Yoo Won’t Answer Whether President Can Bury Detainees Alive
Yoo Won’t Answer Whether President Can Bury Detainees Alive
Today, the authors of the Bush administration’s torture policies, David Addington and John Yoo, are testifying before the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) asked Yoo whether the president could bury a detainee alive, Yoo stonewalled and ultimately refused to answer the question. He also refused to say if there was any torture tactic the president was prohibited from using. Transcript via Muckracker:
CONYERS: Could the President order a suspect buried alive?
YOO: Uh, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I’ve ever given advice that the President could order someone buried alive…
CONYERS: I didn’t ask you if you ever gave him advice. I asked you thought the President could order a suspect buried alive.
YOO: Well Chairman, my view right now is that I don’t think a President — no American President would ever have to order that or feel it necessary to order that.
CONYERS: I think we understand the games that are being played.
Watch it:
Conyers grew visibly frustrated with Yoo’s stalling techniques. “We’ve all practiced law,” he said with exasperation.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Phuck Yoo & the Addled Addington you rode in on, traitor!
June 26th, 2008 at 11:38 am#1 is also intended for you, rogerse.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:42 amA straight up “no” would have done Yoo a little good.
He ranks on the evil scale about even with Condi Rice, so that ain’t saying much.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:43 amCrap. Everybody knows that those terraists wouldn’be be buried *alive*…
President Beck would shoot them in the head first.
Jebus. Yoo and the rest of those barbaric neoclowns are worse than Osama bin Laden.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:45 amWhat a bizarre bunch of people these Con’s are.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:45 amThis is what happens when trying to harness a snake…
June 26th, 2008 at 11:46 amI’m just too cynical these days to think anything will come of this but for a bunch of do nothing Democrats to make speeches feigning outrage, (apologies to the few who really care) and then, once again, give this bastard administration everything they want. “Money, Mr. President? You’ve got it!.”
June 26th, 2008 at 11:46 am“Wiretapping, Mr. President? You’ve got it!”
“Torture, Mr. President? Just tell us where you want those electrodes placed. We’re your guys.”
6 months, 3 weeks and two days until we can send these criminals off to The Netherlands where they will be tried for their heinous crimes.
‘Disgusting’ has reach a whole new low point.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:46 amThese attorneys have used every means they can dredge up to allow the criminals to take our Civil Rights away and allow a President to disregard the will of the people. They should be jailed along with bush,cheney,rove.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:47 amrogerse Says: Yes conyers, ask some “gotcha” questions, and some may be fooled this isn’t another faux hearing.
You like the second amendment, but not the first (right to free speech and the press)? Figures.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:48 amJust read that a San Francisco is planning to name a sewage plant after george bush. How fitting.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:49 amrogerse Says:
Yes conyers, ask some “gotcha” questions, and some may be fooled this isn’t another faux hearing.
Knee-jerk ball-washing from rogerse.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:50 amhuh?
June 26th, 2008 at 11:50 amWhy are they even bothering. The Democrats have become a total joke. Why don’t they just give it up and lay low until after the election. One more humiliating defeat by the Republicans will not do the Democrats any good. There is no way these people are going to answer questions truthfully, so why bother?
June 26th, 2008 at 11:51 amI love how the neocons embrace hypotheticals (”a terrorist has hidden a nuclear bomb in NY City and you have to torture him to save millions of people”) — until those hypotheticals come back against them. Then they want to answer a different question than the one that was asked.
Yoo is a pig.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:52 amrogerse has a hard time talking with his mouth full of sperm.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:52 amThe games being played may be being played by Conyers.
He’s trying to corner Yoo with the idea of a moral absolute.
Morals are not absolute. They are situational and dependant on a particular circumstance.
Imagine Conyers in WWII asking a Democrat counsel whether it would ever be acceptable to use the atomic bomb to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Although it is much more troubling to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians with a nuclear bomb, than it would be to hypothetically bury one man alive, Truman still decided to do it. Most would agree that his decision to use the atomic bomb and avoid the estimated million causualties (American and Japanese) from a prolonged land invasion of Japan, was the right thing to do.
Trying to pin a moral absolute argument on Yoo, is at best a partisan ploy, and at worst, an indication of a fundamentally errant belief in moral absolutes more often the domain of religious zealots.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:53 amThe 23% and rogerease think their Civil Rights will never be violated. But first it is for the susected terrorists, next it will be any dissenters against the administration, or perhaps even those suspected of dissenting. Rogerease it doesn’t stop once laws are overturned to protect, it could be you down the road. Too bad we didn’t learn anything from Hitler and how he slowly took over. Took over the media, burned books, jailed educators.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:54 amHey rogerse(rogerdo), you appear sober today. Good for you!!!!
June 26th, 2008 at 11:54 amOh, and about the gotcha question, would it have hurt Yoo so much, rogerse(rogerdo), if he would have just simply answered “no”?
Fred,
rogerse is desperate. There is no way to justify Yoo’s “testimony,” nor is there any way for rogerse to adequately deflect this story. He/she probably should have just left this thread alone, I guess he/she hasn’t learned all the paid troll rules of engagement yet.
Yoo’s equivocations are scary for two reasons:
1) He can’t just say no, the President can’t order any kind of torture or executions, because those are not American values. Our refusal as a country to condone torture, summary executions, and cruel treatment of prisoners USED to be one of the things that caused America to be viewed as a “shining beacon of freedom” around the world. No longer. Thanks Yoo, Bush, Cheney and company.
2) I really hope the reason he couldn’t say no to that particular question doesn’t mean that HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS (Burying alive) TO SOMEONE and for Yoo to go on record saying this can’t be done would put on record an admission that they KNEW what they were doing was WRONG but did it anyway. I sincerely hope this is not the case.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:55 amBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
There is no way these people are going to answer questions truthfully, so why bother?
And beyond that, suppose they did answer the questions truthfully? I’m kind of surprised they don’t. What would the Democrats doabout it? All these hearings are shows, entertainment slightly less interesting than your average daytime TV.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:55 amDavid Addington is a snake of the worst kind, do a little research on his advise. And I really believe he will be truthful, now about that swampland you want to buy.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:55 amRogerse
June 26th, 2008 at 11:57 amYou never answered my question from yesterday, so here it is again:
Why can trolls like yourself post on blogs like this one and not be censored for their opinions, “BUT!” when you go to a regressive right wing blog, postings similar to what you post here are never posted,they are censored and never make it past the censor? Is it because you and your fellow trollers can’t handle the truth?
Can you handle answering the question?
Fred Says:
rogerse Says:
Yes conyers, ask some “gotcha” questions, and some may be fooled this isn’t another faux hearing.
huh?
In the minds of insipid trolls, any question a Democrat asks a Republican is a “gotcha” question.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:58 amliberal traitor Says: Yoo’s equivocations are scary for two reasons: 1) He can’t just say no
That in and of itself is pretty much the bottom line with this issue, regardless of the validitity of Conyers’s question itself. Just say ‘no’ and move on. But they won’t, because they want to reserve to option to do such a thing. That’s really horrific.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:58 amKlem Kiddilehopper Says:
Rogerse
You never answered my question from yesterday, so here it is again:
Why can trolls like yourself post on blogs like this one and not be censored for their opinions…
Can you handle answering the question?
I’ve got a ten spot on the troll not answering the question. They seem incapable of answering questions. Or, it will say that was a “gotcha” question.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:59 amunbelievable:
Or, as I suggested (and I think this is scarier), they have ALREADY DONE THIS to someone, and don’t want to have an admission that it is not ok or legal to do it on record to bite them in the a$$ later.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:00 pmI wonder if Yoo is testifying under oath.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:02 pmWe’ve always known that right-wingers believed in moral relativism, but I’ve never known one to admit it before.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:03 pmWell, sure. That’s because facts and reality have a well-known liberal bias.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:04 pmKlem. I’m trying to get a better understand. I occasionally change my mind when I’m confronted with better information.
But, the censorship you’re talking about may be universal. I’ve personally been banned from this site. And my most of my existing posts deleted from TP archives.
And you can ask Bilbo Baggins that some conservative blogs tolerate liberals.
I’ll produce the thread over at redstate of Bilbo’s oppositional postings, if you like.
Intolerance, sadly, is not the hallmark of either party, but of both.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:07 pmBackup: You said this: Morals are not absolute. They are situational and dependant on a particular circumstance.
WTF?? I can’t *tell* you the number of times I’ve seen nad heard your fellow reichwingers argue that the “moral relativism” of the left is destroying America.
So, you’re saying that moral relativism is OK when a Repuke like Yoo uses it to justify evil…?
OK. That sounds seriously like HYPOCRISY to me – but hey, I’m only a dumb prog and I don’t know any better.
/sarc
June 26th, 2008 at 12:07 pmYeah, because everyone knows that the liberals are the duplicitious ones, right. The right has never mislead or been deceptive.
I guess you think that if we ask them a reasonable question that makes us the game players? Is that what you are saying. That Conyers has a game plan to invade a country and lie to us about it…..what the hell are you trying to say backup?
June 26th, 2008 at 12:08 pmralph. It is relative. Try this:
Is stealing wrong?
June 26th, 2008 at 12:10 pmlock_box Says:
So President Bush wants all detainees buried alive?
Wow, stretch the question as much as you can why dontcha?
Who ever said that President Bush wanted to bury all detainees alive? Who even _implied_ that he wanted to bury them alive?
June 26th, 2008 at 12:11 pmlock_box Says:
——————————————————————————–
So President Bush wants all detainees buried alive? I knew he had a big set of nads , Go Bush burry them bust@rds
—
June 26th, 2008 at 12:11 pmPussy for Life. What up?
backup Says:
——————————————————————————–
Morals are not absolute. They are situational and dependant on a particular circumstance.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Captain,
While I agree with you that morals are not “absolute,” the question was “Could the President order a suspect buried alive?”
Yoo couldn’t make himself say NO.
In your opinion, Captain, is there any situation where it might be allowable to bury a suspect alive?
June 26th, 2008 at 12:11 pmbackup Says:
Is stealing wrong?
backup, you need to have this conversation with Tracy5… he can tell you all about how you’re ruining future generations…
June 26th, 2008 at 12:13 pmBullshit. You find a few outrageous people banned from a liberal website and you want to equate that with the bigotry and gay bashing, exluding from the process by race, etc., on and on of the the republican party. Nice try….well, not even a nice try. Just a stupid thing to say captain.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:13 pmliberal traitor Says: Or, as I suggested (and I think this is scarier), they have ALREADY DONE THIS to someone, and don’t want to have an admission that it is not ok or legal to do it on record to bite them in the a$$ later.
Despite my realist tendancies, I’m pretending, for the sake of mental sanity, to consider that this hasn’t yet occurred.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:14 pmSorry backwardsthought, but some moral absolutes DO in fact exist:
Torture is ALWAYS wrong. ALWAYS.
Dropping A-bombs on Japan is debatable, especially given the civilian casualties…would there have been more civ casualties in a full land invasion? Who knows…that’s why it’s debatable.
However
TORTURE IS ALWAYS WRONG.
Was it wrong for Roosevelt to intern Japanese Americans at Manzanar in the interest of National Security? Of course it was. He will have a black mark on his Presidency for all of History for that. America as a country apologized for it in the 80’s (with Ronnie Raygun delivering said apology, probably the only thing he ever did right).
Say it with me now: TORTURE IS ALWAYS WRONG. KILLING AN UNARMED, HELPLESS PRISONER (like rightwingers are always so fond of reminding us that terrorists and extremists do, beheading people and the like, as though we support it for some reason, but then they come back in the same breath and rip on liberals for not supporting the death penalty…a little cognitive dissonance there, part and parcel of being a neocon) IS ALWAYS WRONG. The fact that these are supposed to be our values is what makes us BETTER than the terrorists.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/04/foxnews-sunday-poppy-bush-gets-emotional-remembering-how-we-used-to-treat-prisoners/
Watch this you sorry SOB’s. I don’t even like GHWBush. He was a terrible President and despicable on so many levels in my opinion. However, when I saw this video I almost shed a tear myself, I certainly had goosebumps. The man has SOME decency in him, and even HE gets what makes America great.
From the video:
I fought back a tear myself listening to him say that.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:14 pmKinda reminds me of the Beatles song “No Reply”.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:16 pmAnnie. First, understand that I am not defending Bush policy on torture or the detainees at Gitmo. I have recently come around and agree with the progressive position that the detainees should get a fair trial, despite the claim of their combatant status.
Secondly, I am an agnostic or athiest that opposes the moral relativism of the religious component of the republican party. (It’s the biggest reason I am beginning to consider myself an Obama supporter).
I agree with you characterization of conservative relative moral relativism. I oppose it and also oppose Conyers disceptive attempts in regards to Yoo.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:16 pmTrippleKick Says:
All Yoo had to say was ‘No’… and he couldn’t do it.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:18 pmWho’s being ridiculous again?
right wing sissies will support any evil as long as they are convinced it will make them feel slightly less terrified
terrorism only works on the terrified
republicans are such whiny little cowards
June 26th, 2008 at 12:18 pmIsn’t Johnny Yoo one of the founders of Evasion ‘S Us?
June 26th, 2008 at 12:19 pmDribbleDick Says:
“Conyers is just a loud showboater.’
Perhaps, but Yoo and Addington are traitorous criminals. As is the entirety of this Administration.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:19 pm#rogerse Says:
Klem Kiddilehopper Says:
I will be censored as hell from the huffpo sensationalists nuts, so the idea is wrong…
I assume that this troll is trying to say that it was banned over at Huffington. If that’s true, then it had to have done something pretty bad because they don’t ban trolls over there with no reason. It was probably littering threads with spam the way it does here. For a while TP got pretty good at getting rid of useless trolls who don’t contribute anything. But they seem to be slacking off these days.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:21 pmRantingTommy @ 54:
Hear, hear.
I call on all Progressives posting here to say it with me:
I am not afraid. I refuse to be made afraid. I will not be a tool of Fear.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:21 pmBut you don’t condemn yoo for being deceptive about answering questions….funny how you think that is logical. No wonder you were banned.
Let’s hear some more about how intolerant the left is. Does this not smack of intolerance…..why can’t yoo just answer the direct questions so we don’t have to go into semantics? Because he is being deceptive, that’s why……where is your criticizm of his lying and being deceptive?
June 26th, 2008 at 12:21 pmright wing sissies like lax_cox and his lackey rogerse are just simple authoritarians that don’t like having to think
the tv tells them what to buy
the radio tells them who to hate and blame
they are intellectual cowards as well as physical sissies
they support a “war” they are too cowardly to participate in
they support having their rights taken just so they can feel protected from big government
they are NOT conservatives, they are Republicans – mutually exclusive concepts these days
June 26th, 2008 at 12:22 pmI am not afraid. I refuse to be made afraid. I will not be a tool of Fear.
I am not afraid. I refuse to be made afraid. I will not be a tool of Fear.
I am not afraid. I refuse to be made afraid. I will not be a tool of Fear.
short version: I will not be a Republican
June 26th, 2008 at 12:23 pmBury someone alive! OMG! I don’t think so……
June 26th, 2008 at 12:24 pmO come on, it’s not like he was lying about something important, like a blow job!
June 26th, 2008 at 12:25 pmOsama bin Laden claimed he could change the makeup of America with a simple act of criminality.
Progressives replied “WRONG! We’re much too strong of a nation to fall for your crap, we’ll send in a police force, lock you up, and make an example out of you”
Republicans replied “Oh Cool! We’ll help!”
June 26th, 2008 at 12:28 pmI agree with you to a point, backup. Individual moral questions, ideally, grow out of an unshakeable moral center, but values will undoubtedly come into conflict when considering real-world situations.
“Is stealing wrong” for instance, can be easily asnwered “yes”, but then you could come back with, “suppose your family is starving and their hunger could be eased if you stole a loaf of bread from a bakery that would not miss it?”
In that case, one must weigh the damage done by hunger versus the (insignificant) economic damage done to a merchant. The choice should be guided by an over-riding principle, such as “don’t hurt others” or “the greatest good for the greatest number of people” or even the Ten Commandments.
What I was remarking on was how unusual it was for a conservative to recognize the situational element of moral choices. The traditional right-wing rhetoric is, as Annie pointed out, more along the lines of “the tragedy of left-wing moral relativism”. In fact, just the other day I was in a discussion with a particularly deranged troll who tried to claim that different punishments for simplistically similar crimes (Clinton’s lie about a BJ vs. Libby’s lies about Valerie Plame) was “moral relativism”. Both should be punished equally was his position. Never mind the relative damage to national security of each case.
It’s funny, that’s all.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:28 pmZooey. How’s it going?
I cannot conceive of a situation where it would be permissible to bury a suspect alive. I also don’t understand where Conyers comes up with the question.
Imagine you are a pro-choice advocate at a hearing and a republican asks you:
Would it ever be acceptable to kill an infant during a full term delivery for the only reason that the mother requested it right before the birth? No medical complications.
Although you support a woman’s right to choose, you’re confident that’s not ever going to happen. You cannot concieve of the circumstance. It would be very easy for you to say, “No”. But, you’re smart enough to be trapped by a moral absolute.
You may also think that the purpose of the question is to tarnish the whole idea of pro-choice with debate of an absurd choice, never likely to happen.
That’s what I’m suggesting Conyers is doing. Nobody’s going to bury anybody alive. But, Conyers is pushing the moral absolute to give people the impression that those conditions exist or are prevelant and by association de-legitimize the entire idea.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:30 pmWhat’s funny is that he thinks he has a point.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:30 pmThe only thing surprising about that clip is that Yoo didn’t just say “yes”. Having read his torture memo I have no doubt that he believes that to be the correct answer.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:30 pmrogerse Says: gee, and how many foolish sheep are going to give conyers re-election for his brave stance.
You can always tell which of the epithets we use to describe the lowly Republicans that hurt their fragile egos the most – they are the ones they always throw, verbatim, back at us. Pretty funny.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:31 pmFunnier still is that they think all their bleating will change the actual facts.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:33 pmralph. I understand and we are on the same page. It’s why a disagree with a lot of religious conservative dogma and also why I disagree with Conyers on this one point.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:33 pmRepublicans are just sissies looking for BIG GOVERNMENT to save them.
There is nothing conservative about the modern radical Republican Party.
If I had to describe them in one word, it would be: childish.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:34 pmbackup
Why do you think “nobody’s going to bury anybody alive”? Eight years ago I would have said that I would never live to see the U.S. government authorize an act for which we have caused others to be executed for war crimes, i.e. waterboarding. If our government will simulate drowning why would it not bury someone alive to try to coerce information? I agree it should never be permitted and am willing to say so. My question is why doesn’t John Yoo seem to agree?
June 26th, 2008 at 12:35 pmDr. Hussein Matt,
I wouldn’t give them too much credit just yet. The cloture vote passed the Senate…and immunity is most likely all but a certainty at this point.
Obama, I will NEVER, EVER donate a DIME to your campaign after this.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:36 pmThe hearings resumed a few minutes ago, live on CSPAN 3. Yoo continues to evade and refuse to answer and stall.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:36 pmRantingTommy Says: Funnier still is that they think all their bleating will change the actual facts.
Good thing we can’t actually hear them. I imagine they are always yelling, with the notion that the louder person, and not the one with the facts, somehow wins.
Have rightwing relatives, I’ve learned that they define the word ‘fact’ as ‘anything that I can make up to support my point regardless of how false or ridiculous, as long as I yell it with conviction.’
June 26th, 2008 at 12:37 pmHey, sense right wingers have declared the enemy has no rights….
and they’ve also declared that ‘libruls’ are the enemy….
does that mean that we can give them the beat down they so richly deserve and claim self-defense? after all, they have threatened us
(mebbe this only works in Florida or Texas – the ‘he needed killin’ defense)
June 26th, 2008 at 12:37 pmerr. ’since’
June 26th, 2008 at 12:38 pmbackup, what Conyers is trying to do is I think twofold:
one, he’s trying to determine if there is a logical end point o this open-ended policy that embraces moral relativism when it should present to the world a moral absolute.
two, I think he’s trying to expose the absurdity of the position advocated by the President’s advisors on this matter.
I think moral absolutes are possible. I think our national stated policy ought to seek them out, because moral relativism depends on the judgment of those making the call, and our government has lost all credibility with the world in those matters, and has lost all credibility with much of this nation’s population too.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:39 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
June 26th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Things are going well, thank you.
Actually, I don’t think Conyers is pushing the moral absolute in this case. I thing he’s trying to expose Yoo as having no moral compass whatsoever.
Since Yoo was incapable of providing the “no” answer, and was not able to even say “that’s a totally bizarre question,” Conyers succeeded in that.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:39 pmbackup Says:
I cannot conceive of a situation where it would be permissible to bury a suspect alive. I also don’t understand where Conyers comes up with the question.
Conyers is very obviously trying to find out whether Yoo ever draws a line at all. He could just have asked, “Is there anything, any behavior at all, that cannot be authorized by the President?” Instead, he offered a specific (if absurd) example. Yoo, typically, was unwilling to suggest that there was anything at all that couldn’t be authorized by a President. (Or at least a Republican President.)
June 26th, 2008 at 12:40 pmliberal traitor Says: Obama, I will NEVER, EVER donate a DIME to your campaign after this.
Huffington Post has a good article on how the internet grassroots who helped propell Obama is very disappointed with his capitulation on this after having pledged not to.
While I will still vote for him, and support him, I am disappointed. Once someone does back on their word on a major issue like this, it makes me wonder when it will happen again, and again. I am just hoping this is a rare event for him. But, time will tell. He’s still far better than the alternatives on so many other issues.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:40 pmrogerse Says: glad you support him and his hot air.
What?
June 26th, 2008 at 12:42 pmTrippleKick
I’m glad you find this amusing. Are you implying that Rep. Conyers doesn’t actually show distain toward torture practices? Fighting tooth and nail to get to the bottom of anti-American practices is grandstanding?
The only grandstanding I see began when you signed in using your TP-issued password.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:42 pmliberal traitor Says:
——————————————————————————–
I am not afraid. I refuse to be made afraid. I will not be a tool of Fear.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I already live by it. :-)
June 26th, 2008 at 12:43 pmrogerse Says:
glad you support him and his hot air.
Are you for, or against, burying evil al-Qaeda terrorists alive?
June 26th, 2008 at 12:44 pmIt’s a damn shame that KrippleTick doesn’t understand the nature of congressional oversight hearings.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:45 pmFlunked fifth grade civics, undoubtedly.
I get tired of the likes of Triplekick and RHF and their love of pointing out perceived divisions within the party. We don’t have the all-or-nothing mentality in November; we’re simply showing a willingness to criticize our own party on the individual issues. That supports our view of “party over country.”
June 26th, 2008 at 12:47 pmrogerse Says: forgot your own posts?.
No. I just don’t get yours. I’m too logical to understand most of them.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:47 pmUmm, hey folks, the FISA bill can still have amendments made to it. My bet is that some Senators are going to amend the retro getoutofjailwithoutevenatrial provision out.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:47 pmMy mistake — Country over party.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:48 pmbackup Says:
We’ve always known that right-wingers believed in moral relativism, but I’ve never known one to admit it before.
ralph. It is relative. Try this:
Is stealing wrong?
Is murder wrong? Is rape wrong? Is child molestation wrong? Is genocide wrong?
You can only make a silly argument like that if you choose a relatively minor “sin.”
Sophomoric, as usual.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:48 pmRUCerious Says: Umm, hey folks, the FISA bill can still have amendments made to it. My bet is that some Senators are going to amend the retro getoutofjailwithoutevenatrial provision out.
Let’s hope!
June 26th, 2008 at 12:49 pmBart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?
June 26th, 2008 at 12:50 pmFat Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No.
Fat Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Fat Tony: And, what if your family don’t like bread? They like…cigarettes?
Bart: I guess that’s okay.
Fat Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no!
Fat Tony: Enjoy your gift. (edit)
rogerse Says: you do support conyers ,don’t you?.
Clearly you forgot my posts…
Oh rogerse, poor rogerse, it must be so tough to be you… LOL
June 26th, 2008 at 12:51 pmrogerse Says:
unbelievable Says:
forgot your own posts?.
Pretty funny correspondence from a basement troll to a licensed teacher. She can clue you in on a lot of things you forgot or didn’t learn in the first place.
Idiot.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:52 pmTake it as whatever you like. It won’t make you correct, but it will probably make you feel better about your limitations.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:59 pmrogerse Says: I’ll take that as a no, though its not what you implied…
I said in post 29: “That in and of itself is pretty much the bottom line with this issue, regardless of the validitity of Conyers’s question itself. Just say ‘no’ and move on. But they won’t, because they want to reserve to option to do such a thing. That’s really horrific.”
My point in this thread is that Yoo’s failure to say ‘no’ to the question is appalling, regadless of the validity of the question. It has NOTHING to do with my support of Conyers himself. Capisce?
June 26th, 2008 at 1:01 pmZooey, ralph, gummitch, paleolib, and others.
good points. whether Conyers hypothetical is partisan or a relevant question to frame some guideline, I’m not sure. Maybe it’s a gray area. Maybe it’s dependant on your vantage point. I’ve got to go do something else, but I’ll think about it.
Good Crowd. See ya.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:03 pmHe couldn’t answer ‘No’. If he did he’d have to define what level of torture a President could authorize.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:04 pmThanks McWars. :)
June 26th, 2008 at 1:05 pmAs for burying folks, clearly this is not acceptable …
Is locking people away indefinitely acceptable?
June 26th, 2008 at 1:06 pmTrippleKick Says: As for burying folks, clearly this is not acceptable and he’s just making a fool of himself by using hyperbole.
Obviously not if Yoo couldn’t say ‘no’ to the question…
How would you answer it? I’d have clearly said “No – it’s unthinkable.” But Yoo didn’t – therefore actually validating the question and it’s concerns about our government’s actions.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:08 pm#backup Says:
I’ll produce the thread over at redstate of Bilbo’s oppositional postings, if you like.
Go for it. I posted a couple of posts in opposition to what they were discussing and 20 minutes later I was banned by IP address.
I have never seen that happen to you.
So, you admit that you were here under another moniker and were banned. Thought so.
The only time TP bans people is when they are spamming threads by posting cut and paste with no thought, or when they post something completely vile or when, after days of posting, it is obvious that they are here for no other reason other than to disrupt.
If TP banned people just because they don’t like what they posted or because their posts were stupid, you would have been gone a long time ago.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:11 pmrog,
missed you on the glenn beck post.
afraid to comment, were you?
we understand.
torturers are cowards,
after all.
good luck.
*
June 26th, 2008 at 1:12 pmdbadass Says:
——————————————————————————–
Is locking people away indefinitely acceptable?
June 26th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Child molesters — yes indeedy.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:12 pmbackup,
caught in another lie.
rog, would that be a “gotcha”?
*
good luck.
*
June 26th, 2008 at 1:15 pmCome on Zooey. You know the folks I mean. Now as to child molesters, I have some other interesting ideas…
June 26th, 2008 at 1:17 pmMy view: Stealing (insert other “SIN” here) is ALWAYS wrong.
However, in some situations, there may exist circumstances that mitigate the ‘wrongness’ of the act.
But between stealing and torture? NOTHING on Earth will EVER mitigate the wrongness of torture. Nothing.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:19 pmdbadass,
Do you mean detainees?
June 26th, 2008 at 1:20 pmbackedup,
rog,
the latest.
so sorry.
would you care for a crying towel?
backedup, perhaps a warm glass of
metamucil for you?
*
good luck.
*
June 26th, 2008 at 1:22 pmConyers’ question was highly relevant and important. The Bush administration, with Yoo’s backing, has defined “torture” as requiring permanent injury or death. Burying someone alive, like waterboarding, does not cause death if done “correctly”, i.e. stopped before death occurs. But, like waterboarding, the victim (and I mean that term) would certinly feel that death was occurring. I applaud Conyers’ question and am appalled that Yoo, by his refusal to answer and, more importantly, his support of a related action, condones torture performed by the U.S.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:27 pmunbelievable Says:
While I will still vote for him, and support him, I am disappointed. Once someone does back on their word on a major issue like this, it makes me wonder when it will happen again, and again. I am just hoping this is a rare event for him. But, time will tell. He’s still far better than the alternatives on so many other issues.
What Obama has done, besides the obviously wrong thing, is that he has given the Republicans another talking point about how Obama doesn’t keep his word. The first one was on Public Financing even though Obama never promised to take Public Financing. This one is a true one, though. Obama did promise to filibuster any FISA bill that had immunity in it.
I am also done with Obama. I’ll vote for him, but I have withdrawn my monthly contribution and I am no longer volunteering for him. I am very disappointed that once again I will be voting for the “lesser of two evils”.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:28 pmZooey Says:
dbadass Says:
——————————————————————————–
Is locking people away indefinitely acceptable?
June 26th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Child molesters — yes indeedy.
But ONLY after they have been convicted of the crime.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:30 pmThe troll’s hypothetical “Is stealing wrong?” doesn’t hold water in this situation. Although everyone grants that the starving family scenario is a justifiable reason for stealing, if you should get caught doing it you could still be arrested, face a judge and possible penalties. My point being, if the Administration were to permit burying someone alive for whatever reason, they would go to extraordinary lengths to deny that they “stole the bread” without any admission of guilt or attempt to justify themselves to the judge (the American public or a literal judge). They just have their lawyers twist the laws intent to say “stealing bread is legal”. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL, WAS ILLEGAL AND WILL BE ILLEGAL. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime!!! Addington and Yoo deserve the fate of others that have been prosecuted by the US for being involved in torture!
June 26th, 2008 at 1:33 pmWhat is the “obvious trap”?
Placing a theoretical limit on the President’s right to order a suspect be tortured?
Yeah, you don’t want to fall into that trap. Other nations might begin to respect us again. Can’t have that.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:46 pmrogerse(rogerdo,rogerdrunkagain),
June 26th, 2008 at 1:47 pmI’m sincerely disappointed in you. It appears you’ve started another 6 martini lunch (or is it a 12 pack of Natural Ice?).
And such an important thread.
Ah well, here’s another gotcha question:
What level of inebriation do YOU have to reach before you beat your wife/girlfriend/dog???
Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
——————————————————————————–
But ONLY after they have been convicted of the crime.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Of course.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:52 pmMr. Yoo refuses to answer…
June 26th, 2008 at 1:55 pmYou’ve become quite the specialist at addressing questions without answering them. Much like John Yoo.
What is the “obvious trap”?
June 26th, 2008 at 1:55 pmI just finished watching the hearing. A lot of Yoo not recalling and a whole lot of arrogance and contempt from Addington. Nothing less than what I expected to see.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:56 pmTrippleKick Says:
——————————————————————————–
Anyway, Yoo was just playing the smart lawyer.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
He didn’t play it very well, did he? A smart lawyer would have thrown that shit in Conyers’ face, but Yoo went all stammering and stuttering. Not well played at all.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:56 pmMr. Yoo refuses to answer..
On the grounds that the answer might reveal himself to be a soul-less sociopathic monster.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:56 pmYoo is a dead eyed nazi just like rice, bush cheney and this entire administration..Stop BS”s us Conyer’s you hava a job to do that you refuse to do…By blocking and enabeling this administration proove’s you are just as guilty..The game’s over, do your job or get the f*** out……Blessings
June 26th, 2008 at 1:59 pmTripplekick – nice of you to step in and defend John Yoo.
Way to go! I’m sure you’ll earn LOTS of special John McCain talking points! Maybe enough to get yourself a John McCain coffee mug! YAY!!
June 26th, 2008 at 2:02 pmTrippleKick Says:
ralph,
I think most lawyers could easily spot the trap that Conyers tried to lay so clumsily. Anyway, Yoo was just playing the smart lawyer. Again, my point here is about grandstanding. I totally agree with the situation at hand, especially with regards to the legislative branch checking/balancing the executive branch. Government at work and what not. Sometimes its just amusing to me when these old fogies get in front of a camera. That’s all. Please don’t put me in a position where you expect me to defend Bush, that’s not at all what I’m talking about here.
Clinton was impeached over a private, consensual matter. I can still recall the ‘hearings’ in which every ‘christian’ repub was wringing their hands of the disgrace and disrepute that Clinton had brought to the steps of the WH. Lots of speechifying and such – went on for weeks and weeks. All the repubs were grandstanding on a issue which was none of their business.
Now we have torture as an issue, and the tables have turned. All the ‘christian’ repubs are ok with us torturing possibly innocent suspects, and even murdering some while in our custody – and at this point they are all SUSPECTS!
To me it seems oddly backward that the faux christians would get all worked up over Clintons activities (probably jealousy), and cheerlead a lawless adminsitration into torture.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:03 pmI think a lot of people have missed the point of Conyer’s line of questioning. He was trying to determine what, if any limits exist as far as the President’s authority over torture. Yoo’s reluctance to answer leads one to believe Bush is not limited.
Most people I know wouldn’t agree. I’ll admit to being wrong if you provide a link to a reputable study.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:10 pmWATERBOARD YOO AND ADDINGTON! They have information we need!
June 26th, 2008 at 2:23 pmYoo is a tipical War Criminal! That is, when it comes to face the facts, he avoids it. He is a coward! HAGUE 2009!
June 26th, 2008 at 2:26 pmTrippleKick Says:
——————————————————————————–
Indeed. Yoo’s definitely didn’t show any brilliance. You’re completely right, he missed a golden opportunity and instead just looked stupid.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
And yet, you defend him. Interesting…
June 26th, 2008 at 2:48 pmgummitch. I thought about what you said. stealing is a minor sin by comparison. Granted.
What about this:
In 1945 the Allies bombed Dresden killing between 25,000 and 40,000 civilians (murder) in large part, to stop the extermination of the Jews (genocide). (Which, by that time, had reached 6 million
So, generally, murder is wrong. And genocide is wrong. But, was the murder of the Dresden civilians to stop the genocide of the German Holocaust wrong?
June 26th, 2008 at 3:08 pmBackup, can you back up what you said about most people feeling the nuclear attack on Japan was the right thing to do?
June 26th, 2008 at 3:23 pmjoe. If your calling me a liar, at least let me know what your talking about. I’ll take a look at it and give you a response.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:30 pmIdyll, you nailed it exactly. He’s trying to get Yoo on one side of a line or the other, but Yoo keeps dancing like the first man on the sun.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:34 pmIdyll. I’ll try to find a link.
If you consider historical rankings of presidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents
Truman ranks around 7th of all past presidents. (very favorably).
It’s hard for me to believe that people would disagree with his most consequential decision and still rank him so favorably.
But, I’ll look for a better link.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:39 pmIdyll. Here is some polling data on the bombing of Japan.
http://www.pollingreport.com/news.htm#Hiroshima
June 26th, 2008 at 4:26 pmI’ll keep my word about bombing Japan. I was wrong, and very surprised people still approve.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:23 pmbackup said:
So, generally, murder is wrong. And genocide is wrong. But, was the murder of the Dresden civilians to stop the genocide of the German Holocaust wrong?
Show me any evidence that bombing Dresden had any impact on Nazi decisions to stop the holocaust. I maintain, through pure logic, that bombing a fatherland jewell city that had marginal benefits to the German war effort, would have incited the Germans ( say Hitler) to kill even more people and especially those easiest to kill.
Man, give some thought to your comments.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:07 pmbackup:
@155, I might have added that decisions on bombing to relieve the holocaust were very limited, mainly because the US and British Air Forces were not sure of what to do, or how to do it, precision bombing not being at all what it is now.
There was no decision made by the US or Britain to the effect that bombing Dresden would have any impact on lessening the holocaust. Dresden was bombed for the most part as revenge for German bombing of Coventry.
Read up on this history, its fascinating, and even Kurt Vonnegut would give you more insight that your own imagination.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:19 pmIdyll. I wasn’t trying to get the concession (but, I am impressed, it doesn’t happen very often).
I was only trying to get a better understanding and promote a free exchange of information.
Thank you, I respect your response.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:57 pmHigh Plains.
I admit that there were more reasons for the U.S. entry into war than the holocaust. As there were more reasons for the civil war than slavery.
The Dresden bombings were used as an example of moral relativism.
It was killing, but if it put a more rapid end to the war (and by extention, the holocaust), was it wrong?
June 26th, 2008 at 10:02 pmHigh Plains. I looked at your #156 post again and my last post doesn’t really answer yours.
Let me try this:
A million Americans died in the civil war. The were differences about states rights and about slavery.
If we were at an impasse with Southerns seceding and vowing to keep black men enslaved, wouldn’t the war be justified? If it’s not justified, what do we do? Let the southern states separate, so they can continue to treat black men like animals or property?
My point is this. War is obviously ugly and a last resort. War and killing are generally wrong. But, regardless of what we want it to be, it is relative. It depends on the situation. It depends on the circumstance.
The moral absolute argument seems disingenuous to me, whether it’s from pro-life Christians or from John Conyers.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:17 pm> He’s trying to corner Yoo with
> the idea of a moral absolute.
No dude, he made absolutely no reference to the question of morality..he asked about the LEGALITY of a hypothetical presidential action. Morality is grey, whereas law, by its very definition, must be black and white..either an act is illegal, or its not. Next time you end up in court, just try
claiming whatever your accused of doing is a “grey area” and see how far that gets ya.
Yoo is asserting that the president can essentially do whatever he wants, whenever he thinks its necessary.
Period. In Yoo’s deluded mind, the constitution exists at the presidents discretion. You can tell what hes thinking even by his dodge of an answer..”an american president would NEVER feel the need to do that”..implying of course, that he could do it with impunity, if he wanted to do. Yes, because winning a popularity contest certainly means you’d never, ever abuse the power your given…in america! we’re SPECIAL!
Hey backup, can you vouch for Yoo’s claim that no future american president would ever abuse the powers Yoo thinks he should have? Also, while your looking into the future, can you let me know some good stock tips as well?
Making something illegal doesnt mean you explode if it happens. If its truly done for a very good reason, why dont you trust at least one member of a 12 person jury to decide that person doesnt deserve of punishment?
Google “jury nullfication” and get back to me dude..
June 27th, 2008 at 12:31 am>War is obviously ugly and a last resort.
Except we’re not at “war” with “terror”.. how do you “win” against “terror”? Who sets the benchmarks? the guy with all the power?
some idiot on here a few days ago said we’d have won the war on terror when “peopel arent trying to blow us up anymore”…
do you really think that will ever happen? and if so, how will we know it?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:33 amI’m reminded of the scene in 1984 where the old heroes of the revolution are sitting in a coffeeshop, beaten men, waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Yoo is waiting for the other shoe to drop.
The other shoe will most certainly drop, Mr. Yoo. If you’re very, very lucky it will happen at a war crimes tribunal.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:40 pmWell what can you expect form a twice selected illegal administration to conduct its self under the colour of law indeed not! It surrounds it’s self withe cronies sycophants toadies the whitest people of colour to dredge up and validate wanton disregard for our constitution international law it defecates on from auntie thomasine condi the oreo rice the banana John put that supected terrorist five year sons testicles in a vice under because i say so King Georges decree Yoo elaine chow alberto the coconut gonzales and the list goes on!!!
June 28th, 2008 at 5:55 pm