Constitutional Opinions
(Page 2 of 2)
IRONICALLY, IN THE MIDDLE of Mukasey’s speech about opponents of the War failing to make their case in law or reason, he was interrupted by a heckler — a state court judge — who stood and shouted at him, “Tyrant! You ARE a tyrant!” Pausing briefly to look in the direction of the heckler, but returning immediately to his speech, Mukasey was too much of a gentleman to quash the outburst by saying that such wild charges and name-calling illustrated precisely the point of his remarks.
The Attorney General made it almost to the end of his speech, and
then, suddenly and inexplicably, he faltered and collapsed. Shock
and concern over his collapse overshadowed his final point: that
the Bush administration had tried “to make sure that our
counterterrorism efforts stood on a sound institutional and legal
footing so that the next Attorney General and the new
Administration have what they need to assure the safety of the
Nation.”
The Obama administration, as he noted, will review those
institutions and legal decisions that have kept us safe for the
past seven years. He expressed “hope” that the Obama
administration “understands the threat we continue to face and
that it shares the priority we have placed on remaining on the
offense to prevent future terrorist attacks.”
As we left the ballroom after the Attorney General was rushed to the hospital, those present had a dual sense of uncertainty — about his condition and about the future course of the War on Terror.
As to the former, thankfully, the word came within hours that the Attorney General was well. As to the latter, one can say only one thing for sure: the Mukasey speech is one that history will vindicate, in one way or another.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (35) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles From Constitutional Opinions
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/26/the-law-on-terror
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Daphne Kenward| 11.26.08 @ 9:24AM
Who is America's enemy's? If what the Bible says is true, and I don't doubt it, the Bible says your enemy is in your own household. The people is Washington DC who claim to represent the country are no more than enemy the enemy of the people, corrupt leaders who is inspired by money and greed, instead of justice, freedom and liberty. People who are more inspired by how to control information that the people should know, to use dis-information to control your very thoughts to prevent people making wise decisions, afecting their lives.
For example encouraging people to borrow money, put themselves into debt to run an economy based on people being in debt, is EVIL inspired by SATAN. When a Government use debt to run a country, is how they create poverty. People who can no longer afford food, homes, ability to live without stress, and hardship. Nothing Christian about it.
This time and this moment is the time to expose the SATANIC system mankind have become accustomed to, and must walk away from. God is showing man the evils, don't egnore it. My advice to anyone out there find a way to abolish debts, pay them off if you can and find new ways amongst people to live, the AMISH people are the smartest in all of America, they walked away from the idea of stress, looking for a way of ease which is temporary, is a foolish way of trying to find salvation. No one can find Salvation in the bossom of Satan, because he is the master of DECEPTION, the loan that looked so good, could be the loan that destroyed your family and your marriage, it's the loan that forced a good person to become a theif. And a good woman to become a prostitute. Walk away from it, find new ways to live and survive, do it in groups if necessary, don't buy into the satanic system let it die.
Alan Brooks| 11.26.08 @ 1:59PM
Daphne,
If you try to live like the Amish outside the Amish community, you are not called "Amish".
You are not called "religious".
You are called "HIPPIE".
Jeremiah| 11.26.08 @ 2:09PM
I know it's a little late to ask, but can someone please explain the phrase "War on Terror" to me.
Is the word "war" being used like in the phrase "War on Drugs," or is it being used like in the term "Spanish American War"?
Some pretty smart people use the phrase "war on terror," and I'm not opposed to it entirely. Certainly it's important for us to keep reminding one another that fighting terrorism requires sacrifice, diligence, and great cost.
However, I wonder if we lose more than we gain using the word "war."
If we'd had an articulate president, someone may have been able to explain the goals and causes of the Iraq War. (As it turned out, we did not, and explaining the war fell to journalists and think tank employees.)
It's definable. Kill or capture Saddam Hussein, topple his government, and maintain order until elections can be held and Iraqis can govern themselves.
What kind of explanation is possible for a "war on terror"?
Kill all terrorists? No one who knows anything believes this is possible -- and it begs the question, who are "the terrorists"?
No, a war without end against an enemy we can't name?
It's not American, and we should find some better way to discuss the issue of terrorism.
Bob| 11.26.08 @ 2:32PM
Pre-emptive war and torture are akin to putting a kid in jail for a future murder because he stole a stick of gum at the store. You do this because your "intelligence" told you that kids who do this in poor communities have a high percentage chance of committing violent crime in the future.
Many of you have not put on a uniform and actually faced an enemy. I have. During Vietnam, I conducted a number of enemy interrogations and can tell you that coerced testimony is not worth much. Furthermore, one of the lessons of Vietnam repeated in Iraq is that when you do this, it is easy for the enemy to recruit new soldiers. In total, I'd say that these actions by the Bush administration made our security less effective, not more. Al Qaeda knew the best policy was to alienate the U.S., not attack us directly again. That's why they targeted Spain, the U.K., Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.
I find it interesting that it is the people who have found ways not to serve in the military who hold the most extreme views on pre-emption and torture. Colin Powell, John McCain, and others like me know better.
Jeremiah| 11.26.08 @ 3:17PM
Bob --
I wish more people who claim to honor military service had listened to men like you for the past six or seven years. There have been many articles and stories about both enlisted men and officers trying to explain to people who have never worn the uniform some of these basic truths. As far as I can tell, the field manual is pretty much as good of a guide as my drill sergeant so gently taught me to believe it was. Thanks for your service and have a great Thanksgiving.
Alan Brooks| 11.26.08 @ 3:34PM
Yes, the war was botched.
So now what advice can monday morning coaches give us about what to do concerning the past conduct of the War on... no, not Terror; not War but:
The Armed Disagreement With Freedom Fighters Who Possess A Different Worldview.
Bob| 11.26.08 @ 4:00PM
Jeremiah - When I left Vietnam in 1970, I knew we could not "win". That said, I'm one of the few who actually enlisted to fight for my country because I believed in the fight against communism. They wanted me to re-up, but I chose to go to grad school instead. When I returned, I could not stomach what the anti-war people were saying, but knew that we had made a number of strategic mistakes in the battlefield and could not win. I was a Republican then, and I'm a Republican now, but cannot stomach where the party has gone. After fighting to keep people free, I see the party wanting to limit the freedoms I protected as a young man. We have become the party of the stupid and the party of religious intolerants. We demean intelligence and education and like to vote for people who performed poorly in school.
I'd like our representatives to embody a morality by example, not only by voice. McCain cheated on his first wife and succeeded only through connections. He graduated near the bottom of his class in a school where academic excellence is not up to par. Palin jumped from poor college to poor college and became pregnant prior to marriage just like her daughter. Examples are meaningful and they are not the best by far.
Sorry about the rambling, but now that I'm retired, I'm going to spend some of my time fighting for a Republican party that can capture the middle, capture the youth, and capture minority voters.
Alan Brooks| 11.26.08 @ 5:58PM
coulda, shoulda, woulda.
Bush could have done something else in '03 rather than invade Iraq.
The Surge should have taken place in '05 instead of '07.
We would have finished up in Afghanistan if we hadn't have invaded Iraq.
RetAF| 11.26.08 @ 8:54PM
Bob, we do not torture and unless you have evidence that the US government does - you're just spouting the left's propaganda. Why then are these detainees fighting getting sent home to their native countries....?
These detainees are not "pre-emptively" detained. Combatants (legal or not) captured on the battlefield can be held until the end of hostilities without charge. It is not a crime to be a soldier. The Red Cross has access to them. If they are determined to have abused their protected status then they lose those that status under international law. They are still subject to the law of the detaining power. US law has recognized military tribunals since World War II. The SCOTUS even acknowledged that their recent reversal is without precedent.
Thanks for your service. But this ain't Vietnam, and all of us over in Iraq volunteered, myself included. The chaos in the midde east since the end of WWI has created the last several generations of terrorists. They declared war on us and recruited their members long before we ousted Saddam. Bush didn't create islamic terrorism and it's myopic to say he did. (remember Khobar Towers, USS Cole, I could go on and on)
But GWB did create a viable democracy in an area of the world that never had it. And the self-determination denied these people by the European colonial powers and their own homegrown dictators may be the only thing that can stop the next generation of Al Qaeda.
Bob| 11.27.08 @ 9:49AM
RetAF -- We do torture, and have methods like Rendition. Not all of the "detainees" came off of the battlefield. If it were not for the courts, none of the detainees would be let go. There is no such thing as the "end of hostilities" and you know it. I have no problem with military tribunals but there have been several military lawyers who have quit because of the lack of proper military trials.
Terrorists were not created by chaos, they were created by religious intolerance and poverty. Of course Bush didn't create terrorism, but he did enhance their ability to recruit in other places. Just look at what happened in Mumbai yesterday. In fact, in my previous posts, done before Mumbai, I said how that is the current motus operandi.
It is far too early to say we brought true democracy to Iraq and the middle East. We won't know for years to come. Iran currently has more power over Iraq than in the past and Satr is now using politics for his own purposes. My guess is that Iraq, except for Kurdistan, will begin to look more and more like Iran over the years and become more fundamentalist like Afghanistan.
I know that you and others must believe in our success over there, but there is really no evidence that after we leave you will not see it revert. For some time after I left Vietnam, I believed our mission was sound and that we had done a good thing. But time has proven that to be a false assumption. I'm afraid that will be true in Iraq as well. You don't force democracy down people's throats, that's something they need to fight for and develop themselves in order for it to last.
Good luck, and thank you for your service...
Jeremiah| 11.27.08 @ 10:42AM
The extent of mistreatment of prisoners is astonishing. Jane Mayer has documented incredible abuse, and because of the even handedness and sobriety of her reporting she won the trust of people high in the chain of command at the Pentagon who were appalled by what was going on. They spoke to her on the record and it seems clear these abuses were not isolated incidents committed by a few "bad apples."
All of this is so important, in my view, for three reasons. The first is that in the rest of the world, cruelty is perceived as weakness. It makes us seem incapable of controlling our own soldiers and controlling events.
The second is that abusing prisoners humiliates them and their people. Poverty may cause terrorism in some cases, but humiliation -- cultural humiliation at the hands of foreigners -- is the single greatest cause. It makes men resolved in their hatred of us; it makes it easier for them not to question the insanity of terrorism.
A third reason is often not talked about. Abusing or torturing prisoners harms the people who carry out the abuse. It is traumatizing to inflict pain on someone entirely restrained and under your control. It harms the conscience. And someday, these men or going to come home. Part of the traditional calculus of rules of war -- what was once called chivalry -- is keeping the battle on the battlefield. Ultimately, however, men bring the war they fought home with them.
RetAF| 11.27.08 @ 12:51PM
Rendition is a whole other issue.
The ICRC and the left are vocal critics of Gitmo and our government specifically, stating that we torture. I agree it's been a PR nightmare.
Kyndra Rotundra gives quite another version of Gitmo in her book Honor Bound. I've located some articles by Jane Mayer and will digest them after some turkey, but her assertions still do not prove that WE torture.
Jeremiah| 11.27.08 @ 1:52PM
RetAF
Sir, as good a reporter as I think Mayer is, I wouldn't recommend her over Thanksgiving turkey.
The language surrounding torture and abuse of prisoners -- at "Gitmo" and elsewhere -- was muddied and fudged by this administration. That, as Orwell demonstrated, is the first sign of trouble.
The ultimate PR nightmare was Abu Ghraib. Many of the abuses that occurred there couldn't fairly be called torture, but they made us look cruel and weak. They hampered all of our claims to want what was best for the Iraqi people (democracy, etc.) and played into the worst suspicions of Muslims in the region.
It is against the better nature of conservatives and military people not to acknowledge how those abuses got started. They received a tacit authorization and encouragement from the way these captives were discussed by our nations leaders -- beginning with the president and vice president.
It just goes to show how powerfully the civilian leadership sets a moral tone that is followed by the military.
We are the good guys. That's what I was brought up to believe, and that's what I continue to believe.
You know as well as I do that the good guys don't torture or abuse people. All prisoners -- whether regular or irregular, whether they're to be tried or simply held -- must be treated with dignity. I know all military people understand this. It's the civilians or people who have never served I worry about.
Daphne Kenward| 11.27.08 @ 2:27PM
Alan.
I liked your statement on being an Amish in America, you are perhaps right. When one cast their minds back, on when they were teenagers and had no responsibilities, can you remember how happy you were, I cast my mind back occasionally, yes and it was fantastic.
No responsibility, free! shame we all have to grow up.
Thomas| 11.28.08 @ 8:19AM
"Pre-emptive war and torture are akin to putting a kid in jail for a future murder because he stole a stick of gum at the store."
This statement exemplifies the irrationality inherent in cowardice. Had the world followed the advice of Churchhill and other "hawks" of that period by pre-emptively attacking Hitler in the mid- 1930's, before Germany's massive rearmament under Hitler's militarization program was complete, millions of lives would surely have been saved. Only fools allow an enemy to strengthen before confronting them; only fools fail to take advantage of the element of surprise; and only fools counsel appeasement in the face of naked aggression. Now, sadly, the fools who currently lead the world are about to once again ignore the lessons of history and repeat the same mistake with Iran.
Bob| 11.28.08 @ 10:33AM
Thomas, you need to study history if you are going to make historical comparisons. In the case of Hitler, we had facts, not only from his book published in 1925, but from his actions on the ground. There was no question that he wanted to expand Germany and threaten his neighbors. But until he did, it was difficult to attack. The smart move would have been to get ready, but not attack right away. But what if he decided not to invade other countries? You don't know until they do.
There is certainly an argument in the reverse that U.S. bases around the world are for the purposes of expanding our influence. Should others preemptively attack us for that reason? You seem to argue they should.
It is a fool who thinks they can predict the future. It is a fool who believes in the rule of law and then thinks they have the right to punish someone in advance of breaking that law. Have you ever seen the movie, "Minority Report"? If we could predict the future, I'd agree with you, but as far as I know, we can't.
By the way, how many lives would we have saved if we didn't invade Iraq?????? Now we know the intelligence we used to invade Iraq was flawed. Do you really want to have a policy of preemptive war knowing that your intelligence is flawed???
Cowardice is a close relative of bullying. Using our military might preemptively, without significant intelligence, is certainly an example of this.
Daphne Kenward| 11.28.08 @ 10:47AM
Bob.
Life is simple, if you follow the rules. Thou shall not kill, look after yourself and your family, that is important, even if they don't respect you, always remember to do the best you can for them.
You can find friends in many places, but the first thing is respect yourself, it's not what others think of you, it's what you think of yourself that counts.
God has given you in fullness and abundance, a world to live in, and live in peacefully if you choose to.
When a man goes out and commit murder, by the instruction of others, you have lost your soul, you had a choice to say no. You are not a country and your country is not you. To be a man of God you need to understand his rules and his laws, there is no other laws, like there is no other God before me says the god of creation.
The people who start these wars never die in them, only their victims. Never be the Presidents victim, the people have the ability to be victims of themselves.
What did a single Iraqi person ever do to you?
What did the Vietnamese people ever do to you?
What did the Black Jewish people of Africa ever did to you? 8 Million people died in the 1st world war, what were they fighting for? What did you gain from it?.
The 2nd world war, who started it? what did you gain from it?. I can tell you this, you gained nothing. The people who gain from wars are those who invest in it.
You think what the status quo, tells you to think, and you think you saved a people, the people you think you saved what are they doing? They are doing the same thing to the Palestinians, who is going to save them?.
Brother reading between the lines, you sound like a man who has good qualities, you need to change, look after your family, and yourself and seek gods blessings and all will come to you in abundance. Many have been fooled by false promises, that will never be fullfilled, politicans are men of words not of deeds.
A man with wisdom will survive all odds, I think of a man Martin Luther King, who gave up his life for his people, that's a man, I think of a man who gave up his life for the world that was Christ. I think of a man who gave up his life for his people, that was Malcolm X. I think of a man who gave up his life for his people it was Gandi.
Who and why did these people sacrificed their life for the good of their people, all were fighting Satanic systems, showing people how they need to live, those are brave men.
Any man who lose their lives fighting for a lie, is a stupid person.
Millions and countless Black people lost their lives building up a country they have no right in, and have had to fight to be treated as a humanbeing, and still live as subhumans to this day. Does that sound like a just society? If a man see his fellow man in his own country who have no democracy, then why would a wise man fight to promote democracy in far flung places in the world fighting for what you don't have your self, the bible says take the thorn out of your own eye before you can see to take it out of your brothers eye.
Bob| 11.28.08 @ 12:02PM
Daphne, that is the best religious argument I've seen against social conservatives. You argue against preemptive war, for affirmative action, for community organizers, against going into Iraq, against trickle down economics, against torture and for the rule of law.
Why would you ever support a right wing Republican. You are a Democrat in every sense of the word.
Perhaps you should actually think about what you believe....
Daphne Kenward| 11.28.08 @ 5:24PM
Bob.
I tell you the truth, I am not rebuplican or Democrats. I read your responces and read between the lines and to tell you the truth, I think you are a good person.
To be honest with you I believe in justice, freedom and democracy, and there is no Party that supports that. I am sure it will make you chuckle.
I am not one of thesdes people who says they are Christians, but it's only word of mouth I believe in the embodiment if Christ, in YESHUA.
I could pick up from your words and feel the expressions. You are a person at a cross road and want to move in new direction and I can feel it.
Bob| 11.29.08 @ 10:32AM
Daphne, I do love this country and dislike the intolerance both on the extreme left and right. I could not have come from a poor community, received an education at the best schools, and been successful in any other country.
I am not at a crossroads, I am finally speaking out at the intolerance I see in the so-cons. In fact, in a number of responses, they seem proud of their intolerance. You can't bring people together by being intolerant.
The left is not as dangerous, because as a group, they foster analysis and intellectualism. They have strong beliefs, but I have found that you can have reasonable discussions. They will accept Obama moving to the center. However, so-cons, being anti-intellectual and having limited analytical skills, are far more dangerous.
Daphne Kenward| 11.29.08 @ 2:43PM
Bob.
The teaching of Christ, Christ said look what they did to me, let alone what they will do to you.
Christ was a good man did all that was good helped all those who seek to find rightiousness, helped the poor the crippled, the leper, even raised Lazarus from the dead. For his good deeds he was battered to near death and put on a cross to die. If that is what people did to a good man, can you imagine what they will do to you with all your imperfection?.
When a man goes to war, and drop bombs on the innocent, the weak the lame, the old, the children, it's like killing Christ over and over again. Which is why I could never partake in any such activities.
Fighting soldiers, if you too are a soldier in battle is more acceptable. But that is not how it is, these days people being killed in war are mainly the innocent you have nothing to do with what the fight is about.
The next war will be a Nuclear war and millions will die in this, it will not be because of ordinary people like you or me, but because of politics. It will make no difference if you were on the left or right, of political opinions.
No war will ever be won based on hatred, or division, but every possible war could be averted based on finding common ground and understanding, wisdom will always prevail over ignorance. Passions ran deep in political differences, people were willing to fight and kill because they feel their passion is more important than reason, and rationality.
You said you could not have come from a poor family and got a good education, Bob all things are possible, for those who seek knowledge. The Bilble says those who seek shall find, knowledge is all around us.
For example school can equipt you to have information to do cirtain things, the same as training a dog to jump through hoops. To have really lived one has to find what it is he seeks to find. We are all gifted in different areas, some people become doctors because the knowledge they seeked was to understand the human body, some want to be champions of the mind, the ability to control what you think, with that control, they determine what you do. How do you know you have acheived your best?. Never limit yourself, you never stop learning, just like new things are being invented every day, what you learnt 10 years ago is beeing improved on and taken and streached to many more dimentions, we have a long way to go, it's not over you continue to lern and expand your education and knowledge if you refuse to be controled but allow freedom of thoughts and expression, and allowing your mind to grow beyond your own expectations.
Daphne Kenward| 11.29.08 @ 3:12PM
Jeremiah.
You mentioned "War on Terror" There is no end to this war, this is the war with no end, invented by George W Bush, this war will be going on forever, perpetuity.
You can't see it, you can't hear it, you can't feel it.
Who is a Terrorist? they don't walk around in uniform, could happen anywhere anytime.
The secret is how does a man who is not wise come up with the idea of a war with no end. It's someone elses idea, all he had to do is sell it to the world. All George Bush had to do is find the ingredients to make it happen, the Iraq was was his weapon, a war based on a lie was enough to incense the Arab world and the Moslem world.
Nick| 11.29.08 @ 4:57PM
Bob, you're the one who needs to crack open a history book.
The Treaty of Versailles was violated by the Germans many, many times before Hitler invaded Poland in '39. If the British & French had confronted Hitler in '36 when he remilitarized the Rhineland, his generals were told to come back home. The allies had every right to enforce the terms of the treaty but instead chose appeasement. What did the gutless, socialist FDR do? Nothing.
In 2003 President Bush had 17 U. N. security council resolutions that Saddam Hussein had repeatedly violated (see http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm ). We had every right to enforce the terms of the Operation Desert Storm cease fire. The president and the rest of us who supported regime change learned from history to stand up to tyrants, not to appease them. Especially when you have a legal bludgeon at your disposal.
Nick| 11.29.08 @ 6:23PM
Back to the article: The Law on Terror
One of the biggest mistakes the administration made prosecuting the war was not following hundreds of years of precedence.
Al Qaeda terrorists are unlawful combatants. Unlawful/illegal combatants had no legal rights for centuries. They were considered outside the law, hence the term outlaw, because their crimes were not covered by the normal criminal legal systems.
They were dealt with in the Laws of War. If you operated outside the established rules you were subject to sanctions, including death.
The most famous case in American history is Major Andre. On Saturday October 23rd, 1780 Andre was captured in civilian clothing with the plans to West Point he got from Benedict Arnold. In 10 days he was tried, convicted, and hanged as a spy under the rules of war adopted by the Continental Congress. 10 DAYS! That included
General Washington trying to trade him for Arnold. Were his rights violated? I'm sure many bleeding heart libs think so.
During the Mexican-American War, the areas under martial law were governed by the commanding general. In one district the general issued orders to the local Mexican populace that looters would be hanged promptly. Completely legal within the Laws of War. Imagine if General Franks had issued that order in April of 2003.
Once a terrorist was captured on the battlefield and was determined not to be high ranking a.q., they should've been tried and hanged. Saddam should've been executed back '04. Instead we had a 3 year circus, with that head clown Ramsey Clark making a fool out of himself and our country.
We also had our brave warriors fighting with their arms tied behind their backs. Under the rules of engagement, if they took fire from a mosque, they had to call and get permission from some JAG lawyer to fire. Some hack like Lindsey Grahmnesty. This is a lesson we didn't learn from Vietnam. They should've been allowed to lite-up any mosque that fired on them.
And for the last time: WATERBOARDING IS NOT TOTURE!
Daphne Kenward| 11.29.08 @ 8:40PM
Nick, Bob, and Jememiah.
Do me a faviour, it will take some time. Take a look at You tube Federal Reserve money changers 1 -23. And you may stop and think more about you and your family and what really counts, because you could fight a million wars, your government who is sending you to war telling you that it's about country and all the nonsence. To the Government they are all the same bunch of crooks in different clokes.
Nick| 11.29.08 @ 9:08PM
I know I'll regret this, but here it goes......
Nick| 11.29.08 @ 10:18PM
Daphne,
Duty, Honor, Country. These virtues are not nonsense. It is the people who possess and fight for these qualities that enable you to post these little pearls of wisdom of yours.
Try reading the constitution. We are the government. We have the leaders we deserve, unless we do something about it.
As Pope John Paul the Great often quoted: "Be Not Afraid." With the hope of Christ there is no need to worry. Fear comes from Satan.
Sometimes wars need to be fought. Unless you you don't mind be conquered. This is one of the freest countries in history. Is it as free as it used to be, no it isn't. But we are very blessed, even if the stinking libs have been chipping away at our freedoms for the last 100 years or so.
Finally, I've known since I was 12 the Fed is a group of private banks (I'm 41). My dad taught me the constitution. But like it or not, ninety years ago the congress passed the Fedral Reserve Act. If it was so deceitful, as Larry says in part 1, why didn't congress repeal it when they came back in session,or why weren't they voted out of office?
Do I like the Fed? NO I don't. But I just don't see it going away anytime soon. I don't like the income tax either. How many in congress are for repealing the 16th amendment? Not many.
Jeremiah| 11.30.08 @ 3:46AM
Nick --
You can shout all you want. The US federal government has prosecuted men for water boarding. It is considered torture by all of our allies (yes, this is relevant).
It doesn't matter if prisoners are so-called illegal combatants. The US is forbidden by its treaty obligations and its own laws to torture. Treaty obligations oblige us to treat all prisoners -- not just lawful combatants -- humanely and with dignity. It does not matter what the prisoners are accused to have done: the law and treaties restrain the use of government power. (That's what the phrase "rule of law" means.)
Your law class at noon on weekdays listening to Rush Limbaugh is all very cute and amusing. But try to learn something about the topics you post on. Just because 50 percent of the people posting on this site are lunatics doesn't relieve you of the duty to make a little sense yourself.
Jeremiah| 11.30.08 @ 12:55PM
Nick --
One of the war crimes for which the allies won prosecutions against the Germans and Japanese was for water boarding. The military forbids water boarding and considers it torture.
Now, water boarding is, on the other hand, used by the military to train people who might be captured and tortured.
The Soviets used water boarding to coerce phony confessions (totalitarian states thrive on such statements). That is, they used them to evoke INACCURATE information, not accurate information.
I think the Bush administration and its faith based approach to everything has given us quite enough bad information, thank you very much.
And good riddance to bad rubbish.
Alan Brooks| 11.30.08 @ 11:02PM
Leftists are naive, I always wonder why people like Bob can be so deluded as to think we'll ever have any decent society here or abroad. People want power,
you left wing chumps, they want power, don't you get it??
what TURKEYS you are
RetAF| 12.2.08 @ 10:17PM
Nick, nobody is outside the law. We can lock up combatants (legal or otherwise) at Gitmo until the end of hostilities without any charge or lawyer. After all, it has never been a crime to be a soldier (as they claim). The Red Cross has access to them and they have the same or more rights than legal combatants are entitled to under the Geneva Convention. If they abuse those rights, they can face disciplinary action by military tribunal consistent with "the law of the detaining power". US law has recognized military tribunals since WWII.
Now the rub is that after Abu Ghraib, the Internaional Comittee for the Red Cross decided suddenly that internment at Gitmo was "tantamount" to torture. They have never elaborated on this statement. Jane Mayer assures us that she knows from good sources that this means torture, but can't corrobarate it. Jeremiah, she does make a good circumstantial case against the CIA. (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6?currentPage=1) We may never know what the CIA does. But Gitmo is well documented and transparent. Read Kyndra Rotundra's book "Honor Bound" for her account.
Now Jane Mayer does spend a lot of time describing the horrors of rendition: even pointing out that it began LONG before Bush and Cheney. Now remember, nobody is outside the law. The Geneva Convention allows detainees to be subject to disciplinary action by the detaining power without concern for HOW that detainee came to be in the detainees possession - which is outside their purview. Therefore rendition has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention. Many of these detainees are criminals in their home countries and thats why they're fighting NOT to leave Gitmo.
The Red Cross (the majority of whose budget is paid by the US taxpayer) is also charged with protection of civilians during armed conflict. Yet we hear not a word about the brutal treatment of civilians - and especially women - under the Taliban. The ICRC says nothing about public stonings of women, or torture by Al Qaeda in Iraq to intimidate civilians. You have to question the motives of these organizations when they focus so much attention on a couple hundred detainees in Gitmo rather than the hundreds of thousands of victims of these brutal regimes.
ruth| 12.2.08 @ 11:01PM
I just don't see any good that comes from trying to have a rational dialogue with liberals. They have already made up their minds. Their premise is not driven by facts but by emotion. They believe that we (USA) are the enemy. How do you debate this with your own countrymen? How do we survive as a nation? It is a circular firing squad.
Nick| 12.3.08 @ 11:20AM
RetAF,
I did not mean to imply that detainees are outside the law, so we can do whatever we like to them. We are all children of God created in His image and likeness. We all have the right to be treated with the dignity owed us as the highest of created beings.
I apologize if this wasn't clear.
My point was instead of coddling these criminals at Gitmo, they should've been tried and hanged. Hanging is not inhumane nor does it violate human dignity. That goes for stress positions, including waterboarding. If anyone hits, beats, cuts or otherwise inflicts pain (you know: Torture) on a prisoner, then they should be tried under the UCMJ.
The photos I saw of Abu Ghraib dipicted violations of dignity and abusive treatment. The prisoners were not treated with the respect they were due. The left saw torture, because their definition of torture (their concept of law for that matter) is totally amorphous. It's wrong because they say it is, but tomorrow that could change.
I tried to give a little history of the concept in law that there are some acts so dangerous to society, the perpetrator has to be dealt with swiftly and harshly to deter others from emulating them. Military tribunals have been US law since the War of Independence.
I'm not a lawyer nor expert in internation law, but I do study history. If the Geneva convention treaties have any prohibitions against trying and executing illegal combatants in a speedy manner, then the president should've announced our withdrawl from those provisions. Our sovereignty and the constitution trump treaties.
The biggest problem with the War on Terrorists is the Bush administration tried to fight it the liberal way in a few instances. And they were too worried about international opinion.
Captains and lieutenants should've been deciding whether a Predator could take out a target, not lawyeers.
Ret AF| 12.4.08 @ 8:54PM
Nick, I'm not a lawyer either. But I've been frustrated by the charges of torture and war crimes which are so lightly thrown around these days. People use circular logic to make Bush =Gitmo=torture=Geneva convention violation=war crimes with little evidence. The more these charges are thrown around without a voice of reason to refute them makes them believable to people who don't know what the LAW actually says. And I think that was the point of Mr Mukasey's speech.
I don't have proof that war crimes DIDN'T occur, but 'd better have some darn good evidence before I say they did...