- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Pursuit of Knowledge
Facing Torture
The debate over the use of torture has taken a new and disturbing turn, as prominent Democrats seek to bring criminal charges against key members of the previous U.S. administration. More over, Baltasar Garzón, who has for several years been using his position as a Spanish judge to further leftist causes, has now seen an opportunity to open criminal investigations against America, joining the Islamists in their strategy of “lawfare” against the Great Satan.
Of course, politicians can commit crimes and should be held to account for them. But policies that run counter to this or that UN convention are not necessarily crimes within the jurisdiction of a state, and when these policies are adopted by the organs of government after due deliberation and with sincere regard to the public interest it is only in exceptional circumstances that those who execute them could be regarded as criminal. The correct response in those exceptional circumstances is to put an entire government and its supporting network on trial, as the Allies put the Nazi regime on trial at the end of World War II, and as Eastern European governments have tried in vain to put the Communist Party on trial in recent decades.
If we don’t follow those principles, then just about every government in the world today could be charged with crimes, and each administration could be hauled before the courts by its successor. This would lead to a breakdown of trust between the parties and the first steps toward civil war of the kind often seen in South America. And it would cause politicians to retreat entirely from those difficult decisions that the national interest requires them to make, for fear of ending up in jail. It goes without saying that this will be an encouragement to the nation’s enemies. And it ought to be equally obvious that it will lead to an escalation, rather than a diminution, in the worldwide violations of human rights.
On the other hand it is necessary to be clear about the fundamental question, which is when, if ever, torture might be justified, and to what extent. No decent person condones the torture of the innocent. But no decent person condones the imprisonment of the innocent either, or the subjection of the innocent to distressing interrogations or harsh regimes. English law contains an ancient commonlaw right, secured by the writ of habeas corpus (soon to be canceled by the corpus juris of the EU), which compels those who would imprison, interrogate, or punish us in any way to accuse us first before a valid court of law, and to bring proof of our guilt. If the punishments include torture, which once they did, at least it would be on the assumption that only the guilty are tortured. And are there no crimes for which torture is an appropriate punishment? What about the crimes of Hitler or Stalin? How many think that Othello ends with an injustice, when Iago is taken away to torture, in order that his motives be known?
Behind the liberal protests against the harsh treatment of enemies, I sometimes sense the view that all war crime has its origin in us. Bad things are certainly done by Americans in war. But the victims of American ill treatment frequently make loud noises in the worldwide media; the victims of the Syrian mukhabarat utter loud noises too, but these noises are never heard outside the place where they occur. That distinction says a lot about the real difference between “them” and “us,” and about the kind of enemy we are now confronting.
In the case of Guantanamo, we are not dealing with torture used as a legal punishment. People held there have been held as prisoners of war. The rules of habeas corpus were said not to apply. However, there had been no declaration of war, and the prisoners have all denied that they were at war or under orders. The only way to conceive of their imprisonment therefore is as part of a preemptive strategy. There is no such thing, in English and American law or in natural justice, as preemptive punishment. Even if I know you are going to kill someone, I would be committing a crime by imprisoning you to prevent this.
So the first question is: when preemptive action is justified, against whom and how? I don’t regard imprisonment, harsh interrogation, and the milder forms of torture as so very different from each other that you can say: of course one is allowed but not the other. We are in a very difficult area here. All of those actions involve an invasion of individual rights. And this invasion has been justified by the Bush administration on grounds of public utility. By doing this, it was claimed, we obtain the information necessary to prevent crimes so dreadful that our actions are justified by the result. Is that ever true? If so, might it be true in the present case? If it is true in the present case, could it be that torture of the guilty is necessary to prevent far worse crimes against the innocent? And what if we are not sure that the victim is even guilty?
Some people think that utilitarian reasoning is never sufficient to override an individual right. Such people would have to conclude, not merely that we should not torture, but that we should not imprison or harshly interrogate the people captured in the course of the “war on terror.” There is a lot to be said for this position, and I think there are hints of it in President Obama’s response—he believing that we must be seen to stand by the principles that distinguish us, and in particular by the respect for individual rights which is so eminently lacking in the conduct of the terrorists who threaten us. But is it, in the circumstances, a realistic strategy? Christians are taught to turn the other cheek to those who strike them. But this does not entitle the person who is guardian of a child to turn the child’s other cheek to the bully who has struck her. Governments, like parents, are responsible for protecting those in their charge. They have to use whatever violence is necessary to achieve this aim, within the constraints of natural justice. In the Middle Ages philosophers and jurists discussed what this involved. When is a war just, and what are the just means of conducting it? What if your enemy does not make war in a just manner, taking hostages, killing civilians, arbitrarily inflicting maximum suffering for the sheer joy of it? Aquinas thought that you must not be the first to take hostages or threaten civilians, but that up to a point you are entitled to retaliate, provided your purpose is to compel the other side to fight fair.
But that brings us back to the general difficulty that we are confronting. There is no “other side,” just a lot of individuals who have declared war in their hearts against the Great Satan. The existing strictures, enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, simply don’t specify what to do in this case. Nevertheless, the moral sense is not silent: all of us, when growing up, learned to distinguish situations in which “fair fighting” was the only rightful response from the “no holds barred” emergency. And when a government encounters such an emergency, through no fault of its own, it must draw on the reserves of moral sense that we all acquired on the children’s playground. It must feel free to imprison and interrogate people who are serious suspects, and interrogation might have to be harsh if it is to protect the innocent from atrocities. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the United States government felt called upon to act in ways that would not be sanctioned by the legal and moral principles that constrain its normal conduct. For it had been presented with vivid evidence of a dangerous and implacable enemy, with no moral scruples and no regard for innocent life. In such cases harsh retaliation is sometimes the only option—the only way of fulfilling the obligation that lies on every government to protect the citizens under its charge.
However, we may well wonder whether the conditions still endure in which it is reasonable and morally justified to override the rules of fair fighting. The situation today is not that of the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Plans may well be afoot to blow up a Western city with a nuclear bomb, or to spread contagious and lethal infections. But our approach should be to guard against these dangers, if we can, within the legal and moral norms of democratic government. In particular we must devise a strategy of longterm defense which will enable us not only to abide by habeas corpus, so that all punishments are administered, if at all, only after due process of a valid court of law, but also to enforce the law against torture. If we cannot do that, then we will live beneath a permanent cloud of distrust and recrimination, unable to believe in our own goodwill.
As that suggests, however, torture has been pushed to the top of the political agenda only now, when a shared sense of security makes the moral high ground safe. It is only because of the success of the war on terror that Americans can take a principled stance in opposition to it, safely expressing sentiments that, in the wake of 9/11, would have seemed as selfindulgent to liberals as they seem to conservatives today. One way for the liberal critics to avoid the painful recognition of this truth is to put President Bush and his administration in the dock alongside al Qaeda. This kind of “moral equivalence,” which furthers the cause of America’s enemies, makes the flight from reality look like a deeper confrontation with it. The liberal view of history is once again confirmed, with all disasters laid at the door of unprincipled conservatives, and the liberal vanguard leading ever onward toward the light.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Halliburton and Dick Cheney| 7.13.09 @ 6:57AM
Home | About Us | Donate | Signup | Archives | Search Monday, July 13, 2009
Featured Views
Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Thursday, April 3, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Halliburton, Dick Cheney, and Wartime Spoils
by Lee Drutman and Charlie Cray
When Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle revealed that he was getting $725,000 to help Global Crossing navigate the national security issues surrounding the sale of its assets, the press jumped all over Perle, and rightly so. There was indeed something fishy about the chairman of a board that advises the Pentagon making that kind of money to help a company that was having problems with national security issues. Perle is also on the board of Onset Technology, the leading provider of message conversion technology and a major supplier to Bechtel - one of the leading candidates for rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure.
As the Center for Public Integrity has documented, this kind of thing is quite prevalent on the Defense Policy Board, where at least nine of the 30 members have ties to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002. As more and more wartime contracts are announced, more and more conflicts of interest are coming to light. After all, the Bush administration is riddled with ties to the weapons, engineering, construction, and oil companies that have the most to profit from a war in Iraq. Perle's story is certainly not unusual.
However, of all the administration members with potential conflicts of interest, none seems more troubling than Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney is former CEO of Halliburton, an oil-services company that also provides construction and military support services - a triple-header of wartime spoils.
A few weeks ago, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers awarded a no-bid contract to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq to Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton. The contract was granted under a January Bush administration waiver that, according to the Washington Post, allowed "government agencies to handpick companies for Iraqi reconstruction projects."
The contract, which was not announced until more than two weeks after it was awarded, was open-ended, with no time limits and no dollar limits. It was also a "cost-plus" contract, meaning that the company is guaranteed to recover costs and then make a guaranteed profit on top of that. Its value is estimated at tens of millions of dollars.
This is not the first buck that Cheney's former company has made off military conflict and likely won't be the last. KBR currently has thousands of military support personnel on the ground in Kuwait and Turkey as part of a multi-year contract worth close to a billion dollars. The engineering subsidiary was also one of a select few firms invited to bid on an initial $900 million USAID contract for rebuilding post-war Iraq. Though it didn't get that job, Halliburton says it is still in the running for subcontracts and there will likely be plenty more opportunities. After all, the American Academy of Sciences estimates the rebuilding Iraq will cost between $30 and $105 billion dollars. At a recent investor conference call, Halliburton reported a 30% increase in year-over-year revenues, to $1.6 billion, for KBR.
Cheney, who served as CEO from 1995 to 2000, continues to receive as much as $1 million a year in deferred compensation as Halliburton executives enjoy a seat at the table during Administration discussions over how to handle post-war oil production in Iraq.
The Cheney-Halliburton story is the classic military-industrial revolving door tale. As Secretary of Defense under Bush I, Cheney paid Brown and Root services (now Kellogg Brown and Root) $3.9 million to report on how private companies could help the U.S. Army as Cheney cut hundreds of thousands of Army jobs. Then Brown and Root won a five-year contract to provide logistics for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers all over the globe. In 1995, Cheney became CEO and Halliburton jumped from 73rd to 18th on the Pentagon's list of top contractors, benefiting from at least $3.8 billion in federal contracts and taxpayer-insured loans, according to the Center for Public Integrity.
But the Halliburton story is more than just a simple revolving door tale. Even without the Cheney conflicts of interest, serious doubts remain about whether a company with a record like Halliburton's should even be eligible to receive government contracts in the first place. This, after all, is a company that has been accused of cost overruns, tax avoidance, and cooking the books and has a history of doing business in countries like Iraq, Iran and Libya.
Cost overruns: In September 2000, the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that the U.S. Army had not taken appropriate steps to limit the $2.2 billion costs Kellogg Brown and Root charged for logistical and engineering support in the Balkans. According to the report, Army officials "frequently have simply accepted the level of services the contractor provided without questioning whether they could be provided more efficiently or less frequently at lower cost."
Questionable Accounting: The SEC recently formalized an investigation into whether Halliburton artificially inflated revenue by $234 million over four years. Halliburton switched to a more aggressive accounting method in 1998 under Cheney.
Access to Evil -- business dealings in Iraq, Iran, and Libya: News reports suggest that Pentagon is currently using the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) to draw up a blacklist of non-US companies that have done business in Iran. Yet, Halliburton has conducted Business in Iran through subsidiaries. When Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, he inquired about an ILSA waiver to pursue oil field developments in Iran. In 1997, Halliburton subsidiary Halliburton Energy Services paid $15,000 to settle Department of Commerce allegations that the company had broken anti-boycott provisions of the U.S. Export Administration Act for an Iran-related transaction. Halliburton recently agreed to evaluate its operations in Iran, after the Securities and Exchange Commission rebuffed the company's request to dismiss a New York City police and fire pension funds shareholder proposal for the company to examine its role in Iran.
Also forgotten is that story about how Cheney's Halliburton did business with Saddam. According to the Washington Post, "Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer."
Halliburton has also done business in Azerbaijan, Burma, Indonesia, Libya and Nigeria. As Dick Cheney once said, "The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratic regimes friendly to the United States."
Tax Havens: Under Cheney's tenure, the number of Halliburton subsidiaries in offshore tax havens increased from 9 to 44. Meanwhile, Halliburton went from paying $302 million in company taxes in 1998 to getting an $85 million tax refund in 1999.
All told, the IRS loses about $70 billion a year in offshore tax sheltering by corporations and wealthy individuals - almost enough to cover the $75 billion Bush has asked for to cover the first six months of war.
Robert Rosencrans| 7.13.09 @ 7:02AM
Don't think for a second Holder isn't responding to overtures from the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress. This is real transparency, i.e., easy to see through.
With the economy deteriorating and the health care plan floundering, the left have to try to revive the Blame Bush campaign. It's not going to work and as they waste time with this nonsense, the markets will further erode and Blame Obama will be heard from coast to coast.
Geoff| 7.13.09 @ 7:26AM
Just another "distraction" so the Marxist bunch can sneak thru Cap'n'Tax, socialized "Health Care" and those other extreme-left agenda items; read Erik Erickson's "Red State" for an idea...
JP| 7.13.09 @ 7:33AM
They have been only 3 documented cases of "torture", and all three cases were reported to Congress. President Obama is not only Commander in Chief, but he is also Chief Executive. To say, like those in the MSM and Congress say, that AG Holder can choose to prosecute whoever he wishes is nonsense. This is purely a political act. And President Obama has within his authority to order AG Holder to stop prosecution. If Holder refuses, the President can fire Holder and all within his inner circle who are pressing this case.
The President is obviously wishing to have his cake and eat it too. To the public, he is offering a pose of the harried bureaucrat who cannot stop a trusted if not determined subordinate. To the activists in his own party, the President his offering up a campaign promise to deliver revenge for the 2000 election. Both Rove and Cheney are the prime targets. But so is former President Bush, former AG Gonzalez and a host of lawyers and advisors. All of these people will be subjected to the same treatment that Scooter Libbey was, and as we know from that affair, the prosecution can fish far and wide for ANYTHING to prosecute. While President Bush and VP Cheney have enough resource to defend themselves against this kind of prosecution, the vast majority of defendents do not. Bankruptcy looms large, and even if they were to beat the prosecution, they face hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees and ruined reputations. If I was a CIA operative, I'd be very worried right now.
The President has shown a remarkable ability to avoid responsibilty for his actions as President. He is torn to fullfill his radical agenda and keep his pose as the suave, cool, nuanced intellectual giant his spinmiesters built.. What he fails to understand is that his actions have consequences, and the voters are not quite the ignorant, slothfull dolts that his party think they are. It is only July and the people of this nation are waking up to the specter of the kind of fascism the Far Left has in store for us.
Darin| 7.13.09 @ 7:38AM
Curious that there's zero mention about going after those who commit real torture. For samples, reference Daniel Pearl.
No, far easier to continue this assault on the Bush administration to distract people from the truth. How many inmates at Gitmo died? None. Zero. Zip. How many lives have been saved as a direct result of intelligence gained by questioning detainees at Gitmo? The Obama administration refuses to release this information. Tell me again about how "secretative" the Bush administration was?
Ryan| 7.13.09 @ 8:30AM
Honestly, we could probably use another Geneva convention to cover issues of the West's proper response to international terrorism. The problem would be we couldn't get the attendees to agree on harsh enough punishments.
Investigate| 7.13.09 @ 8:48AM
Congress In Open Revolt
Fri, 07/10/2009 - 16:52 — dlindorff
If this were the democracy that the Founding Fathers thought they were creating, word from CIA Director Leon Panetta that his agency had lied to Congress and specifically that it had lied repeatedly from 9-11-2001 through the end of 2008 concerning an as-yet undisclosed secret program, would have virtually every member of Congress in a state of rebellion, demanding answers.
After all, the CIA is required by law to report to at least the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and to the majority and minority leaders of both houses of Congress about such things.
But not only did the spy agency not report on what it was up to; it lied about what it was up to.
Now, given what we do know about the Bush/Cheney administration—that it initiated a massive campaign of spying on Americans by the Defense Department, the FBI, and the National Security Agency, as well as other intelligence agencies, that it initiated a campaign of torture of captives, including American citizens, while asserting that the President didn’t even need to notify the courts or the public about the arrest, detention, torture or even execution of an American citizen if he, acting on his own, deemed that person to be an “enemy combatant,” and given that we also know that Bush and Cheney lied repeatedly about the justification for their invasion of Iraq, and refused to be put under oath in their “interviews” by the 9-11 Commission, you would think the members of Congress, which was railroaded into supporting everything from the USA PATRIOT Act to the Iraq War invasion based on all these lies and deceptions, would be demanding answers regarding this mysterious program.
Instead, we get vague expressions of concern, and promises of reform by congressional leaders like Rep. Steny Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and by CIA Director Panetta.
And no explanation of the program in question, even though Panetta claims it was never actually implemented.
Why, we should be asking, would the CIA have lied for eight long years about the existence of a program that it never implemented?
Anyone who believes that nonsense should be a prime target of one of those Nigerian internet scammers. There’s a lot of money to be made from such suckers.
My guess is that what is being hidden here was a massive spying campaign by the Agency against Americans and/or a dirty campaign of assassinations conducted on a national and international scale—one which would assuredly have led to many deaths of innocent people.
Given that we have learned, courtesy of the excellent reporting by New Yorker writer Seymour Hersh, is that Vice President Cheney personally oversaw the operation of a secret death squad operation, called the Joint Special Operations Command, allegedly led by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, now head of US operations in Afghanistan.
Given the timing of this big CIA lying campaign—it began immediately after 9-11, right when Cheney was saying that the US would need to turn to “the dark side”—it doesn’t take much imagination to suspect that this is what it is all about.
Take a bunch of power-drunk people in the White House and the Pentagon, and a cowering Congress and an American public being deliberately frightened out of its wits, a new set of laws and executive orders that give the president and his subordinates dictatorial powers that would have made Saddam Hussein or Joseph Stalin envious, and it’s a short step to a black campaign of terror, disappearances and executions.
All of this will eventually come to light, I am sure. But it is unlikely to come to light courtesy of the Congress, which is showing all the assertiveness of a field mouse. Nor is it likely to be exposed by the corporate media, which have long since thrown in the towel on serving as a Fourth Estate. And it sure won’t come from the Obama administration, which is even opposing timid calls in Congress for a broader future requirement for notification of Congress about CIA activities and actions. When it comes to exposing the crimes and abuses of the Bush/Cheney years, the Obama administration has decided it likes what it saw, and wants to continue with the new executive powers and secrecy that it inherited.
So we’ll have to wait for honest whistle-blowers and for the alternative media to find out the real story here.
Jefferson, Madison et all must be cringing in their coffins at the wreckage of their creation.
jim rice| 7.13.09 @ 10:29AM
I thought this was a pretty good article. Fairly well written, and I liked how you directly addressed many of the most basic questions surrounding this issue.
That being said, "preemptive action" is not justified, so the next point kind of gets lost. "So the first question is: when preemptive action is justified, against whom and how?"
If you have FACTS that a particular person or group of people are planning to commit a crime, then those people are subject to punishment. They are subject to the punishment of conspiring to commit a crime, NOT of having actually committed the crime. But if you don't have those facts, that person should never be subjected to any sort of punishment. This is exactly what george bush did on a large scale in Iraq and a small scale at Guantanamo. He is a war monger, a murderer, a lier, and simply a dumbass. He deserves to be in prison. dick cheney deserves to be in prison.
But should we be wasting resources on it now? Probably not. I'm sure God will take care of them, and they can play with each other in hell. Let's focus on the future for the country now tho; not the past.
adam| 7.13.09 @ 12:51PM
The trolls are up and running on this, I see. The CIA apparently had a program (i.e., they talked amongst themselves about it) to assassinate al-Qaeda terrorists, one that was never implemented. The real scandals is that the CIA rarely seems to go beyond floating trial balloons about such things, that the media actually thinks they have a right to expose these efforts, and we have a large section of our population that is scandalized by the carrying out of war-like activities during war.
If someone is planning to kill you, get up early in the morning and kill them. And the more they talk about hating you and wanting to kill you, the lower the burden of proof on you. Those who say otherwise are really on the other side.
JP| 7.13.09 @ 1:22PM
Adam,
I'm with you. When I read about the "secret" CIA operation in the Wa Post, I wondered what the ruckus was all about. The CIA, lile the DOD, has hundreds of contingency plans that never get beyond the Powerpoint presentation. This "leak" was nothing more than Director Leon Panetta throwing Pelosi and the Koz Kidz a bone. What's Congress going to do, prosecute some CIA officials for thinking about taking some AQ leaders out? This is one of those non-story "breaking news" items that the Left loves to dwell on.
Funny, how just a year ago, President Obama said that Bush was fighting the wrong war at the wrong time (referring to how Bin Laden was still at large, and all that). Now the same people who agreed whole heartedly with Obama are outraged that some people in the Operations Directorate at Langley actually considered assasinating AQ leaders, but failed to inform Congress.
This is how Liberals fight wars.
Geo| 7.13.09 @ 1:50PM
The author, like most of his conservative bretheren when writing about this issue, totally twist the point to fit thier argument. Whether or not turture is leagal or illegal has nothing to do with whether or not it resulted in valuable information. If that argument is valid, then I should rob a bank to get rich; it may be illegal, but if it works, I guess that makes it alright. NOT!
Torture is about us, not about our enemies. If it is illegal to use torture in the U.S. then it is illegal. It doesn't matter if it works or not. It's illegal. That means it's against the law! If we choose to torture, then we are a country that tortures. I always thought the U.S. was better than that. I don't care who the other guy is or what despicable thing he does, when we behave it is about us and who we are. We can control that. Torture, regardless of the outcome, is immoral and illegal. Period!
Anthony| 7.13.09 @ 2:42PM
To Halliburton and Dick Cheney: So Perle only made $750.000 on Global Crossing eh? I guess Perle didn't talk to Clinton hack supreme and just defeated candidate for VA governor, Terry McCalliffe , who made a cool $20 Million on Global Crossing stock. Halliburton had been used exclusively by the Clinton administration, without a bid process by the way, long before Cheney arrived as V.P. No wonder Terry is a happy and wealthy camper these days, just like his former boss, who, in just 10 years, went from poor white trash to being worth over $100 M. Only in America folks, if you're a connected Democrat.
adam| 7.13.09 @ 3:26PM
Geo: I don't believe you thought this country was "better"--if you know anything other than the latest screed on the Daily Kos you know that our treatment of our enemies has been unprecedentedly restrained in this war. Do you really think we wouldn't have waterboarded Nazi spies, that we wouldn't have put Communist saboteurs in cold rooms, or made an anarchist terrorist stand for 12 hours? People like you idealize a past America only to trash today's--I'd be willing to bet if we could get you talking you'd be calling Hiroshima a war crime that we are really "better" than, start talking about atrocities in Vietnam, etc., etc.
blackelkspeaks| 7.13.09 @ 3:35PM
I must ask, was it torture to expect American servicemen in WWII to invade Japan knowing that they would continue to suffer horrific losses, such as those experienced during the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa (over 100,000 casualties, about 20,000 dead)? Was it torture to try to prevent such losses by atomic bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki (over 200,ooo victims, about 50,000 dead)? If torturing a likely perpetrator of such atrocities could reveal information that could stop such a catastrophe, what is the greater moral imperative?
Watching the idiocy of our "leaders" conduct our current "War On Terror" with ham-handed ROE, like those that lost Vietnam, it seems to me that any rational person would be planning to extricate themselves from any of our high-density population centers (a.k.a. target-rich environments) to relocate to this country's hinterlands. Waiting for when the nukes are detonated in such centers (and I do mean WHEN; its only a question of time) will be too late.
Tim| 7.13.09 @ 3:48PM
Look, the CIA building at Langley is heavily guarded right? So all Obama has to do is order the guards to turn their guns and cameras around an keep the CIA people in. Instant prison, no new taxes.
adam| 7.13.09 @ 5:44PM
There should be rules against cutting and pasting entire articles, without commentary, in the comments on a website or blog. It is an abuse of the opportunity provided us to discuss an article, and it is the arrogant behavior of trolls. The idea is to think along with others about the article we have read--not to sweep through all the blogs of the other side and pollute them with long articles which no one can check or do anything with in the context of the discussion. It discourages people from continuing the discussion, which is probably the purpose--it's intrinsically invasive and hostile. Links, yes, but cut and paste entire articles, no.
Richard Baker| 7.13.09 @ 7:45PM
This whole silly argument has at it's core that we should bring home all the troops and defend ourselves at the shoreline. I hear these arguments and have one question. Would you rather fight them here on our streets and in our neighborhoods? Seems as if many in the US would answer yes. However, we're not talking about a combat video game where Reset is pushed to start over.
DSAMMIS| 7.13.09 @ 7:49PM
Ever since the beginning of this decade, I have asked myself why congress in its wisdom hasn't come up with legislation addressing this mysterious middle ground. That is the place between warfare and criminal activity. It was obvious in 2001 one that we were entering a new era. We werent attacked by another State, but by something other than a criminal enterprise. Why couldn't the 100 smartest people on the planet address this issue?
Marc Jeric| 7.13.09 @ 8:26PM
1) Waterboarding is NOT torture; pulling nails and cutting balls is torture;
2) Islamo-fascist terrorists have no human rights - they are beasts of prey, or, better yet, deadly virus to be eliminated by whatever means necessary;
3) ACORN brownshirts are in force here, exhibiting their Bush Derangement Syndrome, while being paid $16/hr by Obama's stimulus bill.
4) This depression started in December 2007, 11 months after the Democrats took control of Congress; not a Bush doing!
supra shoes| 7.13.09 @ 9:16PM
I am very interested in it, could you please tell me some more imformation? Thank you!
Cow Rie| 7.13.09 @ 9:45PM
Perhaps Obama will take a bold stand and praise the Muslims for their humanity in never using torture like those evil Americans, not holidng their populations in police states - just like those ugly Americans do to their poor citizen victims.
The dem/libs are lucky that no one targets them - yet. The war is on.
Annie Ladysmith| 7.13.09 @ 9:52PM
If we are discussing torture we need a clear picture of exactly what took place, where it took place, and who was the authorization behind it. Enter the torture photos (that have not been given to the public by the government), yet, some of these photos have leaked out and if one does some digging you will be able to see for yourself what the CIA was up to in Iraq. Make up your own mind if these actions are cruel and unusual and if they signify that the people taking the photos are psychopathic criminals.
philfl63| 7.13.09 @ 10:22PM
Sir,
You are entitled to your learned and moralistic opinion. Americans are the most civilized and decent people on earth. We do not arbitrarily pick fights or brutalize people. Never have, never will. Three tours in Iraq taught me that unless we are willing to be as brutal as is necessary to guarantee our survival, we will lose everything. Head in the clouds moralizing is a fine academic exercise for a law school classroom, but flesh shreds, bone splinters, and blood spatters. I would personally torture to death every terrorist in the world to protect my family and my country. Our American history and culture have struggled to survive through the efforts of decent men who had to be brutal and shred flesh and splinter bone to preserve our way of life. Nancy-boys debate while men fight. If you can read this, thank your teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a soldier. No harm intended.
philfl63| 7.13.09 @ 10:26PM
To Geo:
Geo, the ultimate purpose of the law is to protect and preserve life. We make laws based on God's law. Man-made law serves us and not vice versa. Even God Almighty allows us to do what is necessary to preserve our lives.
G. A. Kevis| 7.13.09 @ 11:58PM
" ...The debate over the use of torture has
taken a new and disturbing turn,
as prominent Democrats seek
to bring criminal charges
against key members of the previous U.S. administration ...."
By all means - give them all the rope, shoelaces,
bedsheets, neckties etc they want. Perhaps
barbed wire can be thrown in for measure.
Then stand back and watch them - includes the
swamp things in the LMSM - hoist themselves
on their flat petards.
Dave| 7.14.09 @ 7:10AM
To Geo.
If American troops were caught in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Pakistan, and they were tortured, would you agree that it's OK because American government thinks it's OK.
Perhaps you are one of these people who don't beleive in the Law or the Geneva convention. America is seen as a ROUGE nation as it is. Or don't you know, because the media don't tell the real story.
You cant have international law only appicable to some countries and not to America.
America want to control the world hence it's huge debts. I don't think funding failing Banks will save America, no more than any one in sound mind it's a flawed policy. Pumping money into a bad business is throwing good money after bad, in the case of the banks it's worse because the public will be TAXED to pay back money they never borrowed.
Pingback| 7.14.09 @ 10:03AM
»They will smile in your face and slit your throat« « Snaphanen links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
ChuckD| 7.14.09 @ 12:52PM
The Geneva Convention does not protect combatants who do not wear a clearly marked uniform which separates them from the civilian population.
The Geneva Convention does not protect combatants who are not recognized and supported by a legimate nation state.
Under the Geneva Convention prisoners of war caught in civilian attire are not given the same protection as those who separate themselves from the civilian populous.
Fifth column infiltrators were given very rough and torturous treatment during WWII before being shot.
The rights of a US citizen are for US citizens only.
Thats the problem with calling our present conflict a war on terror. It is a war on Islamic Extremists who are not openly or officially supported by any Muslim Nation. These people are nothing more than modern day pirates, who raid and terrorize civilized nations for the sakeof their own personal agenda.
As to being a rogue nation:
America witnessed it's credibility weakened throughout the Mideast for at least two decades. Islamic Extremist terrorists committed a string of attacks on this nation. Beruit Lebanon-220 Marines killed by homocide bomber. First WTC bombing, Khobar towers, USS Cole.
Then comes 9/11. America had to show terrorists and nations which supported terrorism, either physically or economically, that they would pay a severe price if they ignored our warnings. We warned Saddam 17 times to let the UN in his country and verify that he had no weapons of mass destruciton.
"77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions."
29 Democrats voted for the war.
Sadaam refused to allow weapons inspectors into his country to verify that he had no WMDs. He didn't and he paid the price.
88 US senator
ED Hardy Hoodies| 7.24.09 @ 2:14AM
i like
cheap handbags| 7.25.09 @ 7:18PM
We only sell the top grade replica cheap handbags, some of them are genuine leather handbags, yet the price is far lower than the authentic designers want you to pay. We lead you to a genuine pool of bags : collections in wide range: handbags, shoulder bags, clutches, tote bags, purses and wallets, the hottest brands you can find like replica Louis Vuitton handbags, Replica marc jacobs handags, Replica Prada handbags, Coach,Replica Chloe handbags,Burberry, Dior,replica Chanel handbags, Chloe,Replica gucci handbags, Dolce & Gabbana,Replica Balenciaga handbags . Crafted to the highest standard, from the finest materials in the industry, we guarantee the toppest Replica Hermes handbags at low price you'll find anywhere.
george| 7.29.09 @ 2:30AM
LV Bequia Leather handbag , commonly referred to as
Louis Vuitton Bequia, or sometimes shortened to
Louis Vuitton Classic China Run handbags has become one of the most
Louis Vuitton Classic China Run luxury brands.
outlet louis vuittongood
lv outletl like
louis vuitton outletsgood
louis vuitton outlet storesnice
tiffany jewellery| 8.14.09 @ 3:58AM
Very good to see the tiffany jewellery tiffany jewellery tiffany jewellery links of london hollister clothing ed hardy christian audigier abercrombie
feeling quite.
Nfl jerseys| 8.27.09 @ 11:03PM
It is a wonderful article,I like it!Welcome to read following news: NFL jerseys,Photoshop CS2,ghd Hair Straightener,Adobe Photoshop CS4.
Nfl jerseys| 8.27.09 @ 11:04PM
It is a wonderful article: NFL jerseys,Photoshop CS2,ghd Hair Straightener,Adobe Photoshop CS4.
dropshippngwatch| 9.2.09 @ 10:44AM
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Fake Watches
Fake Watch
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
replica Rolex watches
Replica Corum Watches
Replica D&G Watches
Replica De Witt Watches
Replica Ebel Watches
Replica Emporio Armani Watches
Replica Fendi Watches
Replica Ferrari Watches
Replica Fortis Watches
Replica Franck Muller Watches
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com
Wedding Dresses| 9.9.09 @ 3:20AM
Very good article written byWedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
Bridal Gowns
ah
fdsjk| 10.16.09 @ 4:13AM
shanghai massage
turntable bearings