What,

Your inclusion of Padilla is the first bright light in this discussion. It convolutes all the arguments. But it doesn’t effect Merk’s argument. You’re arguing de jure, he’s arguing de facto. You’re both right. That’s the paradox in geopolitics. (Life?) How can things that are opposite both be true? Only humans can create such a mess.

And I don’t think Merk is arguing FOR anything here, other than the state of things. And in that he is, sadly, correct.

This country did not want to invade Iraq, but this country did. As Coach will tell you, other forces are at work. But the ultimate responsibility of any action of a State lies with the populace.

Right now the people of Iraq are suffering immensely because they had a despot for a leader. Their fault? Nope, but ultimately, the buck does NOT stop at the top, unless it’s going into the drawer.

Merkwurdigliebe,

I apologize for the insane remark. To be constructive, I realize that the effect of the Geneva Conventions is colloquially considered “international law,” but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have the force of U.S. law, which makes it more that merely “international.” The constitution basically says that ANY type of law is U.S. law if in the form of a ratified treaty, which Geneva is. It is not correct to say the constitution is subverted by international law, it is correct to say that congress by it’s own choice adopted NEW law in the form of ratification and that this new law has the backing of the U.S. Constitution. It doesn’t make sense to argue that there is a case where it is in the U.S.’s best interest not to follow its own Constitution; by definition that would NOT be in the United State’s best interest.

Second, you write that we are only speaking of torturing foreign prisoners. That is not true. Jose Padilla was one U.S. citizen we do know about who was tortured as an “enemy combatant,” a term defined broadly enough to include U.S. citizens. To explicitly equate foreign combatants with domestic ones, as the administration has by defining Padilla the same way it does foreign terrorists, is to equate the consequences of domestic law with international law; the administration doesn’t act in a way that appreciates the difference. The implications are obviously disturbing: depriving a U.S. citizen of due process is evidence the administration is not acting in the interests of the United States of America.

Third, you write: “if any power decides to act in its own interests, it’s not that there are no consequences, its what the consequences will be and what will be their severity…in this case for the US, the consequence are nil considering that there is no power on the same level, currently”

The truth is that it was not in the U.S.’s interest to invade Iraq or to torture prisoners. It was in the interest of some well-connected people and the oil industry. As you yourself wrote: “the hegemon seeks oil and further ME destabilization, and the “World” could do little to stop it”

What you’re really saying is not that the world cannot stop the U.S. You’re saying the world, including the U.S., cannot stop the “hegemon,” the few people that privately benefit from being responsible for waging this war. Your own statements bring the matter out of an argument over “international law.” This is significant because Geneva is irrelevant when we’re talking about private interests; it would be a criminal matter, not an inter-state one.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Coach– unfortunately, that’s been the historical inevitability…America is having its time in the sun, but eventually it too will follow the route of similar empires and powerful states, and crumble or be overwhelmed…whomever the top power in the world has been, be it the Mongols, the Ottomans, the Britis Empire, the Soviet Union (for its own sphere), all dictated whether they would follow international law, or whether they would not, whether they would overwhelm weaker foes, or would not

again, remember, state actions on a global scale are increasingly amoral– take for example, Iraq…the hegemon seeks oil and further ME destabilization, and the “World” could do little to stop it, regardless of how many Iraqi’s are harmed, because they’re just blips on some dudes number chart

this is increasingly troubling, but most americans seem way too complacent about the course their country takes…it just reaffirms Gramsci’s theory of base-structure coercion

Merk: Are you saying it’s okay for the world’s superpower, whoever that may be, to be able to do whatever it wants because nobody can stop them?

Boy, that sure must be an easy thing to say when you live in the world’s most powerful nation. But, what if you didn’t? Things will change someday, and I hope your tune changes along with it. Being the biggest doesn’t mean that you can/should go around beating up little people. Eventually, somebody will take you down……Eventually somebody will challenge the U.S., unlike anything Iraq could ever have done……..

(Merkwurdigliebe)

what– the very heart of this discussion is over international law, over whether foreign nationals should be subject to the benefits of our constitution, which they should not

complacency within the general US popluation over booting out their leaders for breaking Constitutional law is immaterial to whether the top power decides to follow international law, which historically it does sporadically, usually in areas of trade…if you want to turn this into a petition of grievances against the Bush administration, well daisy if you do sir, and i will happily follow…for all the laws he’s broken, people arent exactly clamoring to get him out of office, at least not aggressively, and unfortunately son, at this stage in the game, it aint gonna happen…

by the way, you finally did stumble onto the nature of internaitonal politics, which, is VERY at the heart of this argument (vis a vis whether the US Constitution is subject to international law and vice versa), if “someone is able to commit a crime, they should be exempt from the consequences”– no, if any power decides to act in its own interests, it’s not that there are no consequences, its what the consequences will be and what will be their severity…in this case for the US, the consequence are nil considering that there is no power on the same level, currently.

we can keep sparring, but eventually one of us is gonna get tired…but all i’m saying is that i recognize what the US is, or has become since at least the Ike administration…lets make this constructive shall we? any solutions to current problems aside from baselessly calling me insane?

Merkwurdigliebe,

You are not and have never stated the truth during this discussion, probably because like most people, you are not intelligent enough to grasp what you are actually saying. We are not talking about international politics or war, we are talking about the legal effect of the U.S. Constitution on its own citizens. I will say it again: since the constitution binds U.S. citizens to ratified treaties, citizens that violate those treaties are criminals. This includes those leaders who have had a hand in drafting and acting upon principles which are in obvious violation of the constitution. It has nothing to do with foreign policy or the way nations act toward each other, it has to do with U.S. citizens holding other U.S. citizens accountable for breaking U.S. law.

Your entire argument is ridiculous. You basically say that since someone is able to commit a crime, they should be exempt from the consequences. Another way of saying this is that there is no crime, no law and that there are no consequences for anything, since the fact that someone can do something proves his innocence. To think that way is to prove your own insanity and also your hostility to the U.S., since we are a nation of laws.

Whether or not you agree with what the U.S. is doing is immaterial; whether or not you agree with a particular law is immaterial. The simple fact is that members of this administration committed crimes against the people of the United States and you do not believe in holding them accountable. Please tell me you are intelligent enough to understand this fact because so far you have not proven your ability to.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

What– also, you’re making the usual mistake when talking about state politics: remember, action at the international level is amoral, or when not explicitly amoral, is driven by Weberian rational legal structures that will do whatever is in their best interests over “rules” or “international law”, be it for preservation, expansion, etc…what is horrible and taboo on a personal level, or outlawed by law within soveriegn borders, tends to be rendered moot at the international level

in a system of global anarchy, amorality is the way things are run

(Merkwurdigliebe)

sorry what, but i’m going to continue to keep posting here despite your breathless hyperbole about how authoritarian i appear…You’re probably not a naive and intellectually vapid as your posts indicate…perhaps you should stop posting lest you actually bring some substance to the table

again, just because i’m stating the truth doesnt mean that i like the way things are going, but there is a certain pattern throughout history of dominance of powerful countries over weaker ones, for whatever reason…if you are to blind, naive, or retarded to see that all the US does doesnt glitter gold, well then i’m sorry its a hard nut to swallow, but the truth is still the truth, no matter how unsettling…I am critical of america because I do love this country, and believe our foreign policy would change were more people educated in how global politics work…an education you seem to, unfortunately, lack

and this view is not controversial by any means…Noam Chomsky has expressed similar views about US Global hegemony, would you call him an authoritarian, and tell him to childlessly to go back to Iran? It is also prominent among Marxist and Neo-Marxist thinkers, as well as many libertarians, and people who in general dont have their heads up their @sses

so to reiterate, NO, i dont believe that things should be the way they are, but the historical inevitability is that “the strong do what they will, and the weak do what they must”

now if you had paid attention during history class, and/or new how international politics works you would know that this has, is, and probably always will be the case…human action is by nature violent towards one another…technology has changed, the human tendency to violence to one’s neighbor and to overwhelm the weak is well documented

Merkwurdigliebe,

The simple fact that someone is bigger and stronger than someone else does not give that person ultimate rule over the weaker person. You are arguing in favor of rapists, murderers, pedophiles and thieves to be allowed to rule you. This says more about your own faulty mind than anything else.

You wrote: “my argument is not anti-law, it is that the law is only meaningful when the top power decides to acknowledge it”

What if the “top power” is a pedophile terrorist-Hitler who bans democracy and burns Jews in ovens? My guess is that you would go along with that simply because you have no religion or morals; your only belief is that you deserve power over other people.

Your statements reveal you to be an authoritarian personality: one who submits to the rule of the powerful simply because they are powerful. You could not be further from American and in fact it would not surprise me to learn you are Russian, Iranian or North Korean.

Please stop posting here. Americans deserve an informed debate and you are the definition of uninformed. Go back to Iran where you belong.

Merk,

Evidence would seem to support both of your premises. Progress, if indeed that’s what we’re witnessing, (we’re certainly going SOMEWHERE) is not without some pain and, it can be argued, loss.

Reptiles shed their skin, birds chase away their young and the new leader of a pride of lions eats the babies. Are we so different?

(Merkwurdigliebe)

you still didnt contradict my point…and the Iraq war is case in point: when the global hegemon decides its going to do something, outside of Weberian rational-legal structures, there is little that can be done to stop it, any state, particularly one in a postition of power and/or a position to gain something will act in its own interests, whether that means following international law or breaking it

The US breaks laws or upholds them when it is in its best interest…my argument is not anti-law, it is that the law is only meaningful when the top power decides to acknowledge it, especially in the state of anarchy at the global level, so yes international law is in a sense meaningless, unless supported by the one with the most firepower (currently the US)…it was the same when the British were the top power, and so on and so forth

remember, the raison d’etat is largely amoral at the international level, at least since the time the first modern nation states…try again “what”

and the Iraq war wasnt so much as illegal as it was the historical inevitablilty of a core country exploiting the periphery/semi-periphery for its resources…countries never do anything without cause, in this case oil securing and the greater de-stabilization of the ME were the goal

Dirty Dennis– i’m not so sure the world is moving together…if anything our new inherent closeness is spurring more and more conflict…it seems conflict has intensified the more and more cultures bump up against each other, and the new closeness is also driving people more towards introspection

Merkwurdigliebe,

If the U.S. joins in making international law and then breaks it without consequence, then international law is meaningless.

Your argument is that because the U.S. is powerful enough to both make and break law, it should be free to do both without consequence. That is the same thing as saying since a rapist is powerful enough to rape a woman, he should be allowed to do so.

Your argument is anti-law (another way of saying this is “criminal”). I fail to see why anyone should take the words of a criminal seriously.

As a critic of this distracting war however, I do enjoy that you characterize the Iraq war as illegal without meaning to. Your words have more weight than you realize.

Damn Jeff, you need to get yourself some of that good weed. You’re sick man! Thank God you and your wacko friends won’t be running the show for much longer. But I’m sure “y’all” will come up with a way to go out with a real bang. Maybe pull Osama from some hole you’ve been keeping him in, just before the election, so America will think “how wonderful the republican’ts are,” and how only they can protect us from “terrorism.” It’s twisted, f’d up logic like yours that has ruined our nation. But don’t take my word for it, yours speak volumes. Thankfully though, after hearing the same drivel for the last 7 + years, people have grown accustom to tuning it out. You sound like Charlie Brown’s teacher. Yes, we may fall like Rome, but not because we lose the spirit to preserve our nation, but rather, due to our government’s belief that we are invincible.

(Jed Clampett)

a lack of will to defend the nation comes from the ruling class losing it’s moral compass and forgetting that the other citizens deserve justice, happiness and prosperity as well.

Jeff– I guess you won’t mind when we use enhanced interrogation techniques on the current administration since they are so reticent to provide the information willingly and have shown themselves to be dissemblers. Isn’t that the justification Bushney used for using waterboarding? “…they dissasemble, that means they are trained to not tell the truth”
Except in my version of it the interrogations should be televised to the american public, so they can see firsthand why openness in public matters is paramount. No, it is not up to a ‘chosen few’ to protect us from ourselves… particularly those who have proven themselves to be biased and selfish… in other words, politicians.

DirtyDennis—No, the President does not have the authority to do whatever he wants. But in certain “in extremis” circumstances he can do what he needs to do to protect life. Not doing that would be moral cowardice. You actually need to psycho-analyze yourself, I think. You might find a deep seated fear of Republicans. Or maybe even penis envy. And the crack about “Imagine the red army walking around your local star bucks,” is just plain whacked! You need to lay off the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and especially that good weed. Reality bites DD. Sometimes you have to actually fight and make tough decisions to protect those who can’t seem to protect themselves from themselves. You know the type. Reflect deep. Hey, I am being a little facetious here so don’t get to worked up. Just enjoying the banter.

Beacon of Hope—My guess is you’re the chapter president of Code Pink. My guess is you’ve made a suicide pact with the Bill of Rights too, that is fine but most of us have not. Just a reminder Pinky, your hero, Bill Clinton, gutted the military and screwed our intelligence services so bad that his government failed to detect the 9/11 terrorists entering the country. Or did you forget that. WE lost 3000 citizens “before” we went after them abroad. I haven’t agreed with everything Bush has done either. I think he’s actually been too retrained. Yeah I guess we could just crawl up again under Bill Clinton’s desk like Monica and wait and hope the terrorists don’t do anything. I am sure that will work. I guess we should just feel safe looking to your Bacon of Dope…hope I mean. Oh, and I am glad I disgust you. It feels go to know that. Thanks. Oh, and get a hair cut!

Anonymous—First, thank you for writing something thoughtful, rational and civil. The argument about torture is really just about waterboarding. Waterboarding is not torture. We waterboard our own military pilots during training. There is no physical harm to a person that is waterboarded. Real torture, that is actions that would cause organ failure or death, I am against. All 3 of the al Qaeda terrorists that we DID waterboard, DID provide very good intelligence that resulted in the disruption and arrest of other terrorists plotting to kill innocent people. So you can’t say tough tactics, that some consider torture, don’t work. It is very unwise to tie the hands of interrogators from certain tough interogation tactics. Remember, our debate about this is in the open. One tactic interrogators like to have is fear, but we have already removed that with this foolish public debate. This matter should have been debated in secret on Capitol Hill. Our representatives can decide in secret what we will or will not do to extract information. A public debate brings out all the whackos and clouds the real issue. Democracy means drift, it means a lack of control and a lack of immediate action. No doubt our nation will fall. Our empire will dissolve into ruin. But it will from a lack of will, a lack of vitality, and a lack of determination to do what you have to do to survive. This won’t happen soon, but, like Rome, we too will eventually lose the spirit to preserve our nation.

(Jed Clampett)

right, just ignore the last half century and you are not a source of evil anymore, you are good!!

Priceless!!!

evil will justify itself in any way, shape or form possible. Self awareness is it’s #1 enemy. There is a reason why the enemy of humans is known as the great deceiver, the master of obfuscation… a master of puppets if you will, blinding those with a desire to do good through acceptance of those that do evil.
Do you really think those ancients text are merely superstitions and fables?… perhaps they were a way to explain a very complex situation to a very simple human race. Too bad humans chose not to heed the warnings or recognize they were being invaded by a foreign entity.

Merkglirbely: You said this - “the US as the global hegemon, or top power in mouthbreather terms, sets international law, and due to its power it can break said laws if they are in its interests, or follow them…”

So, it’s bad for those ‘other’ dictators you mentioned to act this way, but it’s okay for the United States? In a nutshell, that’s what everyone’s asking. Why is it okay for the U.S. to act just like the dictators it despises and labels as terrorist states?

This war notwithstanding, as it’s always been all about the oil. But, nevertheless, it’s a prime example of the U.S. acting just like those other dictators, except we have bigger bombs.

Jed,

I believe, “on the whole,” provides Merk some slack. If you take away the last 25 years of Con Craziness, you can make the point this country, “one the whole,” promotes good. It does it for it’s own self-interests, see the Marshall Plan, but that shouldn’t mitigate any good accomplished.

As in all things, this is a ‘what have you done for me lately’ world, and the answer is, ’screw things up.’

I seriously doubt there are many among us who can take credit for the “on the whole good” that’s been done, but we all share responsibility for our current world situation. Responsibility, not blame.

Merk,

As I have avowed frequently, we’re in a process of evolution. It is disquieting, I’m sure you’ll agree, to see that course take a negative direction. One day, 100, 500, 1000 years from now, this world will be one. The question is not ‘will it’ but ‘when it will.’ At such time the legalese arguments for these issues will, we can hope, be conducted on a loftier and more sophisticated level. We can hope.

(Jed Clampett)

I guess that clears up for me why the US actually fed the regimes of Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan as they swallowed up their neighbors. Americans were perfectly willing to promote a imperialist warmongers as long as they pay the bills. Apparently they still are as evinced by the support of China despite it’s transgressions on the Inalienable Rights of it’s own citizens.

I would guess Gliebe that by your own description America has proven itself to be an anarchist nation in world matters. As a purveyor of chaos and disharmony in the world, it has devolved into a fascist state no better than those nations it supported and profited from until they themselves were threatened.

“…but on the whole, the US acts as a force for good, or at least one that is better than the alternative of complete chaos and anarchy at the global level”

Are those beer goggles or rose colored glasses you are wearing. When you pay close attention to what is going on in the world at the moment and objectively look at america’s actions in the world, you have to realize that other’s complaints are valid. And that our support for oppressive and repressive regimes is not ignored by the citizens of those nations or others who are paying attention to what it going on.

While you are right about the ICC and the UN seem to be incapable of preventing the greedy and brutal from stealing the labor of their nation, and that it does very little to actually expose the principals and more importantly those that bankroll and provide other logistical support for their crimes, it still serves the purpose of bringing some measure of justice to those that have been wronged. The problem is that those that profit from the crimes of the regime are not exposed or punished. Banks that launder their money are allowed to pay a miniscule fine and admit no wrongdoing. The corporations that profit from the reduced labor costs seldom even get the scrutiny they deserve, much less accept responsability. While you pour your disdain on the ICC and UN for innaction, how could you ignore your own nations activity to support those despots and enjoy the profits of their crimes? Isn’t a nation that supports despots with it’s financial institutions and other industries just as guilty as those criminal governments they say they revile?

When you allow a perversion of truth to prevail, do not be surprised if the lie is also being perpetrated on yourself. You see, these men that impose these inequities and transgressions on the citizens of earth care not for nationality, religiosity, loyalty or anything other than themselves and their ability to criminaly control the populace in order to elevate their status, wealth and power to deny anyone not compliant to their desires the persuit of happiness in a level playing field.

Always

nice

(Merkwurdigliebe)

either you arent a student of history, or you’re naive enought to believe that the US follows international law because it’s the “right” thing to do, or because it “has to”…the US as the global hegemon, or top power in mouthbreather terms, sets international law, and due to its power it can break said laws if they are in its interests, or follow them…there’s not much the international community can do to stop it (take the Iraq War)…but on the whole, the US acts as a force for good, or at least one that is better than the alternative of complete chaos and anarchy at the global level

and again, please find some evidence of where the Geneva Convention has actually been followed, or stopped such actions from happening, or literally done anything aside from making those in the core feel good about themselves “taking the high road” while the periphery continues to spin out of control…i merely cited those dictators to prove how worthless the Convention has been

again, i dont agree with the message, but i’m also a realist and see things for what they are…the truth is the truth no matter how much it abhors you…

“true, the Constitution binds the US to treaties in theory, but not in practice (as the US, as the global hegemon, will do as it pleases to fullfil its own ends, and unpleasant truth, but a truth nontheless)”

No, the constitution binds the US to treaties in practice as well. This is true of every treaty the U.S. has ratified. Just because the US is a global “hegemon” as you call it does not mean its representatives are free to violate the constitution.

The Geneva Conventions are-through the constitution- the law of the land. Those that violate that law are criminals. That principle should not be that difficult to understand.

And simply parading names of the world’s most vicious dictators (”Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Nikolai Ceaucescu, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic”) does not mean the U.S. needs to turn George Bush into a similar dictator or that adopting the methods of those dictators are necessary in winning any and all wars.

The U.S. is the country that it is precisely because we value democracy and abhor dictatorship. To promote dictators of the 20th century as examples of how the U.S. should act in wartime is quite simply un-American.

(Jed Clampett)

Do you really believe I am saying they should be allowed to vote here?
Only a moron or someone trying to dissemble would think that a foreigner would have a vote or even some influence in our elections, but an australian, Rupert Murdoch has more influence in our elections via his media networks than any single one of us will ever have, I can assure you prince bandar and the jewish league have much more influence in american politics than the people will ever have.

Even you understand perfectly well what the words in the declaration mean even though you try to feign ignorance or choose to display a totalitarian nature that renders the document invalid in your interpretation(those are the aims of the right). Any man has the right to defend himself and his nation against foreign agressors or domestic enemies(corporate pirates), whether that be with a gun, a bomb, a nuke or a mdrfkn rock if need be. Which explains why so many Iraqis are killing our guys instead of each other as they should be. Apparently we also feel that Irans attempt to defend itself from a vastly more powerful entity with a nuke is an affront that should be met with the very force they are trying to protect against. Do they not have a right to bear arms? Apparently the US doesn’t seem to think so.

It is not something that puts you ‘a bit above anyone else’, it is your own personal arrogance that says you are way above everyone else, so when their needs for petroleum(or whatever other comodity… say people) conflicts with yours, fk’em, send a few troops and no more problem. Our forefathers understood that gunboat diplomacy would only achieve the creation of enemies and the promotion of crooks to positions of power. A constitution that makes all men equal, as the holy books also have, should be a unifying document that says, you don’t have to fear being oppressed because of your beliefs and expression of those beliefs, those in positions of power can be held accountable for the abuse of their power. It’s unfortunate that we can no longer say that we support freedom and plurality since we created those despots and support the enslavement of their people by doing business with them and allowing them to enjoy the fruits of their constituents labor without demanding at least a modicum of dignity for the workers(heard of China, Guatemala?).
It isn’t that constitution that puts you above anyone else, it is your own arrogance and disdain for others, inculcated into the subconscious of your nation when you started off treating those that lived in these lands before as subhuman, then brought in slaves and treated them as subhuman, then imposed your will on the cuban people and prevented them from pursuing their happiness, then involved yourselves in the politics of other nations and supported regimes that treated their peoples as subhuman. Now the elites in your country treat the rest of you as subhuman and you are unable to even recognize it.
And you have the GALL to call yourselves a CHRISTIAN nation? if you were capable of being ashamed, you should be.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

yes Jed, the Constitution states that all men have certain unalienable rights, but only guarantees those rights to US CITIZENS

thats the whole point of it being called the Constitution of the UNITED STATES…the founding fathers didnt call it the constitution of the world…other countries may have adopted its tenents, but it is in no way a universal club…then sovereignty would be meaningless, why have borders, or even decide to be a state if the rules of a sovereign entity apply to everyone under the sun? Such an act would render our Constitution meaningless…should foreign nationals now also have the right to vote in US elections due to the 14th Amendment? Should foreign nationals now have the right to bear arms, as guaranteed in the 2nd?

and it has acted as such since our founding…British nationals captured during the War of 1812 were not afforded Constituional rights because they weren’t citizens, neither were German or Japanese prisoners…so unfortunately, yes our Constitution does put america a bit above anyone else, its why nearly all free democracies have patterned their Constitutions after our own

this isnt to condone torture, but it is inherently slippery ground to interpret the Constitution as a giving everyone some sort of rights, regardless of whether they’re a citizen

(Jed Clampett)

Gliebe and others… there’s a very interesting series running on HBO called “John Adams”.

You might want to watch and learn a little about how the founding fathers struggled about how to assign or deny rights. You will notice that in the declaration they did not make a distinction between americans and other humans as you tend to do. You see, even though they were surrounded by the abomination of slavery, they understood that those slaves were also people though they did not enjoy the benefits of american citizenship. The founding fathers understood that those laws they were drafting, the constituents and basis for their rules and regulations for their country. In it, though they were businessmen and scholars, they did not say only americans enjoy these rights, they said ALL MEN are endowed by their CREATOR with the rights expressed. In order to protect these rights the constitution was drafted. The constitution was not writen as a document to separate and elevate americans from the rest of humanity, but rather as a unifying force to bring the cultures of earth together in liberty, free from the abuses of greed and power.
Any civilized race will avoid doing to others those things that they would find abhorrent in their contemporaries behaviour. This is the basis of the rule of due onto others as you would have done to yourself. If you wouldn’t want to be subjected to torture, then don’t condone it being applied to anyone, to accept a technique being used on others for your own selfish needs is tacit approval of it’s use on yourself for whatever the STATE needs. You’ve always enjoyed your ‘rights’, perhaps you need to loose them for a while to appreciate why they were protected.

Jeff, I guess you believe that America and its president has the authority to do whatever it wants whenever it wants. One must wonder what Jeff is REALLY afraid of…..because it certainly sounds as if he’s living under the boogeyman delusion.

America creates as many terrorists, if not more, by its actions abroad, than it could EVER hope to eliminate. Imagine the red army walking around your local starbucks……would you be happy? How long before you fight back? BAM! You just became a terrorist by fighting back……..

Merk: Looking for, and subsequently finding, a technicality that allows and justifies torture is, basically, a witchhunt to justify horrible actions. And, yes we know waterboarding is used on soldiers in training. How does that justify using flawed means to gather information? Besides, information and intelligence are obviously NOT what we are looking for. Remember folks, the information and intelligence about the 9/11 PLOT were available long before 9/11.

People who want to torture to ‘gather life-saving intelligence’ need to address their own fears. What are you REALLY afraid of? Do you feel more secure if we (America) goes around pointing its gun at everybody?

Okay, this has more meat.

Merk,

A good mathematician can make 1 + 1 = 3. That DON’T make it right.

This country USED to be ‘above the fray.’ (See the arrogant thread.) Now that we know we never WERE ‘above the fray,’ check out the Indian Wars, we have to come to grips with reality.

And the reality is simple, the world is shrinking. It doesn’t happen overnight, but somewhere along the line, international law must begin to take control. And if we are ‘the best,’ then we must lead. At the moment we’re retreating.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

true, the Constitution binds the US to treaties in theory, but not in practice (as the US, as the global hegemon, will do as it pleases to fullfil its own ends, and unpleasant truth, but a truth nontheless), and that is still irrelevant to whether foreign nationals, of any stripe, should be the beneficiaries of the finer points of our Constitution

as for the Geneva Convention, not to be cynic, but it hasnt done much but make those in the 1st world feel all high and mighty over those in the 3rd, above all the savages by putting rules to warfare, an act that is anarchic by nature, and do nothing to prevent mankind’s darker impulses, rules that have been consistenly broken by those in the 3rd world with much hand wringing but not much done (Cambodia, Darfur, Rwanda, Tibet, the Iran-Iraq War, the Soviet-Afghanistan War, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict…the list is endless) you might say…in any case, the Geneva Convention was dead when the North Vietnamese proceded to use it for toilet paper throughout the 60s and 70s

that said, I’m sure that Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Nikolai Ceaucescu, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic all felt terrible about the Geneva Convention rules they flaunted, yet still did nothing to stop them

I was always under the impression that the u.s. was bound by the constitution to honor all ratified treaties.

Is the Geneva Conventions not a treaty ratified by the U.S. and does it not allow waterboarding?

(Merkwurdigliebe)

to play devil’s advocate, technically Yoo is correct– the US Constitution, specifically the 5th and 8th Amendments therein, only apply to US CITIZENS, not foreign nationals of whatever origin

one has to be a citizen of the US to enjoy the benefits and the protections of the Constitution, otherwise sovereignty would be moot point…Czech’s are not subject to priviliges granted under the Ugandan constitution, Cubans have no rights under the constitution of South Korea, and so on an so forth

again, the US doesnt have to follow international law, in accordance with national sovereignty…so, in some instances, yes federal law does supercede international law…it is inherently dangerous for another entity to dictate how a state should act, except in certain situations (genocide being one)…one only has to look at the futility of the UN to stop any of the genocides of the 1990s, or being able to stop the US, as the global hegemon, from acting to its own interests

also interesting is that they use waterboarding in the training of our own troops…that said, any use of coercive interrogation techniques should be used sparingly and with reserve, if used at all

to play devil’s advocate, technically Yoo is correct– the US Constitution, specifically the 5th and 8th Amendments therein, only apply to US CITIZENS, not foreign nationals of whatever origin

one has to be a citizen of the US to enjoy the benefits and the protections of the Constitution, otherwise sovereignty would be moot point…Czech’s are not subject to priviliges granted under the Ugandan constitution, Cubans have no rights under the constitution of South Korea, and so on an so forth

again, the US doesnt have to follow international law, in accordance with national sovereignty…so, in some instances, yes federal law does supercede international law…it is inherently dangerous for another entity to dictate how a state should act, except in certain situations (genocide being one)…one only has to look at the futility of the UN to stop any of the genocides of the 1990s, or being able to stop the US, as the global hegemon, from acting to its own interests

also interesting is that they use waterboarding in the training of our own troops…that said, any use of coercive interrogation techniques should be used sparingly and with reserve, if used at all

Jeff,
Cowards like your self who are willing to eviscerate our constitution for the illusion of security disgust me. The Bush administration’s bravado and policies have increased the dangers both to our country and to the brave men and women who serve to protect the constitution which you see fit to trample on. Let me repeat myself, you and Bush disgust me!

I don’t know which side I come down on regarding torture. But speaking from my own personal experience, every time I punch my clown, I come up with a big payoff.

Jeff,

That’s a pretty huge assumption that torture “extracts important life saving information from terrorists.” Ask most experts in the information gathering arena and torture usually yields crap information. Amazingly, people will do or say anything to stop the feeling of death by drowning.

Regardless of your feelings about whether or not torture yields meaningful results, the more important question is do you trust government with that awesome responsibility. When I used to be a Republican, one of the ideals that drew me to the party was that the government should not be trusted and that when they get involved they usually screw things up.

I just wonder if you’d feel different if it was Bill or Hillary out there disregarding the constitution and just allowing people they deem terrorists to be tortured.

(Jed Clampett)

You are right, it isn’t torture. Let’s start using it on Gonzales and Meyers to find out what really happened with the politization of the justice department.
Then we can use it on Brownie to find out how a horse show promoter came to be in discontrol of the worlds largest disaster relief agency.
Then let’s strap Rummy down and find out how he set up the invasion of Iraq and nitpicked the intelligence they needed to make their ’slam dunk’ case.

I guess that means Congress will be initiating impeachment hearings.

Of course the President can overide international law if he needs too. If the circumstances are servere enough the President should do what he needs to do. The argument here is whether interogation methods like waterboarding are torture. In my opinion it is not torture. I am sure we will stop doing it, but that is just another tool we will foolishly remove so we cannot extract important life saving information from terrorists. We should just let liberals do the interogations. Maybe asking some one name, rank and jihad number, in a harsh way of couse, will work…That will break them I’m sure. That is the problem with liberals they are most interested in law than life. In some ways there as bad as UBL.

Surely the Senate Select Committee for Defense Intelligence Oversight knew this was being done all along. If not they darn well should have known

I blame John D Rockefeller IV for the terrible job of oversight he’s done ever since he’s been on that committee. He should do us all a favor and resign from that committee ASAP. I am a staunch Democrat and reside in his district but I will never support him again until he resigns from intel oversight. His malfeasance on the legality of torture, the FISA bill, the leaked Iran NIE revealing that there was no nuke capabilities and his vote on the Iraq invasion reveal him as either a dolt or a neocon. Not to mention the fact that he hasn’t demanded any hearings on why the FBI has never arrested those responsible for the anthrax attacks.

Jay Rockefeller’s position on that committee since 2000 has far too long been a threat to Americans and our constitutional rights, which he supposedly swore an oath to protect when he became U.S. Senator.

The 911 commission report gave congress’ oversight a failing grade and recommended more oversight, but Jay Rockefeller has given us progressively less.

I’m done listening to his lame excuses. He’ll be the only reason I won’t vote straight party-line ticket in the general election of 2008.

(Jed Clampett)

TD, why are you sick? is this news to you or merely confirmation of something we all already knew.

The Bushney administration surrounded themselves with yes-men and collaborators. It is no surprise that they would have John Yoo draft a document that would justify their actions after the fact Just like they found in Gonzales, and previously Meyers, a willing participant in the firing of district attorneys for political reasons; just like they found in Condy after Colin Powell and Patreus after a litany of retired generals who did not see the conduct of war the same as the conduct of business. Ultimately, the responsability for all this falls squarely on those that were responsible for Vietnam, were prevented from invading iraq in 91 by a wizened old Bush that understood the importance of valid intelligence and acting upon it accordingly, and ultimately accomplished the petroleum coup they had been trying for for almost 3 decades. Anything other than war crimes tribunal for all the top echelon of this administration would be a travesty. Not to mention Brownie and an oil industry attorney in charge of the academy of science, an idustry insider in charge of FCC, a big pharma physician in charge of FDA. wow, seems the republicans put the wolves in charge of the hen house… who could have imagined what was going to happen? it’s like tryingi to imagine what would happen if you invade Iraq or maybe Iran or Darfur.