was not even arrested until March 2003. So how in the hell could he have been waterboarded in 2002? Those darn timelines have always been a weakness of the Bush Crime Family.
So please quit trying to repeat this lie. Hell it was debunked years ago. But the Pugs keep trotting it out for inspection..
Every time one of you koolaid chuggers start spewing these lies you do a diservice to your country. Which I would call "subversion".
Torture does not work. And never has as it was never intended to elicit the truth. It was always used in order to obtain false confessions. Check out a little history like the Spanish Inquisition or Trials for "Witchcraft". Torture was invented to draw forth "False Confessions". And it works rather well at that goal. It however does not work well in extracting the truth.
Ask any professional interrogator. Some of the most successful ones used tactics like playing checkers or chess with the subject or made them "homesick" among others to gain the truth..
Posted by chaoszen at 05/07/2009 @ 08:55am
For those more visually inclined watch the movie "Braveheart" at the end they used torture to try and gain a "false confession", rather odd an ironic that all they got for their trouble was the cry "FREEDOM". But I guess some of you wouldn't know what that is, would you?
Posted by chaoszen at 05/07/2009 @ 09:01am
"The Bush Administration claimed that an attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles was thwarted in February 2002. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was not even arrested until March 2003."----Posted by chaoszen at 05/07/2009 @ 08:55am
"Uh....Cheney has a time machine???"
(heheh)
Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 09:21am
Ask any professional interrogator. Some of the most successful ones used tactics like playing checkers or chess with the subject or made them "homesick" among others to gain the truth..
Posted by chaoszen at 05/07/2009 @ 08:55am | ignore this person | warn this person
i'm sure there are a battery of possible methods and each person has his weakness...
the FACT is that unless you were there or have inside info YOU don't know what happened.
neither do i...
at this point we are both depending upon the judgement and veracity of others. i trust obama's judgement at this point.
oh - and i don't like torture. but i think sometimes it works.
i think you may harbor a hatred of the previous administration (which i share) but which may cloud your judgement.
maybe i'm wrong, though...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/07/2009 @ 09:23am
cry "FREEDOM". But I guess some of you wouldn't know what that is, would you? Posted by chaoszen at 05/07/2009 @ 09:01am
Funny you should bring that up considering all the freedom hating leftist!
"Study: Most Liberal States Are Least Free Wednesday, May 6, 2009 1:03 PM By: Dave Eberhart
According to a new study released by the Mercatus Center of George Mason University, some of the most liberal U.S. states rank lowest when it comes to personal freedom.
The study, which calls itself the "first-ever comprehensive ranking of the American states on their public policies affecting individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres," made a host of findings:
The freest states in the country are New Hampshire, Colorado, and South Dakota, which together achieve a virtual tie for first place. All three states feature low taxes and government spending -- and middling levels of regulation and paternalism.
New York is the least overall free by a considerable margin, followed by New Jersey, Rhode Island, California, and Maryland.
Unfortunately, say the report authors, these freedom-disadvantaged states "make up a substantial portion of the total American population. Moreover, these bottom five states have considerable ground to make up even to move off this ignoble list, let alone into a creditable position in the rankings."
When weighing personal freedom alone, Alaska is the clear winner, while Maryland brings up the rear."
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/07/2009 @ 09:59am
"Uh....Cheney has a time machine???" Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 09:21am
Since Darth Cheney probably has stored in his bunker, a library of seized bluprints/documents. From crashed alien spacecraft. He may well have the ability to waterboard suspects throughout time.. This theory cannot be discounted if someone believes that Khalid (oops, I got caught!) Mohammed was waterboarded a full eleven months before he was captured.
We need to dispatch our elite corps of "timeline investigators" to the insertion point in February 2002 ASAP!
Posted by chaoszen at 05/07/2009 @ 10:01am
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/07/2009 @ 09:23am
Would you please just give me one example of when torture has been used successfully to extract information that saved the lives or life of anyone? Please!
Other than on the series "24".
Posted by chaoszen at 05/07/2009 @ 10:05am
"Study: Most Liberal States Are Least Free Wednesday, May 6, 2009 1:03 PM By: Dave Eberhart. Posted by comancheamerican at 05/07/2009 @ 09:59am
Hey Manche! Why is it when you fiddle around and come up with someone to reference or support some fantasy you have they turn out to be some fruitcake?
Dave Eberhart? That is below the bottom of the barrel. In other words you had to dig so deep in the barrel that you busted through the slats at the bottom of the barrel and shoveled straight on into the worm infested dirt underneath.
Do you do that often?
Posted by chaoszen at 05/07/2009 @ 10:21am
Would you please just give me one example of when torture has been used successfully to extract information that saved the lives or life of anyone? Please!
Other than on the series "24".
Posted by chaoszen at 05/07/2009 @ 10:05am | ignore this person | warn this person
not a big fan of 24...
i cannot. unlike the president i am not privy to classified information.
understand that in a way i hate to take this devil's advocate stance and i truly think there ARE way too many secrets kept for the wrong reasons, but a couple of things make me wonder...
1. common sense - the mantra that torture does not work impresses me a a tad non-sequiter and certainly debatable. in my military training i was told that if i were captured and tortured to hold out as long as i could, but that eventually i would probably reach a limit and spill the beans. it just happens. i also think i might spill some beans at some point, especially if my torturers offered the option of chess games and early release. i don't know...
2. i still trust the president's judgement. he seems like a sober and rational man with enough empathy to dislike the idea of torture. despite the fact that i think there are too many secrets i think there are some that need be kept.
again i can say nothing with absolute certainty as i am not privy to the relevant information.
and neither are you.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/07/2009 @ 10:47am
Congress has a lot of balls warning Obama about anything. After Franks and Dodds bang up monitoring of Wall Street, Nancy Pelosi's acceptance of, and then lying about, the torture "policy", Foley's playing with little boys, Delay, Daschel etc etc. I'd say these paragons of virture need to look to their own house before jumping on the President.
Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 05/07/2009 @ 10:48am
According to a new study released by the Mercatus Center of George Mason University, some of the most liberal U.S. states rank lowest when it comes to personal freedom.
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/07/2009 @ 09:59am | ignore this person | warn this person
according to several studies available the red states of 2000 and 2004 have the lowest average IQ's in the nation. the split in the 2000 presidential race was almost perfect.
lots of studies saying lots of stuff out there...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/07/2009 @ 10:52am
After Franks and Dodds bang up monitoring of Wall Street....---Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 05/07/2009 @ 10:48am
That was back in 2003-2004, then Frank and Dodd controlled the Republican Congress, right?
Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 10:52am
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/07/2009 @ 10:52am
Interestingly, RIO's home state isn't in the top 10...even top 20! on some issues of freedom-
Fiscal Policy....Oklahoma ranked 11
Regulatory Policy....OK ranked 21
Economic Freedom....they were 17
but Personal Freedom...they were 27.
http://www.mercatus.org/PublicationDetails.aspx?id=26154
While the top 3 "freest states" were New Hampshire (hardly a right-wing bastion)....Colorado (ditto)...and South Dakota...home of Tom Daschle and GEORGE McGOVERN!!?!!?!??
Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 11:02am
In the law that created the Department of Justice. They wrote the law, but they did not create a role of accountability for the Justice Dept to anyone but the president in the law.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 9:23pm
So then the President isn't legally accountable to anyone?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2009 @ 11:13pm
How in the world do you draw that conclusion?
I said that the Justice Dept is on required to be accountable to the President and not to the Congress (despite the contrary assertions by Ari and Nadler).
How do you then find a statement that the president isn't accountable to anyone?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 12:01pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 12:01pm
Okay, Larry, who IS the President accountable to, according to your legal and Constitutional scholarship?
Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 12:07pm
MASK, I'm not intersted in thir party affiliation. I just didn't want to be accused of partisanship. I could name lots more on either side.
Think bigger. The problem is across the board.
Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 05/07/2009 @ 12:11pm
Congress has a lot of balls warning Obama about anything. Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 05/07/2009 @ 10:48am
The Congress, whether you are relating the House or the Senate is for the most part corrupt. Most of these "representatives of the people", are bought and paid for by the pimps, (lobbyists) in favor of their corporate masters. Nothing meaningful in the way of legislation will ever arise from the current batch of whores and gigolo's that inhabit and infest both houses of congress.
Not at least, until "We the People", find a way to coerce these wayward children of capiltalism to pass legislation that allows public financing of elections.
That may well be an impossible task unless, "We The People" demonstrate in the streets. This problem has gone way beyond calling, writing or e-mailing your elected representatives. I know, I have tried this approach. Waste of Time.
And we don't have much time. We need to cut the umbilical cord between our elected representatives and the pimps that serve the so called "Masters of the Universe".
Until we have publically financed elections which will prevent the lobbyists from influencing our elected officals, our democracy is on life support...
Forget about Single Payer Healthcare. Forget about Green Energy. Forget about Free Public Education through College. Forget about Cap and Trade. Forget about ending eternal war for the sake of the Military Industrial Complex. Forget about the prosecution of those that violated our treaties, and our constitution.
Forget about all these things, unless you are willing to hit the streets and demand them. Nuff said..
Posted by chaoszen at 05/07/2009 @ 12:12pm
Okay, Larry, who IS the President accountable to, according to your legal and Constitutional scholarship?
Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 12:07pm
The people of the US.
What is your view?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 12:48pm
I could name lots more on either side.------Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 05/07/2009 @ 12:11pm
Yet, "oddly"...you didn't.
You espoused the standard Republican/right-wing radio talking point of "It's all Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's fault for magically blocking the majority GOP Congress and Dubya from acting."
Ergo your "bipartisanship" is a bit suspect.
Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 1:13pm
The people of the US.
What is your view?----Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 12:48pm
Well, let's dig a bit deeper on that, Larry....
how is a President in his SECOND term to be held accountable by the people of the US?
Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 1:14pm
Nevermind.. My Quest is meaningless.. This Nation is unable to change it's course.
No one is willing to sacrifice.....
Posted by chaoszen at 05/07/2009 @ 1:21pm
Well, let's dig a bit deeper on that, Larry....
how is a President in his SECOND term to be held accountable by the people of the US?
Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 1:14pm
Mask, I realize that you believe yourself to be setting up traps by posting an endless series of questions.
You and I both know that the constitution provides for articles of impeachment with the Congress acting as the voice of the people.
HOWEVER; that does not mean that the President is accountable to the Congress. That would remove the independence of the Executive from the Legislative; which is clearly unconstitutional.
I suggest reading Federalist 48, 51 & 66
<IT WAS shown in the last paper that the political apothegm there examined does not require that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be wholly unconnected with each other. I shall undertake, in the next place, to show that unless these departments be so far connected and blended as to give to each a constitutional control over the others, the degree of separation which the maxim requires, as essential to a free government, can never in practice be duly maintained.
It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers.>
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa48.htm
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa66.htm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 1:38pm
Larry, you pretty much HELP set the trap yourself....
For instance, we are discussing the accountability of the POTUS.
You said just now-
1. "You and I both know that the constitution provides for articles of impeachment with the Congress acting as the voice of the people."
AND
2. "HOWEVER; that does not mean that the President is accountable to the Congress. That would remove the independence of the Executive from the Legislative; which is clearly unconstitutional."----Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 1:38pm
So clearly explain how a President is NOT being held accountable for his actions...if a Congress impeachs him/her?
Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 1:49pm
2. "HOWEVER; that does not mean that the President is accountable to the Congress. That would remove the independence of the Executive from the Legislative; which is clearly unconstitutional."----Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 1:38pm
So clearly explain how a President is NOT being held accountable for his actions...if a Congress impeachs him/her?
Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 1:49pm
No the better question seems aimed at you by your question.
Are you saying that there are not 3 co-equal branches of govt?
The president is not accountable to the Congress. If you bothered to actually read the referenced Federalist papers I cited, you might actually learn something.
Our system of checks and balances is a very different distinction than that of accountability which confers subservience.
http://tinyurl.com/separationofpowers
Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 3:10pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 3:10pm
No, the better question was ...
the one I asked you, which has you stumped because you contradicted yourself and can't answer it.
Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 3:18pm
No, the better question was ...
the one I asked you, which has you stumped because you contradicted yourself and can't answer it.
Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 3:18pm
Nonsense. I've answered and you have not (which also is not unusual).
Impeachment does not make the president accountable to Congress. I don't care how you try and spin it.
And will you answer whether you believe in 3 co-equal branches of govt?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 3:28pm
Where was Jerrold during the Bush administration?
You'd think the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties might have spoken up and said something before now. Which invites the question, why now?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 3:10pm
One can be accountable, without being subservient. For example, you and your wife may be mutually accountable to each other regarding sticking to your family budget. You're accountable to your friends if you break your word. There are many examples where we are accountable to other people where no subservience implied. So, why are you adding it here?
Posted by srjenkins at 05/07/2009 @ 3:54pm
One can be accountable, without being subservient. For example, you and your wife may be mutually accountable to each other regarding sticking to your family budget. You're accountable to your friends if you break your word. There are many examples where we are accountable to other people where no subservience implied. So, why are you adding it here?
Posted by srjenkins at 05/07/2009 @ 3:54pm
Because in this particular case, Mask is trying to reinvent the constitution to remove the 3 co-equal branches of govt. You notice that he refuses to answer whether he agrees with that fact.
That's also why in the case of our constitution and the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances are what everyone agrees to rather than accountable which suggests a different relationship.
And this all needs to go back to the original context of this discussion. The thread states that Cong Nadler says that the Justice Department is not subordinate to the Executive Branch, and that Congress can dictate to the Justice Dept. that is clearly false and I laid out the law that establishes the Justice Dept and it's accountability (which is to the executive branch).
Mask, as he usually does, tries to change the entire direction to his usual 100 questions as to who the Executive is accountable to. Yet he seems to want to ignore the constitution and also make the Congress the governing branch over the Executive and the Judicial.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 4:27pm
I haven't been reading the dialogue, so pardon me. It seems obvious that checks-and-balances means mutual accountability.
I also think you could make the argument that the Justice Department is just as, and perhaps more so, accountable to the just and fair application of the rule of law as it is accountable to following the policy positions of the President. In that regard, it does have a slightly different relationship with the President that other parts of the Executive branch. I might even go so far as to say that, in some ways, it serves all three branches of government.
I know that doesn't sit well with your ideals of our government following the Consitution. But, empirically, it does seem to work that way.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/07/2009 @ 5:44pm
The failure to prosecute torture will be remembered by the governments and people of other nations. We might get over it eventually, but we'll pay the price for a very long time.
Posted by Milhaus at 05/07/2009 @ 6:02pm
Posted by srjenkins at 05/07/2009 @ 5:44pm
I think you and I are closer to agreement on this than is the situation with Mask.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 6:10pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 4:27pm
No, I'm trying to show you in another contradiction.
On one hand you want the President (example a 2nd term President) accountable to NO ONE. You said as much many times. If not Congress, and I doubt you mean the Courts, then a 2nd term Presidency is UNACCOUNTABLE...
except via the process of impeachment.
However an impeachment or serious threat of it WOULD be a means to hold a 2nd Termer accountable for his/her actions.
You now want to re-define the term "accountable" to mean "answerable"...THAT is a matter of executive privelege.
But a President IS "accountable", i.e. can be held to account for their actions....by the Congress via their impeachment power. Nixon would have been held "accountable" for his crimes, if he hadn't resigned. Clinton was "accountable" for the silliness and hyper-partisans charges brought against them.
Doesn't mean Nixon and Clinton "answered to" Congress...but they were held accountable by it.
Point is, Larry, you're at heart an authoritarian who loves investment in a sole person/leader, rather than more democratic organs like a legislature.
Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 6:59pm
Point is, Larry, you're at heart an authoritarian who loves investment in a sole person/leader, rather than more democratic organs like a legislature.
Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 6:59pm
Is so, than that balances out your desire to see the Congress run the country including the executive and the Judicial branches.
You still haven't answered my question.
Do you believe in the Separation of Powers and that there are 3 co-equal branches of the government?
From Federalist 48
<It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. After discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each, against the invasion of the others. What this security ought to be, is the great problem to be solved.>
Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 7:27pm
What did Pelosi know, and when did she know it? That is the determining factor on where this circus goes.
Posted by howaboutthetruth at 05/07/2009 @ 9:17pm
How do you then find a statement that the president isn't accountable to anyone?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 12:01pm
Well you say he's accountable to the people, the people are represented by the Legislature, therefore he is accountable to the Legislature.
The President is not independent of the Legislature. Our government is one of checks and balances. Each department is accountable to another. The People of US hold everyone accountable, judges, Presidents and Senators. But each Department is meant to over see the others to stop them from abusing their power.
No Department is independent of the rest. They are checked and balanced by the other two. Which means if the President commits an action that is considered illegal it is up to Congress to prosecute. Which means the President is not independent he is overseen to a certain degree.
Each department is only independent enough to carry out their duties. No more no less. No one has independent power. Give the executive too much power would just lead to a dictatorship. After all, "absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/07/2009 @ 9:37pm
And now a message from our sponsor....
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas. (Governing Magazine 7/98) ............
"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked. CNN, 12/08/2000 ..........................
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said. Business Week, July 2001
Posted by ficheye at 05/07/2009 @ 10:01pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/06/2009 @ 3:58pm:
I think the Obama administration is going to take the blue ribbon for being the most dumb before this is all over.
Posted by pyeatte at 05/07/2009 @ 10:18pm
The majority of Americans think that the enhanced interrogations were the right thing to do. These terrorists are evil beyond comprehension and do not even belong in the human race. They are not captured soldiers. Those who have such short memories should be forced to sit through a week of watching every scrap of film of 911 for a week straight and an interview with every family who lost loved ones on that day. More lives were saved by getting information from them. This political revenge has gone on long enough. Releasing those memo did nothing but encourage our enemies and make us less safe. They behead people they disagree with. Taking a Mary Poppins approach with these people will not help us in any way. They are dangerous and would like to see us all dead. Bush kept us safe for 8 years, that is the bottom line. We are in a recession and have all kinds of problems so wasting time looking for revenge over a conscience issue will not sit well in the country now. So far this administration has made blunder after blunder , making us less safe for political reasons is pretty stupid. Don't make it worse.
Posted by Katie10 at 05/08/2009 @ 12:22am
Pelosi Lied, Briefed on Torture Memos in 2002
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was thoroughly briefed in September 2002 that terrorist Abu Zubaydah was being waterboarded by CIA interrogators, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence's office and obtained by Fox News and other agencies.
The new revelations completely contradict Pelosi's repeated assertions that she knew nothing about "harsh interrogation" measures being carried out on enemy combatants.
The 10-page report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, refutes in considerable detail Pelosi's statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics.
According to the DNI's report, Pelosi was told of the techniques used against Zubaydah during a Sept. 4, 2002 meeting with intelligence officials, then-House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, and two aides. At the time, Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.
Pelosi has repeatedly said she was only told that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques. But CIA leaders have maintained that Pelosi and other Democrats protesting the use of enhanced interrogation knew about it all along.
The section containing details about the meeting is titled, "Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed."
EITs stand for "enhanced interrogation techniques," a classification of special interrogation tactics that includes waterboarding.
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/08/2009 @ 01:43am
According to the interrogation memos released last month by the Obama administration, Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002.
The report also details 40 meetings with members of Congress -- though not with Pelosi present – during which the use of waterboarding and other interrogation techniques was described, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The Senate intelligence committee's chairman and ranking member, Bob Graham and Richard Shelby, were given a briefing similar to the one with Pelosi and Goss on Sept. 27, 2002, according to the report.
On Feb. 4, 2003, a briefing on "enhanced interrogation techniques" for Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., revealed that interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri were taped.
In addition, that briefing "described in considerable details" the techniques used, including "how the water board was used."
A similar briefing the following day included Goss and Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who by that time had become the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, when Pelosi moved on to become minority leader.
But Pelosi has repeatedly denied ever being told about waterboarding"
So, lets hear all the leftist calling for ALL the Demoncrat Congressmen and the Speaker fully briefed many times over to be tried as the Criminals you say they are! LIAR HYPOCRITES ONE AND ALL!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/08/2009 @ 01:46am
So, lets hear all the leftist calling for ALL the Demoncrat Congressmen and the Speaker fully briefed many times over to be tried as the Criminals you say they are!Posted by comancheamerican at 05/08/2009 @ 01:46am
Even if Dems were fully briefed on torture techniques and were informed that these techniques were being used (which is debatable) there was nothing they could do to stop it. Any oversight or objection in secret briefings on matters of national security is not possible. A representative on an intelligence committee is not allowed, legally, to divulge anything that occurs in such meetings. If they did they would be held to account for Treason.
When such people are briefed on these decisions they are told, not asked for permission.
Although in my opinion in a case like this when laws are being broken and treaties are being violated those representatives if they had any balls would have been justified in revealing the details of these briefings. And if they were briefed that these crimes were being committed they should have let the chips fall where they may.
But that is another subject entirely. The actions of the real criminals in this should not be diminished because a few Dems did not have the cajones to risk a charge of treason.
Posted by chaoszen at 05/08/2009 @ 05:35am
The majority of Americans think that the enhanced interrogations were the right thing to do. Posted by Katie10 at 05/08/2009 @ 12:22am
The odd thing is that a recent survey indicates that the more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists. 54 percent of people that attend church at least once a week said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. I'm not a Christian, but it just seems strange that this should be the case. I get this picture in my head, of "Jesus" on the cross, being tortured. Weird. I suppose he must have been a "Suspected Terrorist".
And it is really odd that by a small majority most Americans do support torture, especially considering that the Constitution explicitly outlaws it. International Treaties that we are the signatory of prohibit it and a quick check of my personal moral compass finds it distasteful.
And then I read about things like Old Testament Deuterocanonical Books of Tobit and Sirach and the "Silver Rule" Tobit 4:15 "Do to no one what you yourself dislike." And Sirach 31:15 "Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes."
I suppose that the majority of Americans who support policies that are in conflict with the religion that they expouse need to reevaluate their committment to their faith or risk damnation...
Posted by chaoszen at 05/08/2009 @ 06:26am
I think the speaker could have initiated impeachment proceedings without violating her oath of secrecy about the contents of house intelligence committee briefings, but that water hasn't seen a bridge in years. Posted by snowball666 at 05/08/2009 @ 06:12am
You are entirely correct in that assumption. And it should have been done, although it would have been messy. I am no fan of Speaker Pelosi. Hell, Im not even a Democrat. And I see your point that something could have been done, and should have been done.
But the point I was trying to make is that the Repugs are attemting to obfuscate the issue by bringing the failures of Dems into the issue in order to blur the actions of those that truly violated the Rule of Law. The failures of the Dems to stop it, is not the issue. The issue should be holding those ultimately responsible to account.
And if the Justice Dept does not investigate and attempt to prosecute the criminals responsible for these transgressions, the the Rule of Law in our country is a joke. And the Obama administration through inaction actually becomes an accessory after the fact.
We need closure on this. Otherwise these same crimes will be reenacted in the future and history will hold "We The People" accountable.
Posted by chaoszen at 05/08/2009 @ 06:50am
Posted by chaoszen at 05/08/2009 @ 06:50am | ignore this person | warn this person
i wish there had been hearings with teeth long ago into any number of thingd, CHAOS.
i also believe that perhaps thousands of extremely tangetially involved folks and downright misidentified innocents were "extraordinarily rendered" (boy the fascists love their high faloottin' important sounding jargon, don't they?) and tortured by us for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
but i also think that some useful info must have been gained.
worth it? i don't know. worth torturing innocents and sullying our image to polish the ego of malevolent and boastful incompetants in high places?
no...
but my trust level in the current CoC and his team (in their judgement and character) is soooooo far above that of the last guys...
i'm having a hard time getting as worked up over this as before.
perhaps you are correct and i misjudge, but try not to fall into an "everything sux" mentality. you have a good brain and are capable of influencing events, opinions and outcomes, just like anybody else and if you are right i'll be the first to say i was wrong.
actually i think i have hedged my opinion on this sufficiently with various caveats and meelymouthed recursive logic as it is to the point where i think the statement,
"not even wrong"
could be accurately applied to my statet position.
but without full disclosure i fear that barring a lucky or intuitive conjecture, "not even wrong" is the best anybody can do with logic and evidence in this regard.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/08/2009 @ 07:41am
Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 7:27pm
Of course, I believe in the separation of powers, Larry.
Clearly as written in the Constitution, the President has certain powers ...the veto being most prominent. Also his/her duties as Commander-in-Chief, when Congress declares war. Also his/her power over foreign policy, with Senate approval only for treaties.
But you are a "Presidential authoritarian"...you want to invest the Executive with as much, if not more, power than they are Constitutionally granted...for instance the ability to start wars, expect no Congressional opposition (except a suicidal de-funding of troops in the field).
The reason for this is easily guessed. As a conservative Christian, your tendency is to see things through the eyes of an authoritarian follower prism. After all, Heaven isn't a democracy, is it?
Also you are a militarist, a "shoot first, talk later after we've bombed the hell out of them" type....so naturally you're drawn to investing as much power as possible in a "Leader", especially one with control over the military. You said it yourself some weeks ago...you'd "prefer" a General as President.
So of course, you want the LEAST accountability for the President by the Congress...which, again knowing your mind-set, you view with suspicion because it represents "the mob" and is democratic in structure.
Posted by Mask at 05/08/2009 @ 08:07am
Posted by Katie10 at 05/08/2009 @ 12:22am
Race, particularly race when it refers to a species, is not based on adherence to moral principles. This kind of thinking underlies most atrocities that are committed. Would there be a Holocaust, if Jews were viewed as people? Pick your genocide of choice and the same applies. You can also abstract this further. What about slavery? Would slavery occur in an environment where slaves are viewed as people?
The fact that a majority of people believe a moral position, X doesn't subscribe to our moral values and is therefore not a "person", doesn't make that a good moral standard. Further, in this particular case, you are also neglecting that there is a sizable portion of the U.S. population that doesn't agree with the assumed consequence of your moral position - that torture is justified. Perhaps they too aren't people but rather socialists, liberals or some other piece of name calling?
When differences of outlook are such that you are inclined to call someone sub-human rather than understand that a reasonable PERSON can come to a radically different conclusion than you, even one that entails violence, you should look at that as a failure of imagination on your part. Ironically, the very person you take exception too probably came to the same conclusion that you are sub-human based on their ideas. Both of you are wrong and still human.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/08/2009 @ 08:48am
A special prosecutor like Patrick J. Fitzgerald? A good way to make the truth disappear under a cloud of smoke and mirrors never to see the light of day ever again. How about a committee to hold public hearings and kick the can so far down the road that we all become nauseous and tune out? How about something unique for a change? We all know what happened. A special tribunal made up of internationalists like Powell, Cohen, Amanpour etc..., you know like the Nuremberg Trials. Our collective national guilt is going to continue to smell up our collective conscience until we clean this up. Shining city on the hill? Nah.
Posted by julien38 at 05/08/2009 @ 09:04am
In general, when what we need is closure, what we get instead is cloture. Posted by snowball666 at 05/08/2009 @ 08:29am
Cloture is something Congress really needs. But it is not now possible in the Senate until our representatives change the rules to allow a simple majority of 51% to prevail. That would involve a change in the rules to eliminate the filibuster. The filibuster was an entirely theoretical option until 1841. It is a form of obstructionism.
As it is now 60 votes out of 100 are required to reach cloture (end of debate). That essentially means a majority plus 9. The problem is that no party wants to end the rule of filibuster because the party in the majority may need it in the future.
This rule of filibuster does not serve a Democracy well. Democratic ideals are that "The Majority Rules" and that means 51%. Not 51% plus 9.. The filibuster is Anti-American, and both parties should give it up even if it bites them in the ass at some future point. This rule has prevented the voice of the people from being served for much too long..
Posted by chaoszen at 05/08/2009 @ 09:05am
Posted by chaoszen at 05/08/2009 @ 06:26am
It's not strange at all. I can think of no better explanation than the parable of The Grand Inquisitor in Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov. Often, the Church serves to protect Christians from the hardness of Christ's teachings.
There are additional issues in your post, including self-determination and validity of Scripture. International law, is to some degree, at odds with self-determination, and most Protestants reject the book of Sirach as scripture. So, bringing these into the discussion will move things into the strange worlds of God being on the side of America or worse, theology in general. It is best to avoid that.
I think your main point is valid. Conservative Christians that are concerned about Islam and the threat it poses to Christianity are making a mistake when they put that concern above Christ's commandments to love God and one another. That, at base, is the problem.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/08/2009 @ 09:11am
As an aside the current batch of Repugs has used the filibuster enough times recently to set a congressional record.
When they were in power they were constantly crying about the Dems use of the filibuster. Now that they are in the minority they have used it to the point of insanity.
The "Party of No", Yes, No Ideas! No Solutions and No Brains..
Posted by chaoszen at 05/08/2009 @ 09:27am
it has at its core the sense of encouraging completeness of debate, which I respect. Posted by snowball666 at 05/08/2009 @ 09:20am
I must respectfully disagree snowball. Completeness of debate at least in my opinion is when the 51% threshold is reached. If one begins to believe that a majority of opinion needs an extra 9% in order to validate it, then Democracy becomes a sham.
Posted by chaoszen at 05/08/2009 @ 09:46am
Posted by julien38 at 05/08/2009 @ 09:04am | ignore this person | warn this person
Powell on the tribunal? no, before a tribunal.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2009 @ 10:11am
Posted by julien38 at 05/08/2009 @ 09:04am | ignore this person | warn this person
Powell on the tribunal? no, before a tribunal.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2009 @ 10:13am
These terrorists are evil beyond comprehension and do not even belong in the human race.Posted by Katie10 at 05/08/2009 @ 12:22am | ignore this person | warn this person
I'm so sorry the Führer is not alive to see this. he would have been so proud.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2009 @ 10:15am
emileduBois You got it backwards. Hitler murdered millions of Jewish people. Do you think he possessed the the characteristics that we attribute to a normal human being? The 911 terrorists planned and killed 3,000 people. I see no difference. They consider us infidels to be wiped out. Hitler thought Jewish people weren't worthy of living. Water boarding was far too good for these people. So they were frightened into making confessions. That was the point. Compare their discomfort with the terror of those in the twin towers who jumped to their deaths knowing they were about to be incinerated. All of this happened right after 911 when we had no idea when the next attack might come. I find this sympathy for these terrorist appalling.I think it is phony and is more get Bush mentality. Obama will make the mistake of his life if they go down that road.
Posted by Katie10 at 05/08/2009 @ 10:53am
Posted by Katie10 at 05/08/2009 @ 10:53am | ignore this person | warn this person
before they were murdered they were declared less than human, just like what you do.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2009 @ 10:55am
Posted by Katie10 at 05/08/2009 @ 10:53am
BTW, Katie, we're still waiting on your source for your claim that "70% of the births in Los Angeles are to illegal aliens".
Why are we still waiting for that???
Posted by Mask at 05/08/2009 @ 10:56am
BTW, Katie, we're still waiting on your source for your claim that "70% of the births in Los Angeles are to illegal aliens".
Why are we still waiting for that???
Posted by Mask at 05/08/2009 @ 10:56am
I'll wade in with a middle ground position.
The figure is mostly due to a periodic internet email that has no source links.
Where it got "some" legitimacy was a 2003 report for San Juaquin General Hospital in Stockton CA. They had 70% of births that year to Anchor babies (children born here to illegals).
Medical studies report only by ethnicity and not legal status. 2005 showed 64% of Medical births were to Hispanics. So, one can only make a guess as to the breakdown of illegal vs legal residents/citizens.
The facts that do drive the misrepresentation is that California does not exclude illegals from Medical coverage. I know this because I've shared here before how I've helped illegals with serious medical conditions get approved for Medical services.
So, there is an element of truth to Katie's post, but the actual number is probably much less. Any attempt to be accurate would be anyone's guess.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 11:37am
what's phony is your posturing. your ignorance on the other hand is only too real.
the 9/11 attack was not motivated by religion. it was a political act. Bin Laden wants to overthrow the Saudi monarchy. when last I checked they are the same religion.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2009 @ 11:49am
Do you think he possessed the the characteristics that we attribute to a normal human being? Posted by Katie10 at 05/08/2009 @ 10:53am
I have never been able to find a definition for a "Normal Human Being". The statement you made is hilarious. There is no such thing as a "Normal" anything. Do you still believe in the Boogyman, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus?
I see your screen name is Katie10, if the 10 represents your age then I can understand why you sound the way you do. If not and you are an adult then you truly need some help. Repeating right wing talking points like a parrot or mynah bird and looking at the world through that lens is very unfortunate.
It means your brain is locked up.
Posted by chaoszen at 05/08/2009 @ 11:53am
we are obliged to follow the law, even after we are attacked.
Bush is a non person who lives in infamy. his henchmen too. they should not be able to appear in public without being reminded of their crimes.
justice must be served.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2009 @ 12:00pm
So, there is an element of truth to Katie's post, but the actual number is probably much less. Any attempt to be accurate would be anyone's guess.---Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 11:37am
Larry, given your horrific rejection of things getting "distorted"...
is not saying "70% of the births in Los Angeles are to illegal aliens" a BIT of a "distortion" from "70% of ONE year in ONE hospital in Stockton"...
rather than "has an element of truth"???
BTW, why are you defending a LYING xenophobe...just cuz he/she is conservative on the "War on Terror"???
Posted by Mask at 05/08/2009 @ 1:06pm
Larry, given your horrific rejection of things getting "distorted"...
is not saying "70% of the births in Los Angeles are to illegal aliens" a BIT of a "distortion" from "70% of ONE year in ONE hospital in Stockton"...
rather than "has an element of truth"???
BTW, why are you defending a LYING xenophobe...just cuz he/she is conservative on the "War on Terror"???
Posted by Mask at 05/08/2009 @ 1:06pm
you can say it either way if you like.
I wasn't defending her. I was just pointing out that as with most of these stories, there is usually some element of truth that is the genesis behind them.
If you look at my post, you know that I don't support the kind of views she was espousing.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 1:44pm
Posted by chaoszen at 05/08/2009 @ 09:05am:
You are dead wrong about the filibuster. It is an essential mechanism that prevents stupid laws from being passed. There are many times when the filibuster is not used and a 51/49 does not ruffle feathers.
Posted by pyeatte at 05/08/2009 @ 5:29pm
Bush kept us safe for 8 years, that is the bottom line.
Posted by Katie10 at 05/08/2009 @ 12:22am
Did the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, which attack came from WITHIN the United States, on September 11, 2001 (which you endlessly make reference to) occur during George W. Bush's administration, or not?
You don't even know what a bottom line is.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/08/2009 @ 8:16pm
Posted by Katie10 at 05/08/2009 @ 10:53am
BTW, Katie, we're still waiting on your source for your claim that "70% of the births in Los Angeles are to illegal aliens".
Why are we still waiting for that???
Posted by Mask at 05/08/2009 @ 10:56am | ignore this person | warn this person
Because Katie just kinda says stuff.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/08/2009 @ 8:20pm
According to the most recent (2006) National Vital Statistics Data, there were 96,527 Hispanic mothers who gave birth in Los Angeles County. There were 54,091 non-Hispanic mothers. This gives us a total of 150618 mothers in Los Angeles County in 2006.
For percentages, this makes Hispanic mothers 64% or all mothers and non-Hispanic make up 36%. So, in order for the 70% number to be accurate, every Hispanic mother and a little more than 16% of non-Hispanics would need to be illegal aliens.
It's a shame I actually had to run the numbers, because this is obviously bogus. No grain of truth to be found anywhere here. For the curious, you can do you own analysis for your county of choice here:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/vitalstats/VitalStatsbirths.htm (requires registration)
Posted by srjenkins at 05/08/2009 @ 10:40pm
I don't care what the percentage is, these babies are ALL american citizens. this is a good thing. they are all future workers and future tax payers.
the ones complaining about this, are just racists.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2009 @ 10:49pm
"The 911 terrorists planned and killed 3,000 people. I see no difference."
Nor do I see the difference between their planning and our planning that has resulted in the deaths of innocent Iraqis. I am glad we are on the same page.
Posted by onthehelm at 05/08/2009 @ 10:57pm
Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2009 @ 10:49pm
Is there really much difference between labeling people that think something is true that is false as racists than labeling them a terrorist or sub-human? The way to fight error is with truth and fact, not name calling or demonizing people.
There are also problems in your reasoning. We don't have infinite resources, and there is an obvious quality of life difference between the U.S. and many more populous countries. There is a point of negative returns where, once passed, more people make the quality of life go down that you have to address, just as the people that would like to wall off this country have to address how the low-wage work, such as agricultural labor, will get done if there weren't illegal immigrants (among other things). There's a little bit of the truth all the way around on this one.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/09/2009 @ 12:21am
I don't care what the percentage is, these babies are ALL american citizens. this is a good thing. they are all future workers and future tax payers.
the ones complaining about this, are just racists.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2009 @ 10:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Another leftist who despises the constitution of the U.S.A., all three tenents of the "rule of law" etc. Are you an illegal alien immigrant, or did you fully comply with the laws of the nation to enter the country and remain here?
Liberal philosophy is the most vile and RACIST of all. Their answer to any form of discrimination is to "create" greater discrimination against another class based on economics or color! You know, white male european decended persons!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/09/2009 @ 12:46am
Is there really much difference between labeling people that think something is true that is false as racists than labeling them a terrorist or sub-human?
yes there is. racists have not been exterminated.
the second part of your post is muddled and does nothing to address my points.
"There is a point of negative returns where, once passed, more people make the quality of life go down that you have to address,"
also known as "there goes the neighborhood", or "the darkies are coming".
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2009 @ 09:54am
Is there really much difference between labeling people that think something is true that is false as racists than labeling them a terrorist or sub-human
part two. this is really an idiotic statement, in the context of the "final solution"
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2009 @ 10:17am
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2009 @ 09:54am
"yes there is. racists have not been exterminated."
Sure they have. What is Tutsi versus Hutu, if not a form of racism (or ethnicism, if you would rather)? More to the point, the only difference between labeling people one or the other is of degree.
"the second part of your post is muddled and does nothing to address my points."
You wrote a single line. You don't have "points".
"also known as "there goes the neighborhood", or "the darkies are coming".
Hardly. Acknowledging that the U.S. does not have infinite resources is both true and obvious. If you want to know what happens to a place once you have a influx of people (sudden or otherwise) beyond what your infrastructure and resources can handle, you only have to look at Kolkata (Calcutta) since the creation of Pakistan.
Trying to reduce this issue to racism is bad reasoning, and it doesn't demonstrate much interest on your part of addressing the weaknesses in your position - and despite the racism and xenophobia of some conservatives, there is a valid point beyond both here.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/09/2009 @ 10:25am
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2009 @ 10:17am
"part two. this is really an idiotic statement, in the context of the "final solution"
How lucky am I to have someone around who can point them all out to me?
Posted by srjenkins at 05/09/2009 @ 10:28am
Calcutta, Rwanda? just an absurd diversion. I am speaking of out country.
the babies born here are our greatest resource. you have not responded to my point.
what should we do? force the illegal workers not to have babies? have them birthed by the side of the road?
any resources spent on birthing these babies is an investment that will be repaid thousand fold.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2009 @ 10:30am
calling someone a racist= calling them Untermenschen
you must be out of your mind.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2009 @ 10:31am
the Rwanda genocide was not the result of diminishing resources. your understanding of that issue is nil.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2009 @ 10:32am
a newsflash for ya. Hutu and Tutsi are of the same race.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2009 @ 10:36am
calling someone less than human sets the table for torture and genocide.
if anyone had asked the Germans if they supported state sanctioned murder, they would have responded no. after the jews were referred to as "vermin", Hitler found many willing executioners, (the title of an important book), and torturers.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2009 @ 10:51am
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2009 @ 10:30am
As usual, you go for the absurd rather than address the problems in your position. What can be done? You could throw business owners that employ illegal immigrants in jail. You could provide subsidies to agricultural workers so Americans would take those jobs. You could do a variety of things that impact illegal immigrants and make coming to the U.S. less attractive. Obviously, the focus on hospital care to mothers wouldn't be effective and it's unethical.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2009 @ 10:31am
It is a difference of degree, not of kind. Differences in degree, by the way, are still not equal signs.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2009 @ 10:32am
I used it as an example of racism or ethnicism, not scarce resources. Your ability to talk about my understanding seems based on your inability to read what I write, which is as clear as I can provide it for you.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2009 @ 10:36am
If it is not racism (and let's be real, shall we? Race is a social construct not a genetic one) or ethnicism, what is it?
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2009 @ 10:51am
"calling someone less than human sets the table for torture and genocide."
True. But then again, calling people names is calling people names - whether the name is vermin or racist. That's the point.
--
This will teach me to see a question where I could provide some facts and then get involved in posting to The Nation. I stopped reading many of the comments or posting because there isn't much point to engaging anyone. Most are simply talking past each other, and in general, it is a waste of time.
So, my mistake. I'm off to find something interesting and worthwhile to do. Please, enjoy yourself.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/09/2009 @ 11:11am
you have left the issue of legacy babies unaddressed. instead you come with Rwanda and Calcutta. just absurd.
a matter of degree? all of life is a matter of degree. if you wish to challenge my calling others racist, you may have a point. but to compare it to someone calling others not even human, is asinine, and you know it.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2009 @ 11:21am
There is a point of negative returns where, once passed, more people make the quality of life go down that you have to address,"
also known as "there goes the neighborhood", or "the darkies are coming".
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2009 @ 09:54am
Idiotic and immature...
Tell us Emile, where does the money come from to pay for these medical costs if millions of people come in illegally?
California has had to close a number of public hospitals because of funding already. There is not infinite money to pay for the rest of the world's medical issues.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/09/2009 @ 7:54pm
Sr, what do you call a racist?
Posted by emile duBois at 05/10/2009 @ 2:19pm
Posted by snowball666 at 05/10/2009 @ 1:06pm
Your comment assumes high-skilled immigrants, and even in high skilled jobs you have a point of negative returns. Unfortunately, the fact is that most illegal immigrants work in construction, manufacturing (especially textiles and animal processing), retail trade (especially restaurants), and services (especially private household services). Among illegal adults, 27% live in poverty.
This makes the whole "hey, let them come in legally and pay taxes" or your transplant argument pretty weak. However, it is not clear exactly what impact illegal immigrants have on public coffers, so it is a legitimate point of debate. You might also argue that more open policies bring more skilled workers. Lots of directions to go on this one, but it is much more complex than you are making it.
See this study for more: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/atissue/AI_406HJAI.pdf
Posted by emile duBois at 05/10/2009 @ 2:19pm
I focus on the behavior rather than the person. Claims that someone is racist (or any other -ist for that matter) when there is a legitimate concern on the table (such as scarce resources) is just poor argumentation.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/10/2009 @ 5:37pm