The American Spectator : Now That We've Won

Text Size

Now That We’ve Won

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 4.30.09 @ 6:09AM

The rationale for the Obama administration’s “war on torture.”

WASHINGTON — Students of intelligence-gathering will tell you that deception and outright lying are essential to the art. Having now reviewed the controversy over who in Congress knew what about the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques, I have concluded that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might make a superb intelligence officer. She claims that she was utterly unaware of the CIA’s rough treatment of terrorists detained after 9/11. She says this without betraying a hint of deception or uncertainty. Well done, well done.

Yet a really good liar does not lie about something easily refuted. In the case of the Hon. Pelosi’s protests of ignorance, there are no less than three public sources out there refuting her. One is a 2007 Washington Post report that she was included in a “bipartisan group” from the Hill that was fully apprised of these interrogation techniques in September of 2002. Another refutation comes from CIA Director George Tenet’s memoir, At the Center of the Storm, which is pretty open about how rough treatment cracked Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11 who boasts of beheading journalist Danny Pearl. Tenet also adds that he briefed “senior congressional leaders,” presumably among them the Hon. Pelosi, about another of her present concerns, namely, warrantless wiretaps. Then there is former congressman and CIA Director Porter Goss’s revelation in the Washington Post over the weekend that “Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members [of Congress] claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as ‘waterboarding’ were never mentioned.” So maybe the Speaker of the House would not be a very good spy.

If there is any good news to come from the Obama Administration’s release of CIA documents relating to the detention and interrogation of post-9/11 detainees, it is that Washington’s post-9/11 fears of further terrorist attacks against America have abated. It is official that the Obama Administration no longer uses the term Global War on Terror. So maybe the war is over and we can all relax.

Yet there is no question that the release of these documents and the ongoing debate over whether to prosecute government functionaries involved in the Bush Administration’s treatment of terrorists has hurt our intelligence community both at home and abroad. Intelligence officers within our service have been intimidated by our own government. Foreign intelligence officers who have been sharing intelligence with us abroad are going to be much less forthcoming. It is a good thing that the Administration has determined that America is now secure from terrorist threats.

This is not the first time liberal politicians have put the clamps on our intelligence services’ ability to protect the country. In 1975 the Church Committee investigated both the CIA and the FBI, with the consequence that Congressional oversight committees were set up that in the aftermath of 9/11 were accused of inhibiting our intelligence services from pursuing al Qaeda aggressively in the 1990s. Now apparently, with the war on terror won, we can go back to those blissful days.

Yet frankly I am uneasy about this new climate here in Washington. Historically intelligence documents have been kept from public eye, not just here but throughout the Western world. The idea is that we do not want our enemies to be informed of what we know. In David Reynolds’ stupendous book on how Winston Churchill wrote his World War II memoir, In Command of History, Reynolds shows over and again Churchill and his opponents in the Labour government cooperating to keep British secrets from the public. British intelligence techniques in particular were not divulged. That President Obama’s administration in the first 100 days of its existence would expose the intelligence techniques used by his predecessor strikes me as reckless. Yet, on the other hand, the global war on terror is over, so maybe everything is going to be okay. I do, however, wonder how President Barack Obama managed to win the war so quickly. Was it just a matter of retiring the hellish Bush from the White House, or is there more to it?

About the Author

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (136) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 7:36AM

Pelosi was indeed well aware of the illegal torture policy, as were other key Democrat leaders. All the more reason to commence investigations: they will expose and punish corrupt, lawbreaking elites from both parties.

The Convention Against Torture treaty, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1989, states:

"The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture"

In other words, when there are allegations of torture the United States is *compelled by law* to investigate. We do not have a choice in the matter. Under U.S. and international law it is *illegal* to not investigate these allegations.

I cannot concoct any plausible objection to investigations. They are compelled by our very own laws. If no illegal acts were committed, an investigation will exonerate the accused. If illegal torture - a war crime - was committed, then the perpetrators will be prosecuted. That's what's done to criminals in a nation where the Rule of Law holds sway.

I've asked this elsewhere, but have you ever noticed that when regular people break the law it's called a "crime" but when the most powerful Washington elites break the law it's called a "policy difference"? Or that when regular Americans break the law they are subject to the machinations of the most merciless and unforgiving legal system in the history of the world (we imprison more of our citizens than any country in the world or in history - more than Stalin ever did) but when political elites break the law we are urged to "look forward, not backward"? People like Bob Tyrell support a two-tiered justice system, wherein regular working Americans receive some of the harshest penalties in the world for even victimless crimes while powerful elites are allowed to break the law - to commit war crimes, to spy on their own citizens - with no accountability. They have strayed so far down that road to the point that their worship of Authority is such that they believe the powerful should be literally above the law.

One can either embrace the Rule of Law and support investigations and prosecutions (if illegal torture is found to have taken place) or one can oppose the Rule of Law - the Constitution itself - and support the obscene, anti-American, power-worshipping notion that the Law is only for regular people, not for the richest, most powerful elites.

Bill O'Reilly and the "conservatives" at NRO and AmSpec talk a good game about Law and Order and the evil elites, but when it comes time to actually hold elites accountable under the Law we see their true colors, don't we?

Sean| 4.30.09 @ 7:43AM

Effective or not, the methods are illegal. They invite retribution, as do all crimes. I don't understand why there are so many "trophy" photos: what sort of soldier or agent is so debased that they need to glory in abuse? What sea do they swim in, that they feel safe in recording the deed?

Pingback| 4.30.09 @ 7:52AM

Now That We’ve Won links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…is going to be okay. I do, however, wonder how President Barack Obama managed to win the war so quickly. Was it just a matter of retiring the hellish Bush from the White House, or is there more to it? Read More Share and Enjoy: Related posts: Soros Show Trials The so-called Commission on Accountability which mysteriously appeared on... Bring it on, MoveOn: The Cautionary Tale of Furious George “I want you to…

Hank Rearden| 4.30.09 @ 7:55AM

Bob,

You should be uneasy about the present climate. There is plenty of rage on the left, but not one example of a law that was broken. Furthermore, the last time I checked ununiformed enemy combatants were not covered under the Geneva Convention and for good reason. For some reasons the American left has a fascination with destroying that which is productive, whether it is in the market place or the battle field. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, I just fear that this is one of the infrastructure projects the President has been talking so much about.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 8:06AM

"There is plenty of rage on the left, but not one example of a law that was broken."

Laws are *alleged* to have been broken, torture is alleged to have taken place, thus U.S. laws compel us to investigate - to fail to do so is a violation of law. Besides, if no laws were broken then there's no cause to fear an investigation, right?

Tim| 4.30.09 @ 8:32AM

The whole thing stinks, if you ask me. And I realize you didn't.

Sue| 4.30.09 @ 8:37AM

It's the Carter administration all over again; remember the Church Commission? We are repeating history again, and again. The Reader's Digest did an expose' on terrorism after the Olympics 1974 killings. Does anyone not remember? Evil knows no time warp. They will wait, prepare, wait, prepare, strike, wait, prepare, strike and on and on and on. We cannot let our defenses down for a moment. This is an ongoing struggle with "biblical" implications and results that will destroy mankind. Somehow, the liberals have to get a clue or else we're destroyed.

The Bishop| 4.30.09 @ 8:43AM

How ironic that last night Obambi referenced Churchill as an example of a leader taking the high road and not employing enhanced interrogation techniques during his war time leadership (yes, the same Churchill whose bust was sent from the Oval office back to the British embassy). Obambi's utterances are now consistently making me throw up in my mouth a little.

As usual, great column, Mr. Tyrrell.

Torture to lie to stop it.| 4.30.09 @ 8:53AM

Torture to get people to tell lies on themselves. Why did the American Government, not torture the Israelis they caught with traces of explosives?. You people keep buying into what CNN and NBC, and Fox news keep telling you with no questions asked, one day you will wake up, and say why din'nt I ask more questions.

Doorgunner| 4.30.09 @ 8:57AM

Whaddaya mean "you people"?

Big J| 4.30.09 @ 9:01AM

"It depends on what your definition of is is". Who has defined waterboarding as torture?

As for me, I absolutely guarantee you that I would not only waterboard, but would engage in many other tactics if it would provide for the safety of any family members. Does the left actually believe that we could just ask these TERRORISTS nicely (Pretty please, with sugar on top?) about plans for another attack? You think they would just spill their guts if we threaten to place them in a corner with a dunce cap on their heads?

Speaking of heads, that happens to be the appendage of choice for removal by these disgusting, vile criminals.

It will become painfully obvious that this "investigation" and the information it produces will only embolden our enemies, educate them and reduce the safety of Americans here and abroad. Going on a Salem-style witch hunt serves absolutely no purpose.

That is, of course unless your ultimate goal is to destroy the country. Unfortunately, I am starting to believe that may be true.

REP| 4.30.09 @ 9:06AM

During every war our opponents are never constrained by any reading of the Geneva Convention. Look at the atrocities the Japanese used in WW2, the North Koreans in Korea, the North Vietnamese and now the Islamofascists. With the exception of WW2 and then only a few Japanese were ever tried, who else has ever been tried? Look what happened to McCain. Who was punished and where was the outcry? Out captured service people have always been mistreated and the international response has been what?

The trut is more important| 4.30.09 @ 9:35AM

Who was responsible for Sept 11th, is the real question, why was these people tortured to lie, to accept responsibility, for something they have nothing to do with, to get the government off the hook? that's the question.

Barbarian Heretic| 4.30.09 @ 9:41AM

S.L. Toddard- "Besides, if no laws were broken then there's no cause to fear an investigation, right? "...

In posing the question, you ignore the elephant in the room- politics. The Obama Administration and Democrat Congress have already demonstrated a ruthless willingness to whip the Mob to a frenzy in pursuit of personal destruction of political opponents.

The "investigations" you advocate would be little more than a series of political show trials, rather than objective pursuit of justice...

Lu Dumak| 4.30.09 @ 9:47AM

This same people that are against making a few terrorists a little uncomfortable for a short time, are the same people that support the barbaric practice of late term abortions and all abortions. Liberals will always be useful idiots.

Big J| 4.30.09 @ 9:59AM

Good point Lu Dumak. A baby (liberal speak: fetus, embyo) has less rights than a convicted murderer and terrorist.

The hypocrisy would be comical, were it not so dangerous.

Sean| 4.30.09 @ 10:05AM

Lu's torturing logic. Making a "terrorist" uncomfortable will not bear any fruit; torture might. Torture might also kill the victim, ensuring that the "ticking bomb" succeeds.

BTW, I'm liberal on some issues..and pro-life.

Colin | 4.30.09 @ 10:07AM

To the dedicated limp wrists who continue demanding we bend over and grab the ankles for every Abu, Abdul and Congressman Barney who demands a never ending supply of hankies every time some terrorist sand flea wearing a towel for a hat feels ... "uncomfortable" during harsh Q & A, give me a buzz the next time you find an ICBM, 747 or selected sections of a freshly crumpled high rise planted up your ... back yard.

Just dial 1-800-WHATTHEHELLHAPPENED.

Have a groovy day.

Nittany| 4.30.09 @ 10:07AM

Mr. Toddard, your premise is incorrect.
We are no longer a nation of laws.
So we citizens now need to think of methods to protect our freedom from governments which pick and choose from a pantry of "laws" , foreign and domestic, to suit their designs of subjugation.
I'll stand with anyone who stands on our republican Constitution and oppose those who want to enslave us with "laws".

Vlad-the-Impaler| 4.30.09 @ 10:08AM

The incompetence of these liberals will result in another attack on the U.S. which will, hopefully, wake up a majority of the electorate to throw these nitwits under the bus, and start electing grown-ups.

Cpm| 4.30.09 @ 10:13AM

The common fate of ununiformed fighters on the battlefield is often summary execution. Yet they are all still sucking air. Wringing hands over the fate these scum is putting our country and our allies at risk. To launch investigations of what amounts to hazing at the expense of national security solely to score political points with rabid leftwingers demanding their pound of flesh is not only pathetic, it is criminal. Can we count on tribunals to indict Obama administration officials once some future "someone" has determined they have hamstrung our ability to gather crucial intellingence? As Toddard says, if they didn't break any laws, they don't have anything to worry about, right? The only thing worse than breaking the law is subverting the law to bend it to your own political purpose. We can have show trials like the former Soviet Union used to do regularly after shifts in power, or The One can put an immediate halt to this political dog-and pony show. In His call for transparency, there is nothing more transparent than the motivation behind all of this.

jim rice| 4.30.09 @ 10:14AM

@ S.L. Toddard
Thank you!
"Besides, if no laws were broken then there's no cause to fear an investigation, right? "

@REP:
So we should lower ourselves to the standards of the people we're fighting. "You did it, so I can do it too" kind of attitude? That's ridiculous.

And @Lu Dumak:
Thanks for the generalizations and useless comment! What in the world does a stance against torture have to do with abortion? We should never ever torture. Ever. And we shouldn't abort babies either. But unless there's some way to universally prove that you're ending a life, we also shouldn't take away the option from people who want it.

As for the article itself? Terrorists aren't going away. But the "War on Terror" was nothing but a fear tactic made up by the bush administration to consolidate power. Today is the same as it was pre-9/11. People hate our country. And, in many cases, rightfully so. A show of force is not going to win this "war" ever. george bush was a f-ing idiot if he ever actually thought it would. But really it was just the brilliance of the people behind him to create this media friendly war to keep Americans frightened and to pretend that they weren't running the country into the ground.

And perhaps we shouldn't have released those documents...
but, without question, we should have never been engaged in the inhumane practices uncovered at Guantanamo.
If we can't be open and honest about everything we're doing, then we don't need to do it.

The War on Terror is over. Because it was never real in the first place.
America needs to change its behaviour and stop instilling such hatred for our country in people abroad. If we were back to Isolationists like George Washington wanted, we wouldn't have this problem. (I don't think we should do that by any means, so no need to tell me the other problems with isolationism)

Are there terrorists? yes.
Do they need to be dealt with, watched, and subverted? yes.
Is there a "war?" no.
Is the United States allowed to stoop to torture to facilitate their "war?" absolutely not.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 10:20AM

"I'll stand with anyone who stands on our republican Constitution and oppose those who want to enslave us with "laws"."

That's fine - you at least admit that you are a totalitarian, a fascist. But most people here still pretend to be "conservatives", and opposing the Rule of Law - actively seeking to overturn it - is radical and dangerous. It is, by definition, *anti-conservative*.

If the writer and his supporters would only admit to advocating totalitarianism like yourself then there would be no need for this discussion.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 10:22AM

"The common fate of ununiformed fighters on the battlefield is often summary execution"

Many of these people were kidnapped far from any battlefield, friend.

Regardless - nearly every point anyone here has made is irrelevant. Torture is illegal, torture has been alleged. Whether or not torture happened is irrelevant - an investigation is legally mandated. Categorically, either you support investigations or you believe that the law should not extend to political elites.

Cpm| 4.30.09 @ 10:24AM

With the liberal Democrat party in charge of all branches of our government, it appears the totalitarianism isn't coming from the right.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 10:24AM

Let me rephrase: Categorically, either you support investigations or you believe our government officials (like Eric Holder) have the power to disobey the law, as electing to not investigate these allegations is a violation of U.S. and international law.

Cpm| 4.30.09 @ 10:26AM

"Kidnapped"? Apprehended.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 10:28AM

"With the liberal Democrat party in charge of all branches of our government, it appears the totalitarianism isn't coming from the right"

Of course - both parties are pushing us in that direction. That much is obvious. But what people here need to admit is that they support this drift, this morphing of our republic into a totalitarian state. People here are actually advocating that our Attorney General violate the law to protect other people who may have broken the law - think about that.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 10:42AM

"Apprehended. "

When an innocent person (and we have captured, caged, abused and eventually released many innocent people, as no one denies) is captured far from any battlefield - walking down the street, in the privacy of his own home, at an airport - absent any due process, whisked away to a blacksite to be caged indefinitely with no chance to prove their innocence then you can use whatever euphemism you like - it makes it no less ugly or Stalinistic.

Cpm| 4.30.09 @ 10:44AM

What Eric Holder has is discretion, like any D.A., let's see if he has the wisdom to use it. Anyone can level an accusation, but when it comes from the likes of MoveOn.org even Holder should have the good sense to pass.

Jody | 4.30.09 @ 11:01AM

This is all politics and propaganda. Certainly there is a correlation between power and lying. Additionally, those that are powerful will lie when confronted and get away with it. In this age of technology, how can that be? This is one reason why, we, the people should want government to have limited power. I agree with Hank Rearden and the ultimate intentions of our elected officials. Yes, this is one of Obama's "Infrastructure Projects". It is the road to hell. I'm sorry to be so abrupt, but it's better to wake up now.
The good news is we are obviously safer today then we were 8 years ago. I wonder why? If anyone says it's just a coincidence please tell me how to control myself. The key point is the fact that NYC pedestrians were seen running when they saw a low flying plane. Listen to the people Washington.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 11:03AM

"What Eric Holder has is discretion"

Wrong. He does NOT have discretion. He is compelled by U.S. law per the Convention Against Torture signed by Ronald Reagan to investigate allegations of torture. He has no leeway - to fail to investigate is a violation of the law.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 11:06AM

"Anyone can level an accusation, but when it comes from the likes of MoveOn.org even Holder should have the good sense to pass."

The allegations come from members of our own intelligence services, the international Red Cross, the United Nations etc. Sorry - you have no leg to stand on here unless you are advocating lawlessness.

Cpm| 4.30.09 @ 11:14AM

That's a pretty dubious bunch there.

jim rice| 4.30.09 @ 11:35AM

how can you say this? "The good news is we are obviously safer today then we were 8 years ago."

obviously?

I don't believe that. But if we are safer, it's b/c we finally have a President who isn't a narrow minded buffoon who realizes that all humans have a right to what they think - not just Americans.

Big Leo| 4.30.09 @ 11:35AM

This is not a matter of law, but the introduction of misuse of law for political purposes into our political system. But go ahead. Then, when we are back in power, we will enforce some laws, too, and charge the current administration with illegal takeover of business, extortion against corporate leaders, fraud perpetrated on shareholders, failing to keep the nation safe, whatever. It won’t matter.
Some fools on this board seem to think that the Gitmo detainees are innocent bystanders. It is true that a few may be, and we have released a number that were not charged, but the illusion that the three we waterboarded are is beyond contempt.
I can't think of any course better designed to permanently poison the political scene and reduce us to a low-grade permanent civil war mentality.

Todd| 4.30.09 @ 11:45AM

S.L. Toddard,
Looks like you have been given the assignment today from a Soros front group on this article. According to your definition, if we oppose Stalinist show trials from the left against good faith efforts from the previous administration in protecting citizens against murderous terrorists, we support totalitarianism. Maybe Obama can set up a "Ministry of Truth" like in George Orwell's 1984.

Your argument about Holder having to investigate these allegations is total garbage because the Geneva Convention does not apply to these scumbag terrorists. Maybe it is your belief it should but that is just your lousy opinion and not a fact.

Cpm| 4.30.09 @ 11:45AM

If this is all cut and dried, then why is Obama equivocating? What's the holdup? I'm sure he has no fear of handing over our sovereignty to foreign organizations. He betrays the people who put their lives on the line while telling them they are much better off for the betrayal. My suspicion is that he hasn't got all the political angles figured out yet. Remember, he believes you shouldn't let a good crisis go to waste.

RahmRod| 4.30.09 @ 11:47AM

S.L., I recall you voiceferously calling for the upholding of the law, as you called for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. If ever the law was to be followed, as you so eloqunetly proposed, it was to impeach Clinton.

Your service to the nation was outstanding, sir, and please continue.

Todd| 4.30.09 @ 11:49AM

Jim Rice,
In all due respect, you are an idiot. If you cannot figure out Mr.Tyrrell is saying that we are safe now with tongue-in-cheek, you have the intellect of a 10 year-old. Having read your numerous posts, I already knew you to be an idiot but this just further confirms it.

Cpm| 4.30.09 @ 12:04PM

"I don't believe that. But if we are safer, it's b/c we finally have a President who isn't a narrow minded buffoon who realizes that all humans have a right to what they think - not just Americans"

I'm sorry, but while there are people out there that wish us harm including massive death on an unimaginable scale, that doesn't mean it is right or that I have to tolerate it. You are sorely mistaken, it is the actions of the previous administration that have kept us safe, it is your open-minded placeholder that has since actively worked to undo our safeguards. Bush was caught flatfooted by 9/11, but the next outrage is totally in Obama's court. He owns it.

Turk| 4.30.09 @ 12:11PM

I have a question about the mostly nonsense, in response to R. Emmits learned piece. Did the verbose maroon now calling himself s.l.t used to go by matthews???????????????

susan b. anthony| 4.30.09 @ 12:45PM

"But unless there's some way to universally prove that you're ending a life, we also shouldn't take away the option from people who want it. " - jim rice.

Please explain why the burden is to "universally prove that you are ending a life" before ending the practice of abortion. Why wouldn't you want to err on the side of caution, that is, universally prove that you are NOT ending a life? What happens if the proof you ask for eventually comes? Do you just way "oh well, sorry" to the millions of babies killed so far? I don't understand your morals - and hope I never do.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 12:52PM

"Your argument about Holder having to investigate these allegations is total garbage because the Geneva Convention does not apply to these scumbag terrorists"

What an odd thing to say. Who said anything about the Geneva Conventions? The Convention Against Torture, which was signed by Ronald Reagan and is now law within the US mandates investigations into torture allegations - PERIOD. To fail to investigate is to violate United States law - PERIOD. I know it's inconvenient for you but still - it's the law of our land, made as such by the saintly Ronald Reagan himself.

"According to your definition, if we oppose Stalinist show trials from the left against good faith efforts from the previous administration in protecting citizens against murderous terrorists, we support totalitarianism"

Wrong. If you believe the law does not extend to elites who commit crimes, or that our Attorney General is free to violate the law at will (such as the law that compels him to investigate allegations of torture) then yes - quite obviously and categorically you support totalitarianism.

"If this is all cut and dried, then why is Obama equivocating?"

Because any investigation will reveal top-level democrats to have been complicit in these crimes - the same top-level democrats who helped get Obama into office. Regardless - it's not Obama's call or responsibility. It's the justice department, who the law compels to investigate. If you oppose investigations you are literally urging the justice department to break the law. If you believe no crimes were committed then you have no reason to oppose investigations.

Why can't you people just admit you are totalitarians who believe the elites who run our government should be above the law? They committed crimes and you don't want them punished, ergo you believe they should be above the law. Just admit that you are not really "conservative" - the idea that the Rule of Law does not extend to the most powerful elites is radical in the extreme - the *opposite* of "conservative".

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 12:55PM

"This is not a matter of law, but the introduction of misuse of law for political purposes into our political system."

Allegations of torture have been made. United States law demands that torture allegations be investigated. I'm sorry but no matter how much you plug up your ears and shut your eyes and holler "NANANANANANA" it won't change it - the law is extremely clear:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture"

jim rice| 4.30.09 @ 1:09PM

@Todd: not seeing sarcasm in an internet post makes someone an idiot? Making useless personal attacks on a message board makes someone an idiot.

@Susan B. Anthony:
"Please explain why the burden is to "universally prove that you are ending a life" before ending the practice of abortion. Why wouldn't you want to err on the side of caution, that is, universally prove that you are NOT ending a life? What happens if the proof you ask for eventually comes? Do you just way "oh well, sorry" to the millions of babies killed so far? I don't understand your morals - and hope I never do."

Very well put. I, personally, do want to err on the side of caution. I don't want to ever be faced with a "do we abort or not" decision, but if I am I am firmly against abortion. I think it's a terrible practice, and I want no part of it.

But I also want no part in taking away someone else's option to choose what they want to do. I don't know the anguish of having to make such a decision, but I don't think the government has the right to make it for me. (or you)

I also think that applying your question to the topic at hand is a useful exercise. Especially if, as has been admitted, we have sent innocent people to be held without cause and, potentially, tortured. Why not err on the side of caution in this case as well? What do you say to the innocents held after the fact? "oh well, sorry?"

"Better 10 guilty men go free then 1 innocent man suffer."

Cpm| 4.30.09 @ 1:13PM

Does torture of logic count? You are guilty, why can't you just admit it? You have already convicted them in your own litigious fantasy. Allegations aren't truth, policy differences aren't evidence of wrongdoing. Refusing to engage in witchhunts of previous administrations over politically trumped-up "allegations" of "torture" isn't support for totalitarianism, it's called common sense.

L. Ross| 4.30.09 @ 1:27PM

Wow, S.L. Good job on wasting a morning to dominate this blog. That must be some tough job you've got.

Regarding this torture issue you care sooo deeply about, believe it or not, not only did we declare that it is against the law to torture, we also define what torture is, dipshit. Not what you and your liberal cronies think it is. Bill Clinton re-authorized the use of waterboarding as not torture, and GWB agreed with him. BHO doesn't agree with them, yet. Just wait until he has 3000 dead civilians, and a nation screaming for justice. He will be straping dudes on an plank and drowning the hell of them ASAP.

Cpm| 4.30.09 @ 1:37PM

...and stop cynically using Reagan as a club as if the simple invocation of his name will cause us all to drop our principles and beliefs and fall over.

Jody | 4.30.09 @ 1:42PM

Thanks for the reference. The reason I said we are obviously safer today than 8 years ago was the fact that this administration wants the whole world to know our strategies in protecting American citizens. Did they do that 8 years ago? I trust you don't think they would do that if there was an attack today (no matter what they say they'll do or not do).

ben| 4.30.09 @ 1:48PM

jim rice
"A show of force is not going to win this "war" ever. george bush was a f-ing idiot if he ever actually thought it would."

--Bush didn't think a "show" of force would win this war that's why he actually went to fight it. Bush understands that giving people democratic power over their lives, beliefs and destinies is the best way to combat the powerless, oppressed victimized attitude that drives terrorist recruitment.

"Is there a "war?" no."

-If you say so. But doesn't the fact that Osama Bin Laden declared war on us in 1993 engage us in a war whether we like it or not. He has attacked us at home and abroad. If we're not at war like you say then our actions are just self-defense which is perfectly legal and moral.

S.L. Toddard -
"Laws are *alleged* to have been broken, torture is alleged to have taken place, thus U.S. laws compel us to investigate - to fail to do so is a violation of law. Besides, if no laws were broken then there's no cause to fear an investigation, right?"

-An investigation - sure. A show trial - hell no.
If our government wants to appoint an investigator to look into the allegations of torture then that's okay - do it. If that prosecuter thinks there's enough evidence to try someone in a court of law then he can bring charges against those people. What we should not do however, is a show trial in congress. Under our legal system the accused are innocent until PROVEN guilty. A court proceeding takes this platform. There are rules of evidence and protections of the rights of the accused. A trial in congress is not about the law, evidence or an assumption of innocence. They have already made up their minds as to the guilt of the accused. The show trial is an attempt to bypass the rule of law and instead try the accused in the court of public opinion. These show trials are for political purposes only, and are held at the expense and suppression of the rule of law. An allegation requires an investigation. An investigation is a prosecutor comparing the allegations to the written laws at the time of the alleged crimes. Putting a trial on tv where congressmen can grandstand, preach, campaign and berate the accused is not an investigation but rather a political show aimed not at the finding of truth but the villifying of an opponent.

ben| 4.30.09 @ 1:59PM

jim rice
"A show of force is not going to win this "war" ever. george bush was a f-ing idiot if he ever actually thought it would."

-A show of force?
do you mean like what Clinton did by firing a couple of missiles into Afghanistan after the WTC was attacked in 1993? isn't Clinton then the f-ing idiot?

Todd| 4.30.09 @ 2:01PM

Jim Rice,
A grown adult with a functional mind would understand the point Mr.Tyrrell was making and only a fool would fail to understand it. If you want people to take your opinion seriously here whatever side you are coming from, you should at least be able to understand the point of the author first. Frankly, you come across as a real simpleton who is unable to grasp complex matters. You also suggested last week that Obama and Chavez should run together in 2012 which sounds like a joke but I think you might actually be serious and think it is even possible.

S.L. Toddard,
I think Cpm and L.Ross said what I would in reply to you rather well so no need to restate it. We will see what you terrorist sympathizers have to say for yourself when American citizens lie dead in the streets here because Obama refuses to take the proper precautions to protect us from our evil enemies. In the logic of someone like Jim Rice, better to have thousands of dead Americans than to have made one terrorist in custody feel uncomfortable.

susan b. anthony| 4.30.09 @ 2:03PM

jim rice:
I equate your (apparent) position of "innocent until proven guilty" with "human until proven tissue". In that we can agree. But you seem to say your position should apply to everyone, while mine is a personal decision only. In that, I do not agree.

jim rice| 4.30.09 @ 2:31PM

I feel like the only decision I'm trying to apply to everyone is that everyone needs to make up their own mind. (And I think that they SHOULD arrive at the decision to, to use your analogy, choose "baby" instead of "tissue." But it should still be up to them to choose. It seems to me that it's the so-called "Pro-Lifers" who attempt to make their position apply to everyone?

Sorry if I misconstrued your meaning.

Todd| 4.30.09 @ 2:56PM

Jim Rice,
I stand by my statement that you are an idiot but let me rip apart a couple of your ridiculous arguments to provide more evidence. Lets start with this statement from you. "But the "War on Terror" was nothing but a fear tactic made up by the bush administration to consolidate power. Today is the same as it was pre-9/11. People hate our country. And, in many cases, rightfully so. A show of force is not going to win this "war" ever. george bush was a f-ing idiot if he ever actually thought it would."

Yeah, Bush just made it up to "consolidate power". Why don't you talk with people in New York City who lost family and friends about today being the same as pre 9/11? So I guess since we can't the war with a show of force, we should have just signed a peace treaty with Osama Bin Laden and addressed his "grievances"? Explain to me genius how that would work since Bin Laden did declare war on us and his stated goal is to destroy America and all infidels, not much wiggle room there I am afraid.

Here is another of your idiotic statements, "If we can't be open and honest about everything we're doing, then we don't need to do it. "

Yes, we should be open and honest with everything so our enemy knows exactly what we are doing at all times. I am sure Iran, North Korea, Russia, China would really like that along with Al-Qaeda and Hamas. Let us make it really easy to attack us and steal our military technology.

So in conclusion, you are a moron Jim Rice and you love thugs like Chavez and demagogues like Obama. Are you allowed to vote? God help us from people like you.

susan b. anthony| 4.30.09 @ 3:30PM

jim rice:
I consider myself to be what you call a "so-called 'Pro-Lifer'". Perhaps you are miscontruing my meaning.

Above, you said, "I don't know the anguish of having to make such a decision, but I don't think the government has the right to make it for me. (or you)". I don't know that anguish either, but government assumes the right to make such decisions all the time. On this topic I think such a decision is justified. My position is that the government should not interfere with decisions that are purely personal. What I do to, or for, or by myself that has zero affect on anyone else is my business alone, and the government should butt out. Abortion is not "purely personal" in that it affects another and results in ending the life (or potential life) of another, which is the ultimate of effects, and is irreversible and final. Whether you call "another" a human being or something less, since it has not been "proved" one way or the other, the side of caution would state that we should not allow for ending that life in our laws. If it is ultimately "universally prove[d] that you are ending a life", then this practice of abortion becomes murder, and is against the law in nearly every country in the world. If it's proved otherwise, all we have is a few additional people in the world. That, my conscience can live with.

eugene hauber| 4.30.09 @ 3:34PM

during WW2, our president obama would have been considered a traitor....no problem..WHAT HAS CHANGED??
Is it because he is a negro and pc requires that we bend our knee in his presence?... or is it because, if we don't, we will be deemed bigots, racists or enemies of the state, or just enemies of the obama regime????
I, for one, am not afraid of this narcissistic piece of shit.
WHERE ARE THE VOICES OF REASON AGAINST HIM????????? WHERE IS THE BALLS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?????
HE IS THE ANTI-CHRIST, ARRIVED MUCH TOO EARLY AND WE SEEM TO LOVE IT.

WHERE ARE THE REPUBLICANS WITH BALLS?? ELECT ME. I KNOW NOTHING, BUT I LOVE THE USA AND I WOULD STAND UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS AND DENOUNCE THIS NEGRO WITH HIS PETULENT GRIVENCES. HE'S OUR PRESIDENT, NOT THE LEADER OF ACORN.
HE NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED OR DESTROYED.....PERIOD

jim rice| 4.30.09 @ 3:45PM

@Ben: Yes, Clinton's decisions to lob missiles over there was also a poor one. Thankfully, however, his poor decisions were more limited than bush's.

@SBA: Thanks, I see what you're saying, and I suppose that we're really just in disagreement on one or two fine points. I think it should be a personal moral issue, and you think it should be a legal one in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Can I say that? I think that sounds noble, but... well... I was going to say that I don't think I can ever say that the government has the right to "protect" the possibility of life, but I keep wavering. I think I'm of the mind that maybe I actually don't care. If there's a popular consensus one way or the other, I'll go with it. Regardless, it will not affect me, b/c I believe that abortion is wrong, and I won't be doing it.

What do you think of the morning-after pill?

@Todd: Jesus, man... can you not express your opinions or your distaste for mine in a reasonable manner?

I do love Chavez, but that's neither here nor there.

We helped create the enemy we now have. We share the blame for starting the war with Osama. Just b/c he actually "declared" it first doesn't mean we can just deny all culpability. We weren't just happily going our own way and minding our own business when he decided that we would be the object of his wrath.

Terrorists aren't born, they're created.

NOTHING excuses 9/11 or the Cole or Luxor or any other terrori... whoops... man-made disasters he created or aided in any way.

The same way that nothing excuses us from blowing up 1000's of Iraqis.

Someone at some point has to be the bigger man and stop the cycle of retribution killings. Because that's all that it is. Everyone's looking for revenge and it will never ever end through use of force.

I didn't say that we should have released those documents. I suggested, in fact, that perhaps we should not have. What I did say is that, if we are unprepared to shine a light on any action we take, we should not be taking those actions. Didn't everyone learn that as a little kid? We're not talking about keeping state secrets. We're talking about immoral treatment of fellow human beings.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 3:58PM

"Regarding this torture issue you care sooo deeply about, believe it or not, not only did we declare that it is against the law to torture, we also define what torture is"

Indeed! In the Convention Against Torture, signed by President Reagan, we defined it 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"

It is alleged that high officials in the US government commanded that actions take place which fit this definition. Ergo investigations are mandated by law, and is a violation of the law to fail to conduct them. If you're wondering, yes I do feel awkward embarassing you and the other pro-torture anti-conservatives here over and over, but it's not hard in this case as you are factually, inarguably wrong - really about everything. Sorry. You act as though the president can declare that skinning someone alive isn't "torture" and that this will magically make it legal. Just because you and the other commenters here wish our president were a King or a Fuhrer, with the power to make laws and torture and spy on his own citizens simply does not make it so - the President does not have these powers in a Constitutional Republic, which is what we still have - despite the best efforts of (ahem) "conservatives".

"An investigation - sure. A show trial - hell no.
If our government wants to appoint an investigator to look into the allegations of torture then that's okay - do it. If that prosecuter thinks there's enough evidence to try someone in a court of law then he can bring charges against those people."

Perfect - you and I are in complete agreement - both with each other as well as with the law. It's really not that hard, people. If elite politicians break the law they should be investigated - just like real people are. Even when they are members of the party you support. Why does no one here but myself and Ben understand this?

the-gunslinger | 4.30.09 @ 4:03PM

I always get a kick out of Progressives claiming that water-boarding or other "harsh" techniques will cause terrorists to do the same to our guys...

...I'd guess that our troops and citizens would prefer water-boarding and being kept awake for a couple of days to the standard beheadings, rapes, beatings, and dragging them naked through the streets.

But hey, maybe that's just me...

jim rice| 4.30.09 @ 4:05PM

"Why does no one here but myself and Ben understand this?"

I'm with you. Makes sense to me.

But that was a United Nations agreement, right?
So doesn't that invalidate it immediately in the minds of some?

the-gunslinger | 4.30.09 @ 4:12PM

I always get a kick out of Progressives claiming that water-boarding or other "harsh" techniques will cause terrorists to do the same to our guys...

But hey, maybe that's just me...

susan b. anthony| 4.30.09 @ 4:14PM

jr:
Thank you for letting me air my point of view.

Two comments:
I'm sorry that you don't care. I guess you should be thankful that such a decision was not being considered during the period between your conception and birth. Also, I don't think that one's opinion on this matter should be subject to the prevailing winds. Consensus if for weak minds, not strong values.

Regarding the morning-after pill, I don't know enough about it (my bad). It depends on whether it halts conception or kills the result of it.

Finally, it seems like you and Todd need to drink a beer. Cheers!

jim rice| 4.30.09 @ 4:29PM

Gotcha... the pill is supposed to prevent fertilization if I understand it all correctly. Since it only really works if taken within about 72 hours and it typically takes longer than that for sperm to reach the egg, it sounds like this would be ok.

Maybe the solution is really just to make that much more widely available and make abortion illegal... except in maybe cases of death-of-the-mother. Surely 3 days is enough time to decide if you want the baby or not. It's only like 90-95% effective, but if you aren't prepared to have a child with someone, you probably shouldn't be having sex with them anyway. It's just reckless.

Wow... we are so far off topic... sorry!

I'm going for beer in 32 minutes; everyone is more than welcome to join me as I apparently plot the destruction of our country. ;)

Tom Paine| 4.30.09 @ 4:53PM

Why is it that you people believe the phrase "War on Terror" was somehow keeping us safe?

It's just a slogan, and it's a stupid slogan.

It sounds like "War on Drugs," for one thing, and we had better be much, much more effective preventing terrorism than we've been preventing drug use in this country.

As many experts and military people have pointed out, there can be no "War on Terror."

Terrorism is assymetrical combat directed at civilians. It's not a belief system, much less a centralized army or nation.

Preventing terrorist attacks is a condition of modernity. There will never be a time when terrorism does not threaten a free society.

Thus by declaring "war" on terrorists you enthrall yourself to a permanent, Orwellian war.

It's not right; it's not smart; it's not effective. And, best of all, it's not the policy of this country anymore.

Todd| 4.30.09 @ 5:06PM

Sorry Jim, any American citizen, which I presume you to be, that declares their love for Chavez is either a fool or a traitor to what America stands for. Why don't you take a look at what has happened to freedom with him in power? He is nothing but a power-hungry tyrant and I despise those who support him and others like him.

Are you really that clueless about Osama to say we are both to blame? Seems to me that you think the Taliban and Al Qaeda are legitimate groups who we need to respect and that is bullshit. That we are to blame for these terrorist becoming what they are is also bullshit. Their ideology is that anyone who doesn't follow their idea of militant Islam is an infidel and worthy of death. Explain to me the bombings in Spain or in Bali if it is just about America? Or the indiscriminate killing of fellow Muslims in Iraq? You can't because your theory is false and does not stand the light of day.

There you go with the tired liberal cliche about the cycle of violence. Let us get this straight Jim, they have no intention in stopping the cycle of violence and they would cut your damn head off if they got the chance. Waterboarding under the supervision of medical experts is not torture, cutting the head off of a living being with a knife like KSM did to Daniel Pearl is. Anyone who feels we tortured because we waterboarding this animal to get information to save the lives of fellow citizens is a fool of the highest order. Like I said, your messed up logic believes that it is better for thousands of citizens to die than for evil men like him not feel uncomfortable or threatened. God help us from people like you.

jim rice| 4.30.09 @ 5:28PM

I didn't say it was just about America. But America's (or "The West's") policies were the fuel for Osama's fire. I firmly believe that if we would do a little more minding of our own business then we wouldn't be giving these people reasons for committing the atrocities they commit. Do we share the blame equally? No, absolutely not. But it is foolish for us to blind ourselves and say that we bear none of the responsibility for the state of the world. If we hadn't stuck our nose in the business of the Middle East, it would have been an Arab army fighting Arab wars, Osama would not have been shunned by his country... I am not saying we would then have zero terrorists. I am not saying that Osama would not still be a crazy bastard. But we had our hands in the making of this particular madman.

As for Chavez, I've read the books and had the pleasure of speaking to dozens of Venezuelans, none of whom had anything but praise for Chavez. Of course I don't take that to mean that he is universally loved, and he's done some pretty underhanded things - especially of late. But he is not the villain the former administration painted him to be.

And you're right Todd, they don't intend to stop the violence. That's why it should be our job. We are so far above these petty wars and revenge and retribution. If we start removing the motivation for violence, who are they going to recruit to carry on their pathetic war? We can't kill them all. And our attempts just breed more contempt of "The West."

I watched that Daniel Pearl video... I couldn't have the sound on. It's the worst thing I've ever seen, and I absolutely cannot fathom how any human would do that to another, ever. It was brutal. But it was an execution. Not torture.

If we drop the question of "Is waterboarding, specifically 'torture'?" and just ask, "Is it ok for the US to torture people?" I still say no. You can't prove it works... at least, you can't prove that you can't get what you want w/o it. And what if... just once... what if you find you've tortured an innocent man? My life is less important than acting as humanely to all of my fellow humans as possible.

I'm going for beers now. If you're ever in Charlotte, I'm buying. :)

Cpm| 4.30.09 @ 5:30PM

"It's not right; it's not smart; it's not effective. And, best of all, it's not the policy of this country anymore. "

Well, for 7 years it was right, it was smart, and it was very effective.Now that self defense is no longer the policy of this government, all bets are off.

Warrior | 4.30.09 @ 6:10PM

S.L., since laws need to be enforced and I have no argument with that. Let's start by having show trials for torture. Quickly move on to all the immigration laws that need enforcement. Next, let's investigate medicare/medicaid fraud along with food stamp and welfare fraud. Please start the investigation of Ms. Feinstein whose husband has magically made millions of dollars on the government nickel. Chucky Schumer should be investigated for his words which started a bank run. Barney Frank needs to be investigated for his brokeback mountain affair at Freddie/Fannie and his outright protection of Franklin Raines. Chris Dodd has just been shown to have bought $1M worth of "cottage" overseas in 2002 from a felon he pushed Slick Willie to pardon which he has failed to report as required. Mentioning Billy C the convicted perjurer, he should answer for the order that allowed a missile to explode in the Chinese embassy. Don't leave Barry O out, remember he has ordered strikes in Pakistan (last time I checked we are not at war this nation) which has killed suspected terrorists and others. This sir must be a crime, as I do not know what authority he has to execute non-combatants on the soil of a nation we are not at war with, well at least he didn't torture them?.?

The list can go on for hours to include both parties and many government entities. We should also get that FDR for illegal Japanese internment and Abe Lincoln for suspending habeus corpus. Please also remember, to England, George Washington was a terrorist.

Tom Paine| 4.30.09 @ 6:19PM

Cpm --

Unfortunately, we have no good evidence as to why we were never attacked again. Remember, we hadn't been attacked like that before, either. To follow your reasoning, every presidents' terrorism policy before Bush's was superior to Bush's.

But that would be absurd to claim. Al Quaeda may just have given it everything they had. They may have concentrated their resources on Asia and the Middle East.

I'll tell you one thing. The fact that we used the slogan "War on Terror" had absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact we weren't attacked again.

Cpm | 4.30.09 @ 6:38PM

HANG the frikkin' slogan...It was the methods that the Bush administration used and that you and your ilk are retroactively criminalizing that had EVERYTHING to do with it.

You seem to have forgotten the first WTC bombing and the bombings of our embassies overseas and the USS Cole, which occurred during the last administration that thought self defense wasn't worthwhile. You are a disgrace to your namesake.

ds80| 4.30.09 @ 6:45PM

World Health Organization announces that Bush Derangement Syndrome is a chronic condition. Luckily, it only affects liberals with limited reasoning capability the inability to perceive truth or to comprehend facts.

ds80| 4.30.09 @ 6:50PM

"by declaring "war" on terrorists you enthrall yourself to a permanent, Orwellian war."

And ... so what? It's profoundly better than the current policy and Clinton's policy of America as Fortress Ostrich.

"best of all, it's not the policy of this country anymore" Wow: defending against terrorism is now not applicable. Is that change we can believe in? How does that help my children?

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 7:16PM

"S.L., since laws need to be enforced and I have no argument with that. Let's start by having show trials for torture. Quickly move on to all the immigration laws that need enforcement. Next, let's investigate medicare/medicaid fraud along with food stamp and welfare fraud. Please start the investigation of Ms. Feinstein whose husband has magically made millions of dollars on the government nickel..."

I couldn't agree more. This investigation into the debased criminality of the Bush administration - of their war crimes and lies and crimes against the Constitution - will absolutely implicate many leading Democrats, most of whom were entirely complicit in the rampant lawbreaking of the Bush years. Finally - someone gets it! If an elite commits a crime *they should be held accountable*. Regardless of whether they work in Washington or play dress-up in a flight-suit and prance around an aircraft carrier. Regardless of whether they are a member of your party. Regardless of whether they are in a position of power. Actually, *especially* when they are in a position of power. The reason Bush and Cheney and Pelosi and Dodd et al are allowed to break the law with impunity is precisely because they are never held accountable.

Anyway, nice work Warrior - I'm glad there are others here who understand how the Rule of Law works.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 7:22PM

"HANG the frikkin' slogan...It was the methods that the Bush administration used and that you and your ilk are retroactively criminalizing that had EVERYTHING to do with it. "

I love when people automatically assume that the Bush torture regime was the reason no terrorist attacks have struck the Fatherland, merely based on the lack of terror attacks. I'm going to use Cpm's reasoning here:

- I started playing the trombone three years ago. In that same period I have also not been attacked by man-eating tigers. Ergo playing the trombone deters man-eating tiger attacks.

That is fantastic logic. Really very, very impressive.

Oof!

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 7:28PM

"Unfortunately, we have no good evidence as to why we were never attacked again. Remember, we hadn't been attacked like that before, either. To follow your reasoning, every presidents' terrorism policy before Bush's was superior to Bush's."

After the World Trade Center bombing, Bill Clinton did not institute a massive and illegal domestic spying program. He did not institute a torture regime. He did not start a ridiculous "War On Terror". He tried terrorists in open court and convicted them. And guess what: after the WTC bombing there were no more Islamic terrorist attacks on the homeland. Ergo, using Cpm's sterling logic, Bill Clinton's method of handling the terrorist attacks "kept us safe". Not to mention - where is the credit to Obama, people? He has "kept us safe" for one hundred days! I remember when the Bush administration said there were FIVE THOUSAND Al Qaeda cells in the US, waiting to slaughter us all. And for 100 days Obama has Kept Us Safe.

Although come to think of it, perhaps my man-eating-tiger-deterring trombone works on terrorism as well. What say you, Cpm?

hahaha

Re: s.l. Tarded| 4.30.09 @ 7:32PM

"This investigation into the debased criminality of the Bush administration - of their war crimes and lies and crimes against the Constitution "

Nice to see you pimping investigations with such an open mind. You truly understand The Rule of Law. Why, you're a freakin' legal genius. Lots of accusations and just your worthless opinion to back them up.

Cpm| 4.30.09 @ 7:39PM

"Tortured" logic. The WTC bombing was followed by the bombings of our embassies in Africa and then the Cole. The Bush administration managed to keep our interests overseas as well as at home safe.

You just outed yourself dude, if I were you I would save mention of your man-eating-tiger-deterring trombone to your lonely-hearts chatroom.

hahahahah

Michael Tomlinson| 4.30.09 @ 7:51PM

I think it would be good to bring the author of rendition and aggressive interrogation, Bill Clinton, to trial since he was never held accountable for perjury or his crimes against humanity (genocide in Rwanda). The wheels of justice move slowly, but with MoveOn.org's help this international criminal might finally pay for his crimes.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 7:52PM

""Tortured" logic. The WTC bombing was followed by the bombings of our embassies in Africa and then the Cole. The Bush administration managed to keep our interests overseas as well as at home safe."

Um... no Americans died from terrorist attacks overseas during the Bush administration? I doubt even you are that poorly informed.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 7:55PM

"Nice to see you pimping investigations with such an open mind. You truly understand The Rule of Law. Why, you're a freakin' legal genius. Lots of accusations and just your worthless opinion to back them up."

How odd. I wonder how I would feel if I wrote something like this, knowing that I didn't for a second believe it. I mean, obviously you and I both know you don't believe I just "backed it up" with my own opinions - I posted the actual text of the very law that compels investigation. But when you write something like that, are you essentially lying to yourself or is that just for other people? I find the machinations of the human psyche fascinating, esp vis a vis self-delusion and so forth. Please - do explain.

Anonymous| 4.30.09 @ 7:57PM

Wars and being mean to people are, like, you know, bad, dude. (Especially when you can be politically, and possibly criminally, unpleasant to Republicans you don't like and can enjoy hurting for the sake of social justice.) Al Qaeda drills people's kneecaps and cuts off their hands just to soften them up (but not necessarily even for that much reason) and liberals don't complain (it's "part of their culture" or we'd be "judgmental," etc.) but we can't even annoy anybody to get them to answer questions (cops on TV shows-- Law & Order: SVU, anyone?-- do that all the time) or we're a bunch of warmongering fascists.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 8:02PM

"I think it would be good to bring the author of rendition and aggressive interrogation, Bill Clinton, to trial"

That's nice. Under which law, exactly? I'm all ears, really. I would be happy to see Slick Willie hauled before court, especially after his war on the Balkans etc. But I'm not sure you can make any case that wouldn't also damn our fruity Texan friend just out of office.

As far as the Convention Against Torture and the investigations they compel, I don't see that particular law being trouble for any politicians outside of the Bush administration and leading senate Democrats.

Just so we're all straight here, you all DO believe Bush et al commited crimes, correct? That is why you oppose investigations, no? After all, aren't you the people who said if you haven't done anything wrong you should have no worry about the government poking their nose into your business? I seem to recall that gem being tossed about pretty often by faux-conservatives like yourselves back when Bush was illegally spying on American citizens.

Anyhow, you believe Bush committed crimes, right? Because you seem terrified of an investigation that, if he was innocent, would certainly exonerate him and his cronies in the "opposition" party.

whiterb| 4.30.09 @ 8:04PM

S.L.Toddard, what is your opinion of what happened at Waco. Also, would you be a witness for the prosecution in the torture trials ahead ? I'd love to see you cross examined by say, Mark Levin.

Martin McPhillips | 4.30.09 @ 8:18PM

If the President, as commander-in-chief, needs information from captured terrorists to protect the United States and its citizens from attack, then he can within reason do what needs to be done to get it. Enhanced interrogation is within reason given the set of circumstances involved in asymmetrical warfare, where every individual is in effect weaponized as a node of information in the terrorist network. Asymmetrical warfare is an information system that has no armies, no uniforms, no identifiable equipment, or insignias, no real strategic goals, and in the cases under discussion no legal connection to a nation-state, and so it cannot be easily detected until an attack. The President has Constitutional duties and authority to defend the country. If an international treaty is too cumbersome (asymmetrical networks can be formulated to use such a treaty to protect themselves, for instance) then the President has the authority to, in fact, abrogate the treaty itself, or to interpret it as not applying in a given situation.

Every terrorist is party to an ongoing conspiracy to murder innocent people and should have no expectation to be protected under any treaty as if he were a legal combatant. He is not a legal combatant. His weapon is information and he needs to be disarmed. That's what the enhanced interrogation methods are for, and when needed they will save lives.

Afterwards, the captured terrorist can be treated as any prisoner would be, and if the facts warrant it he can be tried before a military commission and sentenced, if found guilty, to a prison term or death.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 8:43PM

"S.L.Toddard, what is your opinion of what happened at Waco"

It's yet another example of federal power run amok. A tragedy that need never have happened, and a prelude of the sort of authoritarian police-state we're becoming - a process which, incidentally, Bush accelerated dramatically by eradicating habeas corpus and instituting a surveillance state that spied on millions of law-abiding Americans who were not even implicated in any crimes whatsoever, never mind terrorism.

Imagine, though, if Bush had ordered that strike, how hard everyone here would be bending over backwards to defend his actions? It was wrong when Clinton did it, and it would be wrong if Bush did. It was wrong when Bush operated behind a wall of secrecy, and it's wrong that Obama has adopted that policy. It was wrong when the Big Government liberal George W Bush spent our money faster than any president (democrat or republican) since FDR and expanded the size and scope of the federal government likewise, and it's wrong that Obama is doing it now. It's wrong that Bush opted to bail out the financial industry and it's wrong that Obama is doing it now.

If one did not oppose any of these measures when done by Bush but does oppose them when done by Obama then one is a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Cpm| 4.30.09 @ 8:48PM

You keep waving around this silly treaty on torture but that means nothing...you only have your worthless opinion that "torture" as you define it, i.e.,caterpillars in the cell, etc. occurred. Your opinion. To answer your question, no, I don't think the Bush administration is guilty of war crimes and/or torture. I think they did their sworn duty. But your desire to engage in a figurative and literal circle-jerk of endless pointless investigations is just puzzling. You are not operating in the real world. You are in some theoretical universe where all this occurs in a vacuum. It is like an intellectual exercise with you...if I thought you really had an intellect of course.

How's that man-eating trombone doing? Did you get any bites?

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 8:54PM

"If the President, as commander-in-chief, needs information from captured terrorists to protect the United States and its citizens from attack, then he can within reason do what needs to be done to get it."

Wrong. He can, within the law, do what needs to be done to get it. If he exceeds the boundaries set by the law then he has committed a crime and is a criminal, literally and categorically.

"Enhanced interrogation is within reason given the set of circumstances involved in asymmetrical warfare"

False. It depends entirely on what "enhanced" interrogation technique is used and how it is applied.

"The President has Constitutional duties and authority to defend the country. If an international treaty is too cumbersome (asymmetrical networks can be formulated to use such a treaty to protect themselves, for instance) then the President has the authority to, in fact, abrogate the treaty itself, or to interpret it as not applying in a given situation."

Wrong. Please cite which Article of the Constitution gives the president this power. The president's first duty is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", Article 6 of which mandates that all treaties made "under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". The president does not have the authority to set aside the Constitution without declaring martial law.

"Every terrorist is party to an ongoing conspiracy to murder innocent people and should have no expectation to be protected under any treaty as if he were a legal combatant. He is not a legal combatant. His weapon is information and he needs to be disarmed. That's what the enhanced interrogation methods are for, and when needed they will save lives."

Irrelevant. It is not legal for the United States to torture anyone, ever. That is simply a fact. And torture has been alleged. It is entirely irrelevant if *you* do not believe torture took place, or if the President or the CIA believed it was torture - it is not even relevant if torture *did* take place. All that is relevant to the question of investigations is the following:

1. Torture has been alleged to have taken place.
2. U.S. law compels the Justice Department to investigate all allegations of torture, period.

That's all one really needs to know. That's not to say anyone will be convicted of torture or war crimes. If torture did not take place, or if what took place was lawful, then shouldn't you be pushing for investigations to clear these unfounded charges?

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 8:57PM

"You keep waving around this silly treaty on torture but that means nothing...you only have your worthless opinion that "torture" as you define it, i.e.,caterpillars in the cell, etc. occurred."

Ugh. Whether torture "occured" is IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand. All that is relevant to the question of investigations is the following:

1. Torture has been *alleged* to have taken place.
2. U.S. law *compels* the Justice Department to investigate all *allegations* of torture, period.

And again: Just so we're all straight here, you all DO believe Bush et al commited crimes, correct? That is why you oppose investigations, no? After all, aren't you the people who said if you haven't done anything wrong you should have no worry about the government poking their nose into your business? I seem to recall that gem being tossed about pretty often by faux-conservatives like yourselves back when Bush was illegally spying on American citizens.

Anyhow, you believe Bush committed crimes, right? Because you seem terrified of an investigation that, if he was innocent, would certainly exonerate him and his accomplices in the "opposition" party.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 8:59PM

"But your desire to engage in a figurative and literal circle-jerk of endless pointless investigations is just puzzling."

Really? It's puzzling to want to have alleged crimes investigated? Even when the law demands that they be investigated?

What you are saying here is that you find it puzzling that anyone should want the law obeyed. I'm not sure if I can explain it any plainer than I have: allegations of torture have been made. The justice department is bound by law to investigate - to fail to do so is a crime. What is so mystifying?

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 9:07PM

Also, Cpm, it is not a "man-eating trombone". No such thing exists - the idea itself is ludicrous! I have a maneating-tiger-deterring trombone; it deters man-eating tiger attacks, as is proven beyond a doubt by the fact that I have not been attacked by a man-eating tiger since I bought my trombone.

Martin McPhillips | 4.30.09 @ 9:14PM

Toddard, if your sole claim to the "illegality" of these techniques is an international treaty, the President can abrogate any treaty. The Supreme Court decision confirming that (it involved Barry Goldwater, for some reason) isn't at the tip of my fingers, but the most recent high-profile abrogation of a treaty was Bush's abrogation of the ABM treaty in his first term.

You're quite exercised and hyperventilated on this matter, and you've jammed up an entire comment thread with repetitious codswallop. All well and good, I suppose. But you don't seem to know that the President can, in fact, abrogate a treaty, when and if it interferes with his duty as, say, comander-in-chief. Now, you might have a case to make, but you've drowned yourself out.

Cite a federal statute if you have one. Cite the precise language you think represents the law violated. You've cited an international treaty, but without reading the provisions of it, it's not clear that it does or could apply to the situations or individuals in question. And then there's the authority of the President, which in foreign affairs and the conduct of war, is very broad.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 9:22PM

He still cannot order torture - ever. The law reads:

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture"

This treaty is still law in the U.S. - it is, indeed, "the supreme law of the land" as per Article 6.

macdaddy| 4.30.09 @ 9:22PM

I'm sure s.l. and jim rice have called for the prosecution of Obama for blowing up civilians in Pakistan, so it's all good.

Rusty Shackleford| 4.30.09 @ 9:23PM

I refuse to accept the premise that only the left can define torture. I was asked, "Would you accept the waterboarding of American troops captured by our enemy?" Well, when American soldiers were abducted by the terrorists in Iraq, they were tortured and mutilated before being beheaded. I think they would have preferred to have been waterboarded instead.

I notice that the left is always willing to stand up for principle when its someone else is at risk. When the principle puts their own safety at risk, not so much.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 9:24PM

"Toddard, if your sole claim to the "illegality" of these techniques is an international treaty, the President can abrogate any treaty."

But he hasn't, ergo it is still law, ergo torture is illegal. Even if he had, torture is illegal under US law. But that is irrelevant, as this treaty still stands as official U.S. law.

Sorry - you have no argument.

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 9:28PM

"the President can abrogate any treaty. The Supreme Court decision confirming that (it involved Barry Goldwater, for some reason) isn't at the tip of my fingers, but the most recent high-profile abrogation of a treaty was Bush's abrogation of the ABM treaty in his first term."

You are speaking of Goldwater v Carter. The Supreme Court decided nothing - they threw the case out.

Regardless, Bush never abrogated or even *attempted to* abrogate the Convention Against Torture. It is still official US law.

What say you now?

S.L. Toddard| 4.30.09 @ 9:29PM

"I refuse to accept the premise that only the left can define torture."

So do I. It's a good thing no one's proposing that, and that it was President Reagan who signed the Convention Against Torture, which compels investigation.

Martin McPhillips | 4.30.09 @ 9:41PM

Your invocation of a treaty together with the "supreme law" bit in Article 6 is a long way from making a case that a crime has been committed. Taking one line from a treaty, providing no context, etc.

Anyway, your point is taken, I'm sure, by the participants here. It is a political point that you're trying to camouflage as a legal point. The President does, in fact, have a higher responsibility to his duties as commander-in-chief than he does to any treaty. And if the Executive Office of the President handled the matter correctly, as I will assume it did for the time being (because I'm not that interested in doing on point research on the question), then the question of the President exceeding his authority should be null.

If the current President, or his Attorney General, want to press the matter, they will surely rue the day. Because it will come back to haunt them.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Bush lawyers carved out plenty of legal room for these interrogations techniques. Haven't read the memos, and there are probably more that were too inconvenient or too classified to be released. But the bit of language you quote from the treaty is overbroad and poorly defined and it sounds precisely like the sort of thing that one of the terrorists legal advisors would find as a hedge for his clients, should he be advising them on behavior if captured. Using the moral center of a society against it is an asymmetrical tactic perfected by Hezbollah, for instance.

You might want to think about that, or just think a little, before you flap out another ten posts to this comment thread.

Martin McPhillips | 4.30.09 @ 9:49PM

"it was President Reagan who signed the Convention Against Torture, which compels investigation."

Compels investigation by whom? If some other party to the treaty believes it was violated to their detriment, let them sue the United States in an international court.

Is one of the parties to the treaty willing to do that on behalf of one or more of the captured terrorists? If so, let them do so, and let the U.S. respond.

Who has standing under that treaty? Does the Department of Justice have any authority to even consider these matters under the terms of the treaty? Why would the U.S. investigate itself for a treaty violation?

Martin McPhillips | 4.30.09 @ 10:00PM

"What say you now?"

I say your premises are thin and overworked.

And that they don't merit the hyperventilation you've devoted to them in crowding up this thread.

I don't mind repetition, necessarily, but you never deepened your argument. Your reliance on the Article 6 language is an old bone in the throat of Constitutional discussions.

So, O.K., you've scratched the surface, but continuing to scratch the surface gets you what, besides a reputation for vandalism.

Nick| 4.30.09 @ 10:34PM

Mr. Toddard,

I allege your posts are "torture" and demand an investigation. I also allege your logic is "tortured". However, according to your Reagan treaty quote, water-boarding is not "torture". And it never will be.

I can't believe you're still using the argument that bubba the pervert kept the "homeland" safe like GWB did. It is lame. As is your "I'm more conservative than Ronald Reagan" attitude.

If you care so much about the "Rule of Law", please answer the following: I've seen several documentaries on WWII in which veterans have confessed to shooting and killing unarmed P.O.W's. This was a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. Should these veterans be prosecuted for war crimes if they are still alive?

Jim| 4.30.09 @ 11:14PM

Pretty obvious most of you have never been in combat. I didn't see any of you clowns in Vietnam when my unit found South Vietnamese civilians bound and shot in the head by the VC during Tet. Enhanced interrogation works. Sorry you liberal fools but the enemy doesn't give a shit about the "moral high ground", they're in it win by any meand possible.

Sam H| 5.1.09 @ 1:51AM

To all of the lunatic, but oh-so-sensitive, metrosexuals masquerading as men in this present-day American society, I will unequivocally state one more time that waterboarding (part of our SEAL training), halal food, sleep deprivation, harsh language, Korans handled with white gloves and the like DO NOT CONSTITUTE TORTURE. Got it? The Obama narcissists are playing with political fire and weakening this country and its defenses.

Right now, the trial of a former Khmer Rouge thug is ongoing in which real TORTURE is defined clearly. Right now, in any number of Cuban or Arab hell-hole prisons, real TORTURE is taking place. Right now, in lovable Olympics-worthy China, horrific tortures are happening which will make your guts churn and your body tremble at the barbarity of it all. Right now. Anyone who calls humiliation, emotional degradation, waterboarding, the smearing of excrement or loud music TORTURE really does need to get a clue.

The rule of law does not apply to savages who have turned their back on the law and on any civilized society or religion. In better days, such men were placed against a wall and shot. I prefer this method of dealing with these cretins and predict that will be the new and unspoken rule by which we take fewer and fewer prisoners. Who wants to feed and house these savages? Who needs the hassle.

The only point in capturing these people is TO EXTRACT useful intelligence from them. To those on the Left who do not understand this, please realize we are not wanting to give these people vacations or help them to "find themselves." I hope our new policy becomes "get what you can from them and then shoot them or hand them over to a local friendly." I am tired of all the whining that emanates from the Left when Islamic butchers are denied the "due process" that does not apply to them in the first place.

These people are not covered by the Geneva Conventions or the rules of warfare.

Wake up idiots.

BPT | 5.1.09 @ 6:02AM

Nancy Pelosi needs to be investigated. When did she use Botox and with whom?

S.L. Toddard| 5.1.09 @ 7:03AM

"Your invocation of a treaty together with the "supreme law" bit in Article 6 is a long way from making a case that a crime has been committed."

I imagine this is because I am *not trying* to make a case that a crime has been committed. I am making a case that investigations are warranted - indeed I have *made* that case - successfully. The law is quite plain.

S.L. Toddard| 5.1.09 @ 7:05AM

"Compels investigation by whom?"

The U.S. justice department.

S.L. Toddard| 5.1.09 @ 7:09AM

"To all of the lunatic, but oh-so-sensitive, metrosexuals masquerading as men in this present-day American society, I will unequivocally state one more time that waterboarding (part of our SEAL training), halal food, sleep deprivation, harsh language, Korans handled with white gloves and the like DO NOT CONSTITUTE TORTURE"

It's a pity that your opinion has no standing and is not even remotely relevant. Torture - however you wish to describe it - has been alleged and therefore the justice department is bound by law to investigate. I take it, though, that you yourself are in favor of investigations as they will surely result in vindication for the accused, no torture having (in your opinion) ever taken place.

S.L. Toddard| 5.1.09 @ 7:17AM

"The rule of law does not apply to savages who have turned their back on the law and on any civilized society or religion"

How truly ironic. The rule of law, sir, DOES apply to the U.S. government - our leaders and representatives are bound by it. And to believe otherwise - to assert that one's leaders are not bound by law or should not be held accountable under the law is to become a nation of "savages who have turned their back on the law and on any civilized society". Really - it is ironic in the extreme that you yourself are the savage you speak of. You have "turned your back on the law" - you believe your President is not bound by it. You believe we should not honor our treaties and Constitution. How sad.

megapotamus | 5.1.09 @ 9:02AM

If waterboarding is torture then the Obama Administration has been torturing a dozen-odd people a day since its inception. And these are not criminals or terrorists or indeed malefactors of any sort, rather they are our own military servicemembers and plenty of them; basically anyone with a flight crew designation. I look forward to Mr Toddard and his fellow travelers seeking the impeachment and removal of Barack and his criminal cronies.

S.L. Toddard| 5.1.09 @ 9:14AM

"f waterboarding is torture then the Obama Administration has been torturing a dozen-odd people a day since its inception. And these are not criminals or terrorists or indeed malefactors of any sort, rather they are our own military servicemembers and plenty of them; basically anyone with a flight crew designation."

Wrong. Torture is: "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." Clearly your example does not fit this description.

megapotamus | 5.1.09 @ 10:11AM

"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
Then your "torture" is not torture either, as the pain and suffering is incidental to interrogation especially if you take seriously the term "severe". Waterboarding and the other practices objected to employ no severity of any kind. Or are we not to interrogate or even restrain either, these fine fellows like Khalid Sheik Muhammed? Of course, that is what the fans of jihad mean, that there should be no apprehension, incarceration or even questioning of the baby bombers. Much better that those nasty skyscrapers stop scraping the sky. Bad for the earth, dontcha know...

On the merits though, I certainly support an investigation and criminal prosecutions. Funny thing about trials as opposed to media indictment, there is actually a defense. That presumes of course that the current DOJ is not adopting Iranian methods of jurisprudence. A rash assumption with scum like these Obies....

Goldy| 5.1.09 @ 10:18AM

S.L. Toddard seems reasonable and makes some points. I think a good refutation and different perspective are ably presented by William McGurn of the WSJ here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124087403668161211.html. It seems that Toddar's case for a Truth Commission and prosecutions is based entirely on the reference to the document Reagan signed. It seems to me it's an over simplification, and a read of the McGurn article is a good start to understanding why.

S.L. Toddard| 5.1.09 @ 12:33PM

McGurn may have a point with regards to a "truth commission", which in any case would be a copout and is an entirely separate issue. What US law mandates is an investigation by the justice department.

S.L. Toddard| 5.1.09 @ 12:36PM

"Then your "torture" is not torture either, as the pain and suffering is incidental to interrogation especially if you take seriously the term "severe". Waterboarding and the other practices objected to employ no severity of any kind."
That's neither here nor there. You argue that allegations of torture are unfounded - that may be the case, though it is irrelevant. If those allegations are unfounded that will surely come out in the investigation that US law demands and that only opponents of the Rule of Law can oppose.

Nick| 5.1.09 @ 9:15PM

Mr. Toddard,

What? No reply?

Can't answer or won't answer?

Besides, all credible and even non-credible (Haditha) allegations of torture have been investigated. And where it occurred, the offenders were prosecuted. So to what alleged incidents of torture are you referring? The water-boarding?

It has not been "alleged" that water-boarding was used, it has been admitted. So what is there to investigate?

You want show trials.

Nick| 5.1.09 @ 9:44PM

Mr. Toddard,

Goldy is right, Mr. McGurn's point directly rebuts you. If water-boarding was "illegal" per the Convention Against Torture treaty, as you say it was, why did democrats try to outlaw it twice?

BronxRob| 5.1.09 @ 11:04PM

Has the definition of torture been "dumbed-down" or am I missing something?

When the term "torture" comes to mind I visualize having my fingers chopped off one knuckle at a time or having a red-hot poker shoved up my ass.

The "enhanced interrogation techniques" that the squealing libtards call torture are not much worse than some fraternity hazings.

Stripping people naked, making sleep difficult for them, pouring water down their noses and throwing bugs at them is in that category. That is not torture. For some of us, it was a rite of passage.

Katie Roberts | 5.3.09 @ 11:35AM

Well, if I were writing a term paper on this I would first have to discredit sources from Tennet because he is obviously has an interest in trying to exculpate himself. All the other interrogators who participated in these events have said that torture was ineffective and counter productive - like Ali Soufan.

Also, the reason funding was cut to the CIA was due to things like Watergate and some rather unfortunate events in South America.

S.L. Toddard| 5.3.09 @ 12:55PM

" What? No reply?

Can't answer or won't answer?"

I'm sorry, Nick. I was away. Your question, I believe, is whether US soldiers who committed war crimes should be investigated? I think to ask the question answers it, no? Of course they should. What kind of a savage, barbarian country do you want us to become, anyway? You believe we should occupy the same moral ground as Al Qaeda etc? We're trying to have a civilization here, Nick. How about you help out a little.

S.L. Toddard| 5.3.09 @ 12:57PM

"Goldy is right, Mr. McGurn's point directly rebuts you."

Wrong. McGurn may have a point with regards to a "truth commission", which in any case would be a cop-out and is an entirely separate issue. What US law mandates is an investigation by the justice department, not a "truth commission".

"If water-boarding was "illegal" per the Convention Against Torture treaty, as you say it was"

Please cite where I said that.

S.L. Toddard| 5.3.09 @ 1:06PM

"We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during a course of that, both by the armed forces and CIA. It (releasing the memos) was the right thing to do. . . . There is prosecutorial discretion. We shouldn't in my view go after the CIA officers involved in this. There is a good argument in my view for reviewing the White House justice council and the Attorney General's office who okayed this."

- 4 Star General Barry McCaffrey

"At least 26 prisoners have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 in what Army and Navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide, according to military officials."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/politics/16abuse.html

I am old enough to remember when the USSR was a threat. And I mean a *real* threat - an existential threat. They were a nation with literally thousands of nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missles aimed at our cities. They could quite literally end our existence. A far more real, tangible and dangerous threat than these pathetic primitives we face now. I mean really - try to envision a scenario where terrorists literally end our existence - it's impossible. Literally impossible. Anyway, I remember when the USSR was a threat and were painted (accurately) as monsters. They had the KGB spying on their own citizens. They whisked people away in secret, in the dead of night, to secret prisons to be tortured. They operated under a veil of secrecy. They were bound by no laws, no moral code. That was what made them monsters in the eyes of Americans back then.

And that is the kind of country you people want us to become. Actually, that is the kind of country we *have* become, under the "leadership" of the people you support. These are the kinds of monstrous, evil acts you people defend, that you people oppose investigating. You stand against the republican ideals on which this nation was founded. You stand against the rule of law.

You stand against - in a very real way - the idea of America itself. You are categorically anti-American, no less than any left-wing radical. You are, to be frank, left-wing radicals yourself, in that you believe in an omnipotent federal government and a radical restructing of the United States and the destruction of all that this country once stood for.

Shame on you.

S.L. Toddard| 5.3.09 @ 1:11PM

"Has the definition of torture been "dumbed-down" or am I missing something?"

Nope - it's the same as it was when Ronald Reagan defined it in U.S. law in the Convention Against Torture, the relevant passages of which I qu0ted above. It is alleged that acts took place that are, under the definition in the CAT (signed by "libtard" Ronald Reagan), 'torture', and U.S. law mandates that an investigation into these allegations take place to find if they are true.

If, as you all pretend to believe, no torture took place then that will surely come out in an investigation. You people should be pushing for investigations. After all, if nothing wrong was done then what do these people have to hide?

Nick| 5.3.09 @ 3:53PM

Mr. Toddard,

I may have inferred from what you wrote that you were talking about water-boarding, I don't remember and don't feel like re-reading all your posts. Plus, I specifically asked you in the previous post "to what alleged incidents of torture are you referring?". If it was water-boarding, nothing has been alleged, it has been admitted. As you cite no specific allegations, one has to infer.

But as I also stated, all allegations, credible and not, HAVE BEEN investigated, and prosecuted as warranted. So exactly what do you want investigated?

I didn't ask you if WWII vets should be "investigated", they already confessed to shooting prisoners. I asked if they should be prosecuted.

As for your specific questions, all I can say is I was not there and won't fault those men for what they did. It was 60 years ago and the whole world was at war. If in the middle of a battle an officer ordered his men to shoot prisoners because it hampered the mission and he had no way to secure them, so be it. That is in no way comparable to what the Japs, Krauts, or Soviets did. And not even close to what A.Q. does. War is not like it was in "Saving Private Ryan".

You have to take each case individually, not "investigate" every allegation that comes from a savage. Like maybe, I don't know, not believing Korans were "flushed" down toilets at Gitmo or other such nonsense.

Lingerie | 9.12.09 @ 11:03PM

sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|146 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|80 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|13 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|30 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 9:33PM

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 9:12PM

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

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

By George Neumayr

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

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

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

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?