Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe Obama transition team is taking questions again at Change.gov, throwing open the site this week for citizen input. The first run of this experiment was a mixed bag. The platform was open and transparent, but the official answers felt more like old boilerplate than new responses. When the submitted questions parrot toics in the traditional media, of course, the exchange can feel like a dated press conference. But here's a vital question that few reporters have ever presented to Obama:
Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor (ideally Patrick Fitzgerald) to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?
That question ranked sixth in voting last time -- out of over 10,000 submissions -- but the transition team only answered the top five questions. Now that Vice President Cheney confessed his support for waterboarding on national television, flouting the rule of law, the issue is even more urgent. Activist Bob Fertik, who has submitted the question twice, explains how you can vote to press this issue on the transition team:
Sign in at http://change.gov/openforquestionsSearch for "Fitzgerald" [...and] find our question
Look right for the checkbox, mouseover it so it goes from white to dark, then click to cast your vote
While the press has fixated on the criminal allegations against Gov. Blagojevich, for some reason, the (even more serious) allegations of torture by officials in the current administration receive scant attention. I have not heard one question about this during Obama's transition press conferences, and the traveling press corps almost never pressed Obama on the issue during the general election campaign.
One notable exception is The Philadelphia News' Will Bunch. Although he was not in the traveling press corps, Bunch did elicit Obama's April declaration that he would ask the Attorney General to "immediately review" evidence of potential crimes by the prior administration. (That response remains Obama's most thorough statement on the matter; it is still quoted in wire stories about the potential prosecution of Bush officials.) Given the sensitivity and gravity of potential prosecutions against a prior administration, however, an independent special prosecutor is better equipped to make the decision, as many legal experts has observed.
Law professor Jonathan Turley recently advocated a special prosecutor appointment, in order to investigate crimes regardless of whether the perpetrators were high-ranking officials. "Politicians merely have to get out of the way and allow a special prosecutor to take this investigation wherever it would lead," he told Legal Times. Turley added that he has "resisted" any emphasis on "how high up the ranks" prosecutions should go, because it "misses the point":
If there was a crime, we should not be concerned about where an investigation might lead. It will lead where criminal conduct is found. We do not ask that threshold questions for bankrobbers or purse snatchers. We leave the outcome to the criminal justice system.
Legal Times also asked Turley why his view has "not gained more currency in the public debate." The response is dead-on:
The mainstream media has bought into the concept that this is merely a political not a legal question. Indeed, media often leave the clearly misleading impression that there is an equal academic debate over whether waterboarding is torture or whether warrantless surveillance is legal. To this day, media refers to waterboarding as an 'interrogation technique' when courts have consistently defined it as torture.
Some journalists do approach torture and war crimes prosecution as a serious, legal issue -- attorneys Glenn Greenwald and Scott Horton have done extensive reporting; The New York Times recently editorialized for a special prosecutor; Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith have pressed for war crimes accountability in The Nation, and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow has interviewed senators and experts about the Bush administration's alleged crimes. (Fertik also has his own "scorecard".)
With so few journalists directly asking the President-Elect about these issues, however, it is up to the rest of us to put accountability and the rule of law on the agenda. Change.gov is a fine place to start.
The Change.gov "Open for Questions" platform invites citizens to submit and vote on questions for the transition team:
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
Bob's question has about 90 votes at this point and it's been up for a while so it's an interesting data point on the relative influence of a Nation blog piece and the post on democrats.com ...
Posted by JonPincus at 12/29/2008 @ 11:17pm
Rummy, Cheney, etc. first -- then find the zillionnaire fungi dudes behind credit default swaps and mortgage backed securities... Well done Ari.
Posted by winyahn at 12/29/2008 @ 11:37pm
I completely agree with this. Criminal activity cannot be excused no matter what political party the individuals involve happen to belong to. Because information released over the past several years has raised legitimate and crucial questions about the actions of this administration, an investigation is certainly warranted and (frankly) badly needed. If the Bush Administration is indeed innocent, all the better to have them proved as such and remove from them the ongoing cloud of suspicion. If they are not, and our government has been flagrantly violating the law, our democratic and constitutional framework of government demands that we know about it. A framework of limited government works only when that government can be held accountable for overreaching its power.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/30/2008 @ 12:11am
Yes, let's have that trial right after the Blago affair is all settled.
Never.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/30/2008 @ 12:25am
"Should we let Mussari or whatever his name is that planned 9/11 out of jail and have the ACLU represent him so he can sue for millions and give the money to AQ for another mission?"
this has to be the dumbest thing i've heard in months.
Posted by darladoon at 12/30/2008 @ 03:00am
Let's look at some of the scandal of this year.
llinois Governor Rod Blagojevich - (D)
Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick - (D) resigned after pleading guilty to two felonies.
Former New York Goverrnor Eliot Spitzer - (D)
Former Senator John Edwards (D)
Rep. Charles Rangel (D)
New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D)
Staten Island Rep. Vito Fossella (R)
Newark Mayor Sharpe James - (D)
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) 35 counts of fraud - (R)
Former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (R)
Christopher Ward (NRC treasurer) embezzling - (R)
Representative William "Cold Cash" Jefferson - (D)
Birmingham's Mayor Larry Langford charged with 101 counts by FBI. - (D)
Tim Mahoney, ( D) succeeded Mark Foley after the latter resigned due to a sex scandal, but then became embroiled in a sex scandal of his own.
Representative Rahm Emanuel once claimed that Democrats would end "the culture of corruption." Wrong doing by Democrats he dismissed as the actions of a few individuals. About Republicans, Emanuel said, "They have institutional corruption." The argument was that Democrats would bring ethics and high standards to public office and that the Democratic Party would embody integrity and police its ranks.
It hasn't quite worked out that way.
Bush and Cheney are not going to be judged by any special prosecutor. They will be judged by history, and I think, praised.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/30/2008 @ 03:50am
While I doubt that history will praise Bush and Cheney for anything other than exiting the scene, Hugo lays out a compelling and comprehensive list of democratic screw-ups. My only rejoinder to this is that while Democrats are especially prone to tawdry malfeasance, the Republicans think in much larger terms regarding these things. Reminds me of the James Cagney movie 'Never Steal Anything Small'. In the end, politicians ALL need to be kept on a short leash.
However, what this has to do with appointing someone to oversee and prosecute crimes that involve torture is beyond me. A dark point in our history, la punto negro.
Posted by ficheye at 12/30/2008 @ 04:43am
I don't think any serious fan of good government will suggest that we should let politicians off the hook just because they are Democrats (or just because they are Republicans). "ficheye" has a good point, politicians must ALL be watched with a hawk eye.
However, these allegations are very serious. Torture is a very, very serious crime. As is spying on American citizens without a warrant -- remember that that's essentially what brought Nixon down.
Republicans who believe that Bush et al. is innocent should welcome this -- if a truly nonpartisan special prosecutor is appointed -- because it will give the administration a chance to clear their name. If you're not guilty, you shouldn't fear the investigation, right? That's what Bush always says, anyway...
And the rest of us should welcome this because *NOBODY* should be allowed to break the law with impunity, and politicians must be held to their oath of office. And torture is very, very serious business, and we need to get to the bottom of these allegations.
Posted by ouroborous at 12/30/2008 @ 06:58am
I don't think any serious fan of good government will suggest that we should let politicians off the hook just because they are Democrats (or just because they are Republicans). "ficheye" has a good point, politicians must ALL be watched with a hawk eye.
However, these allegations are very serious. Torture is a very, very serious crime. As is spying on American citizens without a warrant -- remember that that's essentially what brought Nixon down.
Republicans who believe that Bush et al. is innocent should welcome this -- if a truly nonpartisan special prosecutor is appointed -- because it will give the administration a chance to clear their name. If you're not guilty, you shouldn't fear the investigation, right? That's what Bush always says, anyway...
And the rest of us should welcome this because *NOBODY* should be allowed to break the law with impunity, and politicians must be held to their oath of office. And torture is very, very serious business, and we need to get to the bottom of these allegations.
Posted by ouroborous at 12/30/2008 @ 06:58am
Bush and Cheney are not going to be judged by any special prosecutor. They will be judged by history, and I think, praised.-----Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/30/2008 @ 03:50am
The only thing more unrealistic than thinking Bush or Cheney will ever face any kind of prosecution..
is thinking they'll be be "redeemed by history".
Ignominity is their punishment. No amount of Limbaugh/neo-con/28% Club revisionist history will save them from that even if they try for the next 25 years. But no "Hague trials" or "post-Presidential impeachments" either.
Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 07:13am
Boy howdy! All the Neo-Bots are coming out of the darkness on this one. When they get their marching orders and come hither like bats out of a cave, a nerve has been struck. Good on ya Ari!
Posted by chaoszen at 12/30/2008 @ 07:47am
I doubt it will ever happen but there should be an investigation as what Bush,Cheney and Rumsfeld have condoned or even ordered to be done was absolutely wrong. Only time will tell I suppose, no one is above the law though and they should be brought to trial.
Posted by Caj at 12/30/2008 @ 07:57am
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 08:27am
Iraq was a trumped up war and Tony Blair did go along with it I agree...that should be investigated also. The WMD was only a smoke screen and the 'imminent threat" was a smoke screen, Bush was going to Iraq come hell or high water. All he had to do was try and convince us of all this nonsense, did not convince a good deal of us though and was he deterred not one bit...off we still went. Amidst the torture aspect, awful as it was we still forget thousands of innocent lives lost both military and civilian all for absolutely nothing!!!! Yes, that is another war crime as far as I'm concerned also.
Posted by Caj at 12/30/2008 @ 08:42am
Caj and Mask,
As far as Tony Blair, the investigation that Caj thinks should happen would not be a good idea (for Caj).
Why? Because Tony Blair can fully justify going into Iraq.
How? Because he already did!
Here is a link to a BBC interview program where Mr. Blair was cross-examined by a moderator and audience that would make you Libs here on The Nation look like rank amateurs. This audience was hostile and out to get Mr. Blair with tons of anti-war invective and B.S.
Every question put to Mr. Blair was fielded by him in the same manner that Derek Jeter or A-Rod would do to a slow pitch over home plate - home run after home run for Tony Blair.
This also destroys the canard that Tony Blair was a lapdog and/or poodle.
Newsnight Thursday, 6 February, 2003, 22:09 GMT Transcript of Blair's Iraq interview http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/ hi/programmes/ newsnight/2732979.stm
As far as your question Mask, you already know the answer, you have only heard it for the umpteenth time, but here it is again:
I said remanufacturing because now it appears, after the war, that Saddam had no significant quantity of WMD. This was found out AFTER the war.
We do not know what happened to the WMD that practically everbody including SADDAMS OWN GENERALS and PROMINENT DEMOCRATS believed he had. We probably never will know.
Most people (such as libs and countries like France) who opposed the war did not oppose the war on grounds of no WMD - the opposition to the war was based on the lib/pacifist stance that you do not go to war (you try for appeasement and peace then eventually wind up going to war anyway).
So when Bush,Cheney, Rumsfeld told us he had WMD there were plenty of others telling us that as well. (Hillary, John F. Kerry, etc).
Phew!
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 10:49am
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 10:49am
Well, first. It still would be "RE-manufacturing", wouldn't it?
Second, Hillary and Kerry didn't run the White House, the Pentagon, or get anything from the CIA or NSA that the WH or Pentagaon didn't want to give them.
Funny how you guys who claim "Bush won Iraq and will be redeemed by history"...don't want to share "credit" for that with Kerry, Clinton, et al, but mention the lack of WMDs (despite the PEOPLE IN CHARGE of our intell and promotion of a war)...and suddenly "Everybody did it!!!" like some teenager caught smoking weed by his parents.
Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 10:55am
Why? Because Tony Blair can fully justify going into Iraq.
How? Because he already did Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 10:49am
He may have justified it to you, but he was just a puppet for Bush at the end of the day. Which was a shame as he was doing a good job as Prime Minister at the time...but that Iraq debacle cost him big time in the UK. The British people will never forgive Tony Blair for his involvement in the Iraq war that's for sure. So you may like to think he was not a Bush puppet, but he surely was and that will be forever a stain on his character. The only justification he had for going into Iraq was because Bush had told him so...and I for one didn't believe a word Bush said on the matter and Tony Blair was duped!!!
Posted by Caj at 12/30/2008 @ 11:12am
Mask,
That is because we are talking two different things, as you know.
You on the left seek to crucify George W. Bush on the question of WMD. The fact that others said there was WMD is mentioned to show that this was not all just a fabrication and lie by George W. Bush.
When it is mentioned that George W. Bush won Iraq and people like Kerry, Clinton, etc should not get "credit"... that is because those people (that share a common identity- leftists and Democrats) typically will not do anything about threats, perhaps until it is too late or the cost of dealing with them is worse.
And it would still be "Re-manufacturing" because it appears that most of the WMD were gone after the war - no doubt because Saddam let it happen that way, so that he could be proclaimed free of WMD some day, so that he could get back into the game again and make more WMD.
Thus, we know now (after the war) it is a good thing we stopped Saddam and did not get duped by the con job he was trying to pull on us.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 11:41am
Caj,
Tony Blair, by his own words, in that appearance on BBC Newsnight, very clearly:
1. Shows he is not a "Bush puppet"
2. Articulates why we needed to go into Iraq.
3. Shows he was not "duped"
4. Completely refutes your views.
You claim Tony Blair went into Iraq only because George W. Bush told him so.
So, you were present when the two of them met at various times?
How come they didn't report that on the news?
Question (sarcasm) - Why are you calling Tony Blair a puppet? I thought you on the left believe he was a lapdog or poodle!
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 11:46am
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 11:41am
Yes, yes...anything but "Bush was wrong".
heheh
Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 11:59am
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill.---------Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/30/2008 @ 12:02pm
Didn't "some Republicans" include the 2008 Republican nominee for President?
Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 1:00pm
Mask,
You said above: "heheh"
I am trying to figure out why you are laughing.
Your line of thought didn't work for you. Whatever point you were trying to make failed.
Are you getting delerious?
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 1:52pm
Blair told some big whoppers about Iraq. they will follow him forever.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 2:10pm
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 1:52pm
No, nor delirious.
My point was you HAVE to spin this bizarre scenarios of "Saddam destroying the WMDs, just to fool the inspectors and then later 'throw them out' provoking good, decent Dubya who was giving him every chance...so that he can later re-manufature them...despite the fact that to pull off his diabolical plan would lead to an inevitable invasion by the US and his own hanging!"
rather than admit that "Bush was wrong".
Why? Simple, you're a ditto-head and Rush has taken to his bosom the 28% Club who still support Dubya (mostly because Limbaugh can't admit HE was wrong about Bush, else his cred with his zombie audience is finished).
Same reason he keeps trying to convince you guys that Hank Paulson is some "rogue agent" accountable to nobody and that Bush "wants nothing to do with any bailouts!".
2 + 2 = 5, Winston.
Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 2:30pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/30/2008 @ 2:40pm
You say there won't be because of Congress' knowledge/support but not if you agree that there shouldn't be an investigation?
Posted by !immutable at 12/30/2008 @ 2:46pm
Mask,
You said "inevitable invasion"
The invasion was not inevitable. Hans Blix was wandering around Iraq, and would have eventually declared Saddam free of WMD, and then he would have been off of the hook.
The way these things normally work, this would have just played out. There may have been more UN resolutions demanding Saddam do what he was required to do, completely describe how he got from point A to point B with his weapons, followed by no UN action to enforce the resolutions, followed by no compliance from Saddam, followed by people saying Saddam was cooperating because he was letting inspectors go where they wanted to go, etc.
Eventually Hans Blix would have said he found no weapons, and then it would have been declared over. All demands on Saddam would have been overcome by events, nobody would have cared that Saddam had not complied, and Saddam would have been off of the hook.
This is how it normally goes, and Saddam was fully expecting that and jerking the world around accordingly.
George W. Bush and Tony Blair did not let Saddam get away with it, so it did not go the way things normally go.
Saddam probably only realized a couple of months before the war that he had misplayed his hand, so to speak, and his bluff had failed and he would be invaded.
About 2+2=5; I know, if a kid says that on a test it is OK because they tried, although there should not be a test to begin with. You are not supposed to teach to the test and if a kid doesn't learn it's because the schools are short of money due to imperialist war in Iraq and stealing from the poor and giving to the rich, etc. rather than modern theories promoted by educators who just happen to have a "progressive" political perspective.
Off the subject, I know.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 2:58pm
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 2:58pm
Sjchermak,
You said "The invasion was not inevitable".
TOP BUSH OFFICIAL SAYS IRAQ WAR PLAN BEGAN IN EARLY 2001: According to CBS 60 Minutes, then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill admits that "From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. He said that "going after Saddam was topic '10' days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11." [Source: CBS 60 Minutes, 1/11/04]
This is but one of many sources.
So the question was how to achieve that end.
Posted by !immutable at 12/30/2008 @ 3:18pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/30/2008 @ 3:07pm
Because some members of Congress were aware of it doesn't make it legal. All that does is make them culpable.
Posted by !immutable at 12/30/2008 @ 3:21pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/30/2008 @ 3:33pm
And I truly believe that they too should be held accountable.
Posted by !immutable at 12/30/2008 @ 3:38pm
!immutable,
Don't forget- Democrats back when Slick willie (including Slick himself) talked about having to remove Saddam by force.
But that did not mean it was inevitable that it would happen.
Don't forget, also, that Paul O'Neill is not a credible source for descriptions of how the Bush Administration operates.
A Treasury Secretary Scorned Joan Swirsky Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2004 http://archive.newsmax.com/ archives/articles/2004/ 1/13/171309.shtml
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 3:47pm
Typo,
I should have said "when Slick Willie was president" instead of just "when Slick Willie"
To be factual as to when comments by him were made, however, I should be saying "when Slick Willie was president and not involved in meetings with his interns or meetings with his staff to discuss how to deal with Whitewater, travelgate, the impeachment trial, his various testimonies he had to give in courts of law, etc".
That is because he was quite a busy guy!
I know, I know, now the lib penalty flags come out for mentioning Slick Willie who is not the subject of this thread. I guess when I saw the words Special Prosecutor I forgot. Sorry.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 3:53pm
Question (sarcasm) - Why are you calling Tony Blair a puppet? I thought you on the left believe he was a lapdog or poodle!
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 11:46am
Quite frankly he fits all of those you mention.....you choose!!!!
Posted by Caj at 12/30/2008 @ 4:00pm
"That is because he was quite a busy guy! "
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 3:53pm
The man was definitely a victim of his vices.
"Project for the New American Century"
Open letter to President Clinton on Iraq On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also state: "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." They argue that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests
Posted by !immutable at 12/30/2008 @ 4:12pm
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 3:47pm
So despite the "dangers of leaving Saddam in power" (A phrase you (and Rush of course) always use)...
there was a CHANCE that George Dubya Bush (who will be redeemed in history)....
would NOT have invaded and overthrown him?!?!?!?!?!??!!?
It WASN'T inevitable?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 4:21pm
Caj,
You said (about Tony Blair) "Quite frankly he fits all of those you mention.....you choose!!!!"
Rather than your suggestions, I will choose Wise and Courageous Prime Minister, instead.
My suggestion fits better to the facts than yours does.
!immutable,
The recommendations from some to remove Saddam still does not make it inevitible.
And remember, Mask promoted that Saddam would have viewed it inevitable.
And I believe Saddam did not figure on any kind of invasion when he first began jerking the world around. I believed he assumed there would not be anything like that.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 4:35pm
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 4:35pm
What Saddam believed doesn't really tell if Bush and Co were going to invade or not but if he missed all the saber rattling over here about it then he was pretty stupid to not believe it was inevitable.
I think Blair is a wise man but I also think he was suckered in and that he felt, for whatever reasons he might have had, that he had to go along with Bush. He is much better at arguing a point in hindsight then Bush.
Posted by !immutable at 12/30/2008 @ 4:48pm
for whatever reasons he might have had,
let me take a crack at this. England used to call the shots in the ME. america relieved them of this burden after WW2. this was an attempt to remain relevant for the brits. an unsuccessful attempt.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 5:36pm
Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 5:36pm
The conspiracy theorist in me would tend to believe it is something more sinister but you are probably right. Never underestimate the desire for relevancy. What a waste.
Posted by !immutable at 12/30/2008 @ 5:50pm
it's hard to lose an empire. in some ways the brits lost more as a result of the war than the germans. even in the microcosm, england had food rationing longer than germany, and germany is a greater economic power than England.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 6:12pm
emile duBois,
To correct the obvious typo you made, you said the involvement in Iraq was an unsuccessful attempt by the British to be relevant. (my paraphrasing of what you said, if you are nit-picking).
That should read successful, not unsuccessful.
A madman and tyrant was deposed of (Saddam), and Tony Blair established himself as one of the greatest Prime Ministers in history.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 7:43pm
Tony Blair let himself be used as a Tool to the Tool G.W.
no disrespect. America double elected the biggest Tool of all, a man who allowed himself to be used as a Tool to all his daddies cronies. A shame. What a waste of a perfectly good eight years of American history, now downgraded to having a status we'd all rather forget about in geo-political terms.
Posted by Lander_Aadsel at 12/31/2008 @ 12:31am
Bush and Cheney decided to attack Iraq because they and their comrades wanted control of the oil fields in Iraq by U.S. oil companies.
Their decision had absolutely nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or promoting democracy.
Posted by Garbltoo at 12/31/2008 @ 01:58am
What's good for the goose.... Sounds OK but Obama probably won't be around to help because he'll be defending himself for expanding the other "war crime" in which civilians, as well as US soldiers are being killed. It's happening now in Afghanistan and will become much bigger if Obama wasn't telling us porkies.
Any Lefties like to sign a petition on that one?
Oh almost forgot should the new VP and new Secretary of State take their place in the dock beside the two fascists for voting for and backing that war?
Come to think of it, given the overwhelming Congressional support for GW's Iraq war in October 2002 that trial could be bigger than Nuremberg.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/31/2008 @ 02:22am
Is it possible that someone here could comment on the issue of torture, and how far the prosecutorial process should go?
In my view it is a more difficult topic to comment on than our usual bla bla digression into the Iraq war.
It seems that both Cheney and Rummy should face an investigation. Bush, with his history of executions in Texas, is also clearly involved. After all, he was 'the decider'. I say this not in a mocking tone, for he coined the term himself. And as 'the decider', he set himself up for a full share of the blame if society 'decides' that crimes were committed. It needs to be pursued. And that pursuit includes all Democrats and Republican as well who enabled these addicts to misery in it's many forms.
On the Iraq topic, I agree with a previous post that Blair was sucker punched, coerced into going to Iraq on faulty information. But politicians can't admit wrongdoing because it calls into question their judgement on every other issue. So he waffled and woofed his way out of office, not with a bang but with a whimper. And he looked so good in a suit.
As to the drivel being posted by SJ, there's just no end to it. No matter what the topic, we always get to hear about Slick Willie, Bush as Master and commander, and how deluded those 'on the left' are. I just cannot read such bombastic rhetoric without making a derisive comment. If SJ could just have an opinion about the topic at the top of the page my respect for him would grow. Minutely.
Posted by ficheye at 12/31/2008 @ 02:31am
"On the Iraq topic, I agree with a previous post that Blair was sucker punched, coerced into going to Iraq on faulty information. But politicians can't admit wrongdoing because it calls into question their judgement on every other issue. "
Posted by ficheye at 12/31/2008 @ 02:31am
As far as Blair is concerned your guess is made in ignorance of the facts This by George Mobiot, who is about as radically Left as they come, should be an impeccable source for those unaware of Blair's often stated moral motivation. Incidentally Bush also stated the same humanitarian reasons at his 12th September 2002 address at the UN as does your Iraq Liberation Act 1998. In this context one can make up a story to fool to one's self but real history is a stubborn thing:
George Monbiot
Dissident Voice
November 1, 2003
The British and US governments gave three reasons for going to war with Iraq. The first was to extend the war on terrorism. The second was to destroy its weapons of mass destruction before they could be deployed. The third was to remove a brutal regime, which had tortured and murdered its people.
( he says here why he thinks the first and second reasons failed in their objective).
So just one excuse remains, and it is a powerful one. Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. While there was no legal argument for forcibly deposing him on the grounds of his abuse of human rights, there was a moral argument. It is one which our prime minister made repeatedly and forcefully. "The moral case against war has a moral answer: it is the moral case for removing Saddam", Tony Blair told the Labour Party's spring conference in February. "Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is in truth inhumane."
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/31/2008 @ 05:26am
Posted by ficheye at 12/31/2008 @ 02:31am
You raise a very interesting commentary on torture when you mention capital punishment. I happen to live in a country that regards judicial killing of criminals as a cruel and inhuman punishment and is never used. Be that as it may it is hypocritical to legally allow that practice in some states of the US and then make a protest about something that is comparatively innocuous.
If torture is used on likely or (war) criminals they and every one else knows they are not going to be killed as the idea is to extract information from them and dead men don't tell tales. On the other hand can one begin to imagine the torture one is subjected to in knowing that at the end of it your life will be snuffed out?
So while America legally practices such horrific mental torture in states like Texas it seems that those who object to a form of torture, that usually has a happy ending, in that the one subjected to it is still alive at the end, are very inconsistent and hypocritical. (In fact the UN definition of torture, including as punishment, fits the cruel and inhuman nature of capital punishment). In that context how those who express shock and rage at this relatively benign form of torture can do it with a straight face is beyond comprehension. They should be dealing with the beam before worrying about the speck of dust.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/31/2008 @ 06:12am
Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 4:58pm
So why not OTHER tyrants?
Posted by Mask at 12/31/2008 @ 07:21am
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/31/2008 @ 06:12am
For the most part you are correct and I agree with you. As for the beam and the speck. I am not too sure that I would call what occurred a speck and the beam we work on constantly but that doesn't mean we ignore all else.
Posted by Mask at 12/31/2008 @ 07:21am
Just one other tyrant without oil would do!
Posted by !immutable at 12/31/2008 @ 08:01am
Posted by !immutable at 12/31/2008 @ 08:01am
Actually, the typical neo-con answer is to either jumpt to YET ANOTHER REASON (i.e. "He violated 17 UN resolutions!"...odd from people who hate the UN and want to see it disbanded....or "He shot at our jets!" or whatever is next in line after the previous ones fall apart).
OR they say something basically like "Iraq was easy!". Okay...stop laughing now and think about that. They basically are telling us that they ONLY care about "bringing democracy and freedom" in EASY wars. And yet these are the same guys who want to use World War-II analogies for Iraq and try to paint themselves as a "2nd Greatest Generation" (despite the fact almost none of them have done any of the actual fighting).
Posted by Mask at 12/31/2008 @ 09:00am
BTW, SJCHER...still waiting....
are you saying that the invasion of Iraq WASN'T inevitable and that there was a chance that Bush would have left Saddam in power??!?!!!????
Posted by Mask at 12/31/2008 @ 09:01am
WE KNOW THAT BIN LADEN OWES GEORGE W. LOSER A "THANK YOU" NOTE FOR FAILING TO ASSUME BATTLE STATIONS BEFORE 9-11 (AN EVENT PRAISED BY LVLIBERY/AL-HURRA AS AN ATTACK ON...HOMOSEXUALS); BUT TO WHAT DEGREE DID W LOSER GIVE AID & COMFORT TO HO CHI MINH 30 YRS BEFORE?
LVLIBERTY/AL HURRA teaches us that at issue in Nam was whether people in San Francisco would habitually be eating with chopsticks (AL HURRA's example) if the leading rightwing cause of that time period was not pursued. The free world was at stake, for conservaFreaks.
So, a question: Which of the following figures has the most combat experience fighting udner the flag of the United States of America in combat?
a) Karl Marx
b) Ho Chi Minh
d) Jane Fonda
e) Jacques LePoop, a left bank French intellectual pansy who devours the works of Marx, burns American flags and decries US imperialism on a daily basis, and looooovvves a bone-rattling bum-blast morning, noon, and night
f) Dick Cheney
g) George W Loser
h) All of the Above, because none have faught under the US flag in combat
And the answer? It is: h!
So, we must ask: How much succor could Ho and the Commies taken from the fact that George W Loser, one of America's most privileged -- Andover and Yale educated (although not on merits), multi-millinoiare Senator's grandson and son of a filthy rich MC -- SPIT ON HIS NATION WITH A "HELL NO! I WON'T GO!" DECLARATION PLAINLY EXPRESSED IN HIS DEEDS?
Next question: When America's most privileged, to whom much is given and much is expected, engage in such America-hating pussy behavior when California itself is at stake, is the undignified scene on the embassy roof come April 1975 any surprise at all????
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 12/31/2008 @ 09:01am
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/31/2008 @ 05:26am | ignore this person | warn this person
be sure to present the moral argument for 600,000 dead Iraqis and 4 million refugees, in addition to 4000 american soldiers, who were suckered into giving their lives for the "removal" of a tyrant in a land far, far from here.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/31/2008 @ 09:24am
Posted by SJ "BLACKS DON'T WANT OR NEED TO VOTE" CHERMAK at 12/30/2008 @ 3:47pm
If one definition of a savage is someone who cannot reason or integrate facts into a coherant world view, then who fits the bill better than SJ "BLACKS DON'T WANT OR NEED TO VOTE" CHERMAK?
We recall that he has previously disgraced himself aping nonsensical rightwing smudges of feces about Gore v. Bush and equal protection. He understood nothing of what he was saying (thus could not cognize it as nonsense) and fully backed off when he was asked to explain himself. SJ "BLACKS DON'T WANT OR NEED TO VOTE" CHERMAK was just repeating what *someone else* said, perhpas at NR Online, which SJ feels like a leading intellectual for reading (even when as virulent a McCarthyist as Buckley Sr had turned his back on this rag by the time he died).
Anyway, more primitive myths from the savage:
"Don't forget- Democrats back when Slick willie (including Slick himself) talked about having to remove Saddam by force."
To be clear:
So, the US invaded and occupied a country that was disarmed by UNSCOM led by Scott Ritter by the mid-1990s while CLINTON and NOT when LOSER's admin was in place? And to the cost of trillions (according to Nobel Prize winner Stiglitz), with thousands killed and tens of thousands injured, just on the US side? And while a country that would otherwise be rich and pro-West has been turned by the neo-Clowns into an impoverished hot house for medieval fundementalisms? And for five plus years beyond the removal of Rumsfeld's buddy Saddam Hitlersain?
SJ "BLACKS DON'T WANT OR NEED TO VOTE" CHERMAK, are you insisting like an intractable, reason-indifferent savage, that CLINTON accomplished all that, and *NOT* GEORGE W LOSER + his team of angry celibate Igors?
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 12/31/2008 @ 09:26am
if the moral argument is so compelling, how come they didn't make that argument? they did not. instead they flim flammed us with mushroom clouds and other fantasies.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/31/2008 @ 09:26am
in udder woids, it's the lies that undercut the moral argument, and render it worthless.
Pol Pot killed many many more of his own people. I didn't hear any calls for invasion here in america.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/31/2008 @ 09:28am
I think somebody has fogotten to give PhilMcCrevice his medication. The nurses at whatever state instution he is hopsitalized at have not been doing their jobs.
I guess they do allow patients internet access, apparently, as part of therapy.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/31/2008 @ 09:33am
"Don't forget, also, that Paul O'Neill is not a credible source for descriptions of how the Bush Administration operates.
A Treasury Secretary Scorned Joan Swirsky Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2004 http://archive.newsmax.com/ archives/articles/2004/ 1/13/171309.shtml"
Posted by sj "Blacks Don't Want Or Need to Vote Anway" chermak at 12/30/2008 @ 3:47pm
Credible sources, indeed.
Paul O'Neill was present at the first cabinet meeting in January 2001 when LOSER and his handlers began raving about invading Iraq. And during which time is it unclear to observers whether "National Security Advisor" Condi Mushroomcloud even so much as knew what alQ was.
O'Neill? That's the guy who led Alcoa in the private sector during the 1980s to notable success -- while W LOSER was a 30-something waking up still loaded with vomit encrusted on his face, running companies into the ground, and getting bialed out becuase of the family name (and not, as Dr King put, it "the content of his character").
O'Neill? Can't trust that guy. But NewsMax? Run by the poet laurette of Vincent Foster conspiracies, Christopher Ruddy? It does not get much more credible than that (aside perhaps from the unvarnished 200% truths reported in a Moonie newspaper).
Got Vincent Foster conspiracy, sj "Blacks Don't Want Or Need to Vote Anway" chermak ???
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 12/31/2008 @ 09:40am
Here is what a real macho men, Macolm Nance, says in part about torture. He is a professional, works with the US military for SERE. Notice the contrast between Nance's views and a soft, sofa-bound would be "warrior" like the effiminate JOMAMMA.
Read it all at:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/
"...To defeat Bin Laden many in this administration have openly embraced the methods of by Hitler, Pinochet, Pol Pot, Galtieri and Saddam Hussein.
...Once (terrorists are) convicted in a fair, public tribunal, they would have the rest of their lives, however short the law makes it, to come to terms with their God and their acts...
This is not enough for our President. He apparently secretly ordered the core American values of fairness and justice to be thrown away in the name of security from terrorists. He somehow determined that the honor the military, the CIA and the nation itself was an acceptable trade for the superficial knowledge of the machinations of approximately 2,000 terrorists, most of whom are being decimated in Iraq or martyring themselves in Afghanistan. It is a short sighted and politically motivated trade that is simply disgraceful. There is no honor here.
Torture advocates hide behind the argument that an open discussion about specific American interrogation techniques will aid the enemy. Yet, convicted Al Qaeda members and innocent captives who were released to their host nations have already debriefed the world through hundreds of interviews, movies and documentaries on exactly what methods they were subjected to and how they endured. In essence, our own missteps have created a cadre of highly experienced lecturers for Al Qaeda's own virtual SERE school for terrorists."
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 12/31/2008 @ 09:50am
Nurses, will you please get PhilMcCrevice his medications! Stat.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/31/2008 @ 09:57am
a real macho men,
you got masculinity issues, Phil?
whenever I hear words like pansy and pussy, I am convinced that they issue from as closet queen, and a selfloathing homosexual.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/31/2008 @ 10:06am
effeminate Maasch? I can testify that this is a calumny. I cannot guess his proclivities, though I do know that he is a family man. this kind of mud throwing betrays a imature mind
Posted by emile duBois at 12/31/2008 @ 10:09am
After reading some of the right wing lunatics opinions here! I have come to the conclusion they are all brain dead. It must be a requirement to be a conservative to have nothing but dead space between your ears where brains used to dwell. Because anyone with a brain soon tires of the empty rhetoric that is presented by conservatives to excuse one of the worst crimes in our history. That's about all that can be said for it. They go through life reinventing the story of Weapons of Mass Destruction as they go. Just like Bush they have to adjust it constantly with every telling to fit their argument. They think in that way they can redeem their glorious leaders tarnished reputation. Maybe he won't be tried for war crimes he committed. But, I hate to tell you boys it's going to take a whole lot more than your twisting the facts to suit your argument! Most of us know the facts in the case. We knew them before he (Bush) started his campaign of lies to get the American people worked into a frenzy to go after people who were no threat to us. You can't make a wrong into a right that way! You only make yourself look like what you are...fools!
Posted by ganddw42 at 12/31/2008 @ 10:11am
Posted by ganddw42 at 12/31/2008 @ 10:11am | ignore this person | warn this person
my sentiments exactly.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/31/2008 @ 10:35am
"be sure to present the moral argument for 600,000 dead Iraqis and 4 million refugees, in addition to 4000 american soldiers, who were suckered into giving their lives for the "removal" of a tyrant in a land far, far from here."
Posted by emile duBois at 12/31/2008 @ 09:24am
You probably have the number better than me, but my memory is that about 60 million persons with a majority of them civilians were killed in WW2. Few would argue that that in anyway undermines the moral argument to go to war against the axis powers and ultimately invade and occupy both Germany and Japan. The killing of civilians and infrastructure damage in both countries was of a far greater order than has occurred in Iraq and to cover all your bases think of the number of displaced persons and refugees as a result of that conflict.
That, as in the case of Iraq, raises different issues without undercutting the moral argument that justifies the war. And that would include considerations of, on the one hand those things you mention, and the ultimate good achieved whether it was likely to have been possible without resorting to that conflict.
In retrospect few would argue that despite all the horror of death and destruction of WW2 the world is not a far better place than had Germany's and Japan's militarism and yes barbarism won the day. Though the best we can do is guess future outcomes can one not assume that such an outcome would have plunged our world into a new "dark ages" period? And thus the outcomes also confirm the validity of the moral argument. All we have is history and in the end it will pass judgment on whether the moral argument is paralleled by a "greater good" outcome.
The same holds for Iraq and the use of essentially the same moral argument as was used in WW2.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/31/2008 @ 11:36am
The same holds for Iraq and the use of essentially the same moral argument as was used in WW2.-----Posted by lrjones4 at 12/31/2008 @ 11:36am
Okay, LRJONES, why not go after OTHER tyrants in the world today???....we didn't just stop Hitler. We took out Mussolini and Tojo too.
I mean, if you want to make a "moral argument as used in WW2"?????
Posted by Mask at 12/31/2008 @ 12:11pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/31/2008 @ 12:00pm
Okay, LVLIB, same question (sort of)...
you'd support overthrowing tyrants EVERYWHERE? Like the Saudis...or the Gulf State emirs/sultans?
Posted by Mask at 12/31/2008 @ 12:13pm
no moral argument was necessary, germany and Japan were expansionist. to compare Iraq and Afghanistan wars with the world war is shameful. no lies were required in the latter.
your argument is bait and switch. instead of addressing my point you switch to WW2.
unlike you I have personal experience in the aftermath of a great war, great as in large. I grew up in a destroyed country. I know first hand occupation.
the japanese war was two dogs fighting over the carcasses of fading empires. Pearl Harbor notwithstanding, Japan was no threat to the US homeland. no invasion was possible. the US got tough with Japan when the latter had reached, wait for it, Indochina, a french possession.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/31/2008 @ 12:20pm
I will say it again. if the moral argument vis a vis Iraq was so strong, why did they not make it before the war?
address my points or shut the f*ck up.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/31/2008 @ 12:22pm
"if the moral argument is so compelling, how come they didn't make that argument? they did not. instead they flim flammed us with mushroom clouds and other fantasies."
Posted by emile duBois at 12/31/2008 @ 09:26am
" in udder woids, it's the lies that undercut the moral argument, and render it worthless. Pol Pot killed many many more of his own people. I didn't hear any calls for invasion here in america.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/31/2008 @ 09:28am
JR, I notice the blindfolded way you approach information.
George Mobiet, who makes most of the lefties here look like evangelical Neo-Cons and is one academic you should trust, even if he told you the moon was made of various sorts of rocks, says of Blair's pre-war speeches " there was a moral argument. It is one which our prime minister made repeatedly and forcefully". (JR would you please stand in the corner and repeat one hundred times - "repeatedly and forcefully" and I must not be an Old-Con (artist)) And further you should have no trouble checking out Bush's 12th September 2002 speech. The problem for you "the moon is made of green cheese" fellas is that your very flimsy case is built around what you think must have happened rather than the inconvenient truth of what actually as well as more likely did. The same of course is true of your perverse view of "rigged" intelligence.
So JR, the only lies are yours, which are irrelevant to the validity or otherwise of the Blair/Bush moral argument. There is another Lefty a self-professed commo no less, whom you've sent to Coventry because he had the audacity to promote the same moral argument for the removal of the Saddam regime. Thus indicating that not all Lefties are bereft of a moral conscience. What's your excuse then?
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/31/2008 @ 12:26pm
I find it strange that anybody, and in particular anybody who claims to support law and order, would oppose an investigation to determine whether crimes were committed, and if so, to prosecute the perpetrators. Nevertheless, I think it is likely that Obama will conclude that the appointment of a special prosecutor is not in the best interests of the country (or, for the more cynical, not in the best interests of Obama), if for no other reason than because it could be construed as a political witch hunt.
In order to avoid the appearance of a prosecution that is politically motivated, rather than appointing a special prosecutor it would make much more sense to take two separate steps. First, both Congress and the administration should conduct thorough investigations of what was done, by whom, and at whose orders or with whose knowledge and permission (explicit or implicit). Second, the United States should become a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. That way, if the investigations result in evidence of violations of international law, such as the international law of war, criminal charges can be brought and prosecuted by prosecutors who are neither Republicans or Democrats, and who have no direct political interest in harming the Republican party, or helping the Democratic party, by prosecuting individuals who took part in the Bush administration.
Posted by taikan at 12/31/2008 @ 1:17pm
no moral argument was necessary, germany and Japan were expansionist. to compare Iraq and Afghanistan wars with the world war is shameful. no lies were required in the latter.
your argument is bait and switch. instead of addressing my point you switch to WW2.
unlike you I have personal experience in the aftermath of a great war, great as in large. I grew up in a destroyed country. I know first hand occupation.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/31/2008 @ 12:20pm
Perhaps it needs to be spelled out for you. The moral argument undergirding WW2 was not merely because of the expansionist policies of the axis powers but also because of their barbarity - Japan's horrific civilian abuses in China and SE Asia and likewise Germany. particularly in Eastern Europe but with the addition of its ethnic cleansing of the Jews from every country it invaded. That is the basis on which the moral argument came to rest, even if that was a retrospective argument. In this case Saddam was pursuing similar policies with the same barbarity capriciousness. Thus the same premise was valid.
So JR, Saddam was not expansionist? Ever heard of the Iran/Iraq War or the Kuwait invasion? And his army being the largest in the ME? Possibly to be used for humanitarian relief for the Marsh Arabs? Or have you considered which other ME country, apart from Iran, his WMD program, as monitored by the UN over a long period of time, may have been used against? If you weren't so prone to rush of blood to the head syndrome you may have seen the close parallels with Saddam, the worst dictator (for the same reasons) since Hitler, and the WW2 axis powers.
To repeat. The moral argument for Saddam's removal has precisely the same premises as the moral argument for going to war with Japan and Germany
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/31/2008 @ 1:17pm
... it seems that those who object to a form of torture, that usually has a happy ending, in that the one subjected to it is still alive at the end, are very inconsistent and hypocritical. Posted by lrjones4 at 12/31/2008 @ 06:12am
Oh. I get it. You are FOR torture. But you are not an American. And you are AGAINST capitol punishment, but you support Bush and 'the cabal'. You just needed to fill up a lot of space to say it.
May I suggest an ice pack to reduce the swelling on the right side of your head? Get over there to Kashmir and fix that mess up (which an ignorant englishman caused). Stop shooting innocent people in the subway! And get over there and find those WMD's. Oh, I forgot Saddam was David Copperfields prize student. Poof!
You also seem to think that I am for legal execution, which I am not. Not. That's english (american) for NOT. Speed reading is not a family value.
So ein dummkopf ist mir noch nie untergekommen.
Posted by ficheye at 12/31/2008 @ 2:29pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/31/2008 @ 2:13pm
Odd, I rarely hear you calling for an invasion of Saudi Arabia....Iran, yes...but not so much the Gulf States?!??!???
Posted by Mask at 12/31/2008 @ 2:55pm
To repeat. The moral argument for Saddam's removal has precisely the same premises as the moral argument for going to war with Japan and Germany----Posted by lrjones4 at 12/31/2008 @ 1:17pm
So you supported invading Iraq and toppling Saddam BEFORE 9/11?
In other words, somebody like you would have seen the invasion of Iraq as "inevitable", regardless of what Saddam did or did not do as far as the UN inspectors went or if he had abided by the UN resolutions?
Posted by Mask at 12/31/2008 @ 2:57pm
<i>Second, the United States should become a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. That way, if the investigations result in evidence of violations of international law, such as the international law of war, criminal charges can be brought and prosecuted by prosecutors who are neither Republicans or Democrats, and who have no direct political interest in harming the Republican party, or helping the Democratic party, by prosecuting individuals who took part in the Bush administration.
Posted by taikan at 12/31/2008 @ 1:17pm </i>
No, actually we should NOT do this for at least two reasons. First, I'm pretty sure it would be unconstitutional for the same reason that extraordinary rendition of our own citizens is almost certainly unconstitutional. When the Constitution grants certain protections, the government can't circumvent that by shipping them somewhere else where those protections don't exist. Since the ICC lacks many of the protections (such as a jury of one's peers) that the Constitution provides, it would be unconstitutional to subject our citizens to it.
Second, the ICC is not a particularly good institution anyway. If my memory serves me correctly, a case can begin if even one of the appointed prosecutors elects to begin it. That lends a sort of dangerous arbitrariness to the process and creates a great danger that such prosecutions will be politically-motivated. Moreover, it's not even efficacious; as far as I know, the Court has done virtually nothing.
So in sum, joining the ICC would be bad because:
1) It doesn't work, 2) Even if it did work it would be arbitrary/political, and 3) Even if it worked and even if it wasn't arbitrary, it would probably be unconstitutional
Posted by Thrawn at 12/31/2008 @ 3:18pm
Tony Blair established himself as one of the greatest Prime Ministers in history.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/30/2008 @ 7:43pm
Correction, Tony Blair was a good Prime Minister until he fell in lock step with Bush over the Iraq war....that tarnished his reputation forever with the British people!!!
Posted by Caj at 12/31/2008 @ 3:39pm
Posted by Caj at 12/31/2008 @ 3:39pm
Again, keep in mind, SJCHER is firmly in the 28% Club that still thinks Bush is a great/good President...and believes he'll be "redeemed by history".
"Boy, we need a man like Herbert Hoover, againnnnnnn"---theme song to "All in the Family"
Posted by Mask at 12/31/2008 @ 4:23pm
Putting Bush and his cronies on trial would a huge waste of resources for our country. It would also be very destructive at at time when there are more important things to take care of. Such as our economy and health care.
We need to move on, change the laws so this can't happen ever again.
Let Bush and Cheney disappear and let history take care of them.
Posted by jeffe at 12/31/2008 @ 6:02pm
So you supported invading Iraq and toppling Saddam BEFORE 9/11?
In other words, somebody like you would have seen the invasion of Iraq as "inevitable", regardless of what Saddam did or did not do as far as the UN inspectors went or if he had abided by the UN resolutions?
Posted by Mask at 12/31/2008 @ 2:57pm
I think you have heard my story before. I became aware of what was happening in Iraq through professional engineers and mathematicians who had fled to Australia, in the late 1980s as refugees from the barbarity of the Baathist regime led by Saddam Hussein. I worked with them in an Aussie consultancy company and they made me aware of the terrible, almost unbelievable things that were happening in their country and the horrific human rights abuses their own relatives had been subjected to. That has stayed with me right through the 90's until now.
As I looked into the matter I realised just how complicit America had been in supporting Saddam particularly in the Iran war as it played its usual two-faced game of also supporting Iran secretly. I think the euphemism is called foreign policy realism. Then when the older Bush pulled back from going on to Baghdad to remove Saddam, I held out no hope that America would try to remove this monstrous regime.
So, at that time, having come to the view that America was duplicitous and amoral in its foreign policy, I did not think it would ever happen and certainly inevitable was never part of my expectation but rather hoped that the Iraqis somehow may have been able to do the impossible, even in a police state as powerful as it was, and topple the regime. That was the impossible dream.
It was not until after March 2003 that I came to appreciate that America was a moral country after all.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/31/2008 @ 9:06pm
It was not until after March 2003 that I came to learn that there were a lot of decent and moral Americans on both sides of politics who were just as revolted by the gross human rights violations perpetrated by this monster as I was. Initially I thought that Bush must have been about the only American left with the moral character and strength of personality to act as he did but on investigation I discovered the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and found that the majority of Congress thought exactly as I did, viz. that Saddam had to be removed purely and simply because of his gross human rights violations and the danger he presented to his ME neigbours and peace in the region.
Thus in retrospect and given the ILA 1998 and Bush's tremendous strength of character I'm pretty sure now that it was inevitable. After all it was official US policy just waiting for the right person to implement it. That 9/11 gave impetus to the invasion and a rationale for the wider American public whom, as with most "wider publics", wouldn't know what a moral argument was if it bit them on their collective bum.
I've never bought the WMD argument, except in their use in the ME, Saddam had not a chance in the world of hitting the US mainland with them and the sheer might of the US arsenal would have turned Iraq into a waste land had he tried. That is part of the paranoia that gripped America post 9/11 and warped the judgment of its intelligence agencies as well as most of its politicians.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/31/2008 @ 9:14pm
As a side point, just the fact that such a large percentage of the left including most Democrats have such a negative view of him is enough to give conservatives a lasting positive image.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/31/2008 @ 5:58pm
Correction: "a large percentage of THE ENTIRE COUNTRY"....that's why you're in the 28% Club.
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2009 @ 07:46am
Oh. I get it. You are FOR torture. But you are not an American. And you are AGAINST capitol punishment, but you support Bush and 'the cabal'. You just needed to fill up a lot of space to say it.
Posted by ficheye at 12/31/2008 @ 2:29pm
Well Fichie I'm a bit ambivalent about capitol punishment, mainly because I don't know what it is. Of course if it's about blowing up big cities, unless it's where you live, I'm anti-capitol P.
As far as the other one goes I did not say I was anti-capital punishment but rather said I lived in a country that does not practice it and that it was thus in a position, without hypocrisy, to take a stance on the practice of torture for information gathering. Whereas in the case of the American opponents of torture they are not. That seemed fairly obvious to me though it went right over your head. Let me be more specific.
You on the Left, who generally have little respect for laws that don't fit your ideological framework, have suddenly discovered what a world leading constitution and legal system you have and how that monster Bush and his mentor Cheney by "instituting" a regime of torture for information have sullied your pure name in the eyes of the world.
That F is utter hypocritical bullshit. Other Western nations are well in advance of the US toward a Lefty legal paradise. In other words in the eyes of Lefties in the West, the US has a lot of catching up to do and your laws with respect to capital punishment and severe sentences in general are, in their eyes, almost medieval. So please don't use your imagined superior legal system and laws as a platform to get all holy about the relatively benign use of torture.
(I think you have a pretty good constitution/legal system that it is not being grossly violated by this administration).
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/01/2009 @ 5:37pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/01/2009 @ 4:59pm
What if THE REST OF THE COUNTRY holds a negative view of you....as they do Bush...
badge of honor to the Right??!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2009 @ 11:00am