Tony, near the end of a long post, isn't happy with me for failing to call for Bush's impeachment. It's true; I haven't, although I did print this column, which did call for impeachment if it is determined that Bush broke the law.
I'm still not certain whether he did break the law. I'm not a lawyer, nor a FISA expert, and I don't have time to read all of the relevant commentary. It still seems probable that he broke the law, but I think it's pointless even to consider impeachment as long as there is a reasonable contrary case to be made.
On the other hand, I find this quite disturbing. The president's position on torture now appears to be:
1. We don't torture people.
2. The torture we don't do is legal.
3. If Congress makes torture illegal, the torture we don't do will continue.
Now that, damn it, is an impeachable offense. A president who violates a fundamental American principle of how we treat others, then lies about it, then thumbs his nose at Congress for trying to stop him, belongs in prison. Preferably Abu Ghraib.
And now, two by-the-ways:
1. If you haven't been reading Andrew Sullivan on torture, you ought to start. I've never been a Sullivan fan, but he is indispensable on this topic.
2. I should make it clear that when I said earlier that the Outpost doesn't deal much with national issues, I was referring strictly to the dead-tree edition. What happens on the blog is a different matter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Say that a bomber is coming our way, and will indicriminately attack both civilian and military targets. Say that you've caught other such bombers, and you want information from them that might prevent more bombing and killing in the future. Are you justified in torturing prisoners to get information?
The Vietnamese allegedly tortured John McCain under these circumstances. I guess we forgive them.
Gee that Bush fella sounds pretty scary. I probably should keep an eye on him but right now I’m watching Tropical Storm Zeta which is 1,145 miles southwest of the Azores. And then there’s this H5N1 avian influenza virus. Wow. I’ll never get to sleep tonight!
David,
Please distinguish between torture, aggressive interrogation, and undignified treatment.
Mark - you speak with such asssuredness: 1)torture is justified; 2) torture achieves its desired goal; 3)anyone who opposes the US is guilty; 4)we only turture the guilty ... I've thought for a long time that the damage done by 9/11 ran deeper than people and buildings. It loosed Pandora from her box, allowing us to serve our worst impulses and satisfy our most base instincts. Your statement is evidence that you have thrown out the moral rule book. There's no crime that cannot be justified by paranoia - that people are out to cutoff our heads.
I've been a student of US Post WWII history for too long - torture and murder are old hat - we've been doing it since before my folks even thought of me. What is new is that torture and murder and disappearances have gone mainstream. It's no longer those 'dark forces' working behind the scenes who are doing this - it is people like you who approve. This is very bad for my country.
Rich, there are distinctions between all of those terms, but please don't ask me to spell them out. Plenty of web sites, including Sullivan's, have delved into that question. I just use this handy guideline to try to determine what's proper: If it turns out that the target is innocent, how culpable am I for what I have done to him?
David said: Rich, there are distinctions between all of those terms, but please don't ask me to spell them out.
-------------
I am asking you to spell them out. As soon as you do, your whole argument breaks apart. I've been here before, it's too easy.
Tony asked: And, may I asked when the last beheading was incurred?
Answer: Yesterday
1/2/06 Thailand Yala 1 (killed) 3 (injured) Islamic militants attack four Thai soliders, capturing and beheading one of them.
Link
Rich,
What can you possibly mean? If torture is defined, it disappears?
Tony if I were you I'd go straighten them all out. Fly over to Iraq, and walk up and down the streets of Fallujah singing a hymn. Then after they grab you we'll see what happens. Want to bet me on the outcome?
Tony said: Um, that would be a Thai soldier. Not an innocent.
You will have to do much better Rich if you plan on debating me.
----
David said:Rich,
What can you possibly mean? If torture is defined, it disappears?
------------------------
Tony just demonstrated perfectly how it is important to define things up front. He wanted the last beheading, I answered, he changed the question.
David, if you want to accuse this administration of condoning torture, please do me the favor of at least defining torture. I don't consider panties on the head of the enemy as torture.
Tony when you say Al Queda was manufactured by 'us' who do you mean? Americans? Christians? All non-muslims?
OK, Rich, here's the actual language from the statute in question (although it's still not clear to me why you couldn't have looked this up yourself):
"(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term 'cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
The UN Convention defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
And there's this, too, also from the McCain Amendment:
"No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation."
No, I'm not going to look up the Field Manual for you.
So your point was ... ?
David,
I'm trying to help you make your case. Now, please list all of those occassions when American Military Personnel, who were not held accountable, violated said policies.
Sorry, Rich, I'm through doing homework for you. Just kindly get to your point. I'm arguing that a president who asserts a right to torture contrary to an express congressional ban ought to be impeached. You are arguing ... what?
Seems like with all this torture going on, certainly you could point some out.
You bunch of L7 weenies. What do you think war is, a parlor game?
Impeach Bush. Be serious. You guys probably think Nancy Pelosi is fine table pussy.
Well then Tony, how come the terrorists don't just kill Americans?
Rich, I could indeed point out some examples, but what would be the point? Are you going to argue that no torture ever took place? That if it did the miscreants were punished? That it was legal? That it wasn't torture? You must have some point, and it's a mystery to me why you won't say what it is.
Tony said: Pre war attacks in Iraq by any terrorist group? Zero
------------
Of course not, why bite the hand that feeds?
David,
Why would your answer depend upon where I am taking this? You're the one that is charging an impeachable offense, surely your facts will survive.
Rich, I am arguing that flouting a congressional ban is impeachable. I am not interested in drawing up the particulars of the indictment.
Where you are going with this matters a lot. If you intend to argue that there have been no instances of unpunished torture, then it would be sufficient for me to produce one example to prove you wrong. I'm might be willing to take some time to do that, although I doubt that you would be persuaded.
If you are arguing that instances of torture are isolated and unrepresentative, then I would have to compile a large body of evidence to prove you wrong. I don't have the time or inclination to do that. And I'm not sure it could be done. I don't know how widespread torture has been, and I don't have the resources to answer the question.
If you want to argue that what has occurred doesn't amount to torture, then we have a different argument that, frankly, doesn't much interest me. I have no desire to wrangle over legal technicalities.
If you are arguing that the president has a legal right to order torture regardless of the wishes of Congress, then that's a fight I'm willing to have. But specific evidence isn't necessary to have that argument.
So which argument do you want to have? Don't expect me to just idly toss out bits of evidence for you to pick at. I can make better use of my time.
Tony,
How about the name Ayman Al-Zawahiri? Ring any bells? Maybe you shouldn't have smoked that last bowl dude.
David,
You made the accusation, you make the case. So far you have provided a link and some faulty conclusions based on it.
Your points 1, 2, and 3 only work if you start from the premise that Bush is lying.
Tony,
That was awful short of me, first post in the morning and I apologize for the "smoking that last bowl" crack. Just to show no hard feelings, I'll add the following information:
From Stephen F. Hayes's book, The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004). The first paragraph of the last chapter (pp. 177-78) sums up some of the evidence:
Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack...
Tony,
Just to show that really, there is no hard feelings, I'll provide evidence that supports your side of the argument No Links to Saddam, al-Qaeda pair claim
So at least "two of the terrorist network's senior leaders" agree with your assessment. I certainly hope we didn't torture them to get any information.
Rich,
You, on the other hand, have made no point whatsover. Obviously, we have nothing to discuss.
David,
Of course we have nothing to discuss, none of these blathering "Impeach Bush" topics have any content.
Adios tony,
remember, don't inhale, only exhale.
A very frustrating thread. Tony is on to a thing or two, Mark has nightmares about Muslims, Rich is focused on minutae, David is trying to get Rich into reasoned debate without success.
One of the essential elements of American citizenship is a bed-ridden case of amnesia. You've got to forget Vietnam and tiger cages and interrogation on helicopters with prisoners tossed overboard and, eventually, 3 million dead. You've got to forget El Salvador and Central America in the 1980's; Nicaragua and the Contras; US support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, and support for him in 1991 when he put down internal revolts by Shiites and Kurds, US sanctions that killed a million Iraqi children in the 1990s under Clinton ... you've got to forget all of this. And I see that most everyone does..." To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back form oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while take account of the reality which one denies – this is all indispensably necessary..." to be a nationalist.
Mark T— I’d rather be out there wasting subhumans and doing something good for the planet than lying around on the couch reading the New York Times and dying from AIDS.
Just when I thought the level of debate on this thread couldn't sink any lower, Black Jack manages to lower it. How about we just stop this whole discussion right here and move on?
Move on? Gee, you'd think that somebody that was screaming about impeachment would find the topic important enough to defend his position. Guess not. Nothing here folks, move along.
Rich,
Defend it from what? You have yet to present a single argument stating any substantive disagreement with anything I have said. Until you are able to do so, my argument stands as written.
Whatever you say david.
You're the one that posted a link and somehow miraculously arrive at the conclusion that impeachment is called for.
Post a Comment