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.

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?

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..

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.

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?

I was only trying to get a better understanding and promote a free exchange of information.

Thank you, I respect your response.

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.

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.

Backup, can you back up what you said about most people feeling the nuclear attack on Japan was the right thing to do?

Idyll. Here is some polling data on the bombing of Japan.

http://www.pollingreport.com/news.htm#Hiroshima

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.

backup,

caught in another lie.

joe. 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.

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.

gummitch. 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 2:01 pm

And yet, you defend him. Interesting…

backup Says:

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.

Most people I know wouldn’t agree. I’ll admit to being wrong if you provide a link to a reputable study.