Wasserman Schultz on Bybee’s future: ‘It doesn’t look good.’
Wasserman Schultz on Bybee’s future: ‘It doesn’t look good.’
This afternoon on MSNBC’s Hardball, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) endorsed House Judiciary Committee Chariman John Conyers’ pledge to hold hearings into the torture techniques authorized by the Bush administration’s Office of Legal Counsel. Asked by host Chris Matthews if she believed Judge Jay Bybee “should go” because of his role in authoring the OLC torture memos, Wasserman Shultz said that she believed the government needed to take a “first things first approach,” but said “it doesn’t look very good”:
MATTHEWS: Should we ask Jay Bybee to retire form the court out at the 9th circuit? He’s one of the ones who approved it and sits on the federal bench. Should he go?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, I think we need to take a first things first approach, taking a look at who exactly was responsible for these memos. Where was it initiated. We need to go through the process. And you’re still innocent until proven guilty in America, but it doesn’t look very good.
Wasserman Schultz also said she would not rule out prosecuting former President Bush or Vice President Cheney. Watch it:
Please join our campaign calling on Congress to begin impeachment hearings against Jay Bybee.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Wow…
Is this just rhetoric, or will they actually go for it?
This is a powder keg w/ a burning fuse…
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:31 pmOkay, I’ll say it. Bye Bye Bybee.
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:36 pmin other words, she’s saying that the effort to remove him from office doesnt look good. which means that bybees effort to stay 15 years on the bench reach the age of 65 and collect his full salary in retirement do look good.
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:37 pmI’ll wait patiently for them to go ‘through the process’ if it means that they’ll catch Cheney in his web of lies and Bybee gets impeached.
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:39 pmGood for the Democrats. One thing is clear: the Republicans don’t give a damn about anybody but their clan. They have no morals, they have no concept about the rule of law, they’re liars, appeasers, stupid, greedy, hypocritical … [whew] alright I’m done for now.
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:39 pmcheney’s office should have FIRED wasserman shcultz. he deserved a clear headed retirement. (no guarantees of a clear artery retirement)
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:39 pmThis is a clear indication that there will not be a bipartisan effort to impeach Bybee and prosecute BushCO.
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:41 pmBut you do agree that Rep. Wasserman-Schultz is hot, right?
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:41 pmIt’s interesting that one of the Representatives with the most BALLS in Washington is a woman! IJS
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:44 pmwait – no! i said that the office of the vice president should have done their personnel duty and fired the one of /435 representatives under cheney’s command. cheney’s office was the legislative command center of the u.s. until joe biden killed off those powers.
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:45 pmWe need to go through the process. And you’re still innocent until proven guilty in America, but it doesn’t look very good.
Let’s get on with the impeachment trial so we can prove his innocence or guilt…
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:52 pmLook out for the GOP taling point “chilling effect”
“This will have a chilling effect on..”
A chilling effect is EXACTLY what is required here. Pour a bucket of ice on torture now!
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:52 pmThere will be a chilling effect on bush, cheney, rove, Addinton, yoo, Bybee, all sitting in a prison cell, and so be it!
chilling effect my ass!
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:55 pmthe federal govt. needs to offer this man a severance package and grant him immunity!
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:58 pmkrystalview Says:
Yes, instead of AMEN – AWOMEN!
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:04 pm@14 like as to pay him off for testimony? would that make the testimony suspect at all?
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:06 pmBybee is a start. I think Rice and Cheney should be indicted:
Anyone associated with this travesty should be investigated, including Pelosi.
These people, however civilized they present themselves to be, are animals.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:06 pmlets keep it traditional, fire ant, at AMEN. No “AWOMAN” or “Congresswoman” or “Chairlady”. None of this politically correct bs.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:08 pmNo. It doesn’t look good.
It looks downright ugly, people.
Don’t forget: This is a direct result of the panic, the terror, the idiocy, the fury for revenge that lay in the wake of the 9-11 attacks. There is no possibility that Al Gore or Bill Clinton or John Kerry or Hillary or John Edwards would have even entertained the THOUGHT of torturing suspects.
This came from the top. That’s where justice lies.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 pmWhy is it that no one in Washington can give a straight answer. Yes or No..
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:11 pmPlease everyone watch this recent debate of OReily vs Ellis Henican On Torture (Oreily loses his argument and temper)
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:11 pmneoparody Says:
lets keep it traditional, fire ant, at AMEN. No “AWOMAN” or “Congresswoman” or “Chairlady”. None of this politically correct bs.
***
open mike night’s wednesday.
brad stine’s nervous.
good luck with your career.
:)
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:13 pmabsolutely not. the judge puts his honesty in writing (heh!) therefore you do not need to worry about his testimony, he will give it to you straight like rum to soften up a detainee.
hes already being represented pro boner on his measly federal slumerment salary. with the current hit job no law firm will hire him and hell be stuck penniless in the horrendous high cost of living hell hole that is calitucky.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:13 pmIf congress starts going after the crime family, there will be massve unhinging all over the place. Wingnuts and trolls will go crazy.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:14 pm@24 that’s exactly why the DOJ exists to take care of this.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:19 pmkasinca Says:
If congress starts going after the crime family, there will be massve unhinging all over the place. Wingnuts and trolls will go crazy.
***
if it puts larry the cable troll
out of business i can live with it.
;0
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:20 pmThe DOJ is a non partisan non political entity. Republicans are just arm waving.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:20 pmyou got that right, kasinca. if you loons dare make any of us accountable, we will put sandteabags multiple stories high around the white house.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:23 pmwho’s larry the cable troll? is that someone i know?
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:24 pmAdd Rice-A-Phony and Darth Cheney to my list: Earlier today:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:27 pm
neoparody Says:
who’s larry the cable troll? is that someone i know?
***
so trajian
it’s tragic.
:\
:)
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:27 pmI know most of you want to see Bush, Cheney, and their minions answer for their crimes. I agree. But please, oh please, can’t we include Donald Rumsfeld among the guilty? His evil is a bit more banal than Cheney’s spectacular classic evil, but it’s evil nonetheless.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:30 pmi wish you’d be nicer to me, mr. cantwell. neocons are very, very, very wholesome people! those bombs were never nuclear, it was meatloaf! that’s why we can’t oust the f-22, its PERFECT for delivering loaves of meat to a growing earthly population.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:33 pm@30 BobbyG Says
nice one BobbyG.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:33 pmNot only should he step down from the bench, he should walk around and sit down at the defendant’s table.
Impeachment won’t be difficult, but removal by the Senate might be. Republican support is needed to have enough votes, and there will be strong pressure to oppose it. Harry Reid might attempt to subvert the process in deference to a fellow Mormon, as well.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:36 pmOutstandingInAPlagueOfLocusts Says:
Why, of course! I just want Cheney’s azz first cause he’s always talking shyte! LOL
neoparody: AWOMEN! Yeah I said it dammit! Now I’m going back to hugging trees and my dog!
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:41 pmPolitical hearings? Remember the 9-11 commission that proved to be the 9-11 Ommissions Commission. Their job was obviously to pasify the people, and they avoided evidence that would have given us the real story – that the demolitions of 9-11 was done with the cooperation of elements of our Federal Agencies. We need real disclosure on the torture. Not political BS.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:43 pmdamnit! damn you lib! why didnt you do what i say? that tree of yours, let me tell you something about that tree, i cut that tree down and converted the tree into wood chips for fuel for my corvette and let the corvette run for two hours in park on this special earth day. hug what now, lib?
i love dogs – ever read saving sprite by mr. levin?
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:45 pmOK please tell me bush and cheney didn’t torture children. there must be an innocent explaination for this:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:46 pmhttp://www.dcdave.com/article5/070318.htm
pdiddy, the government still operates in a cloath of secrecy, and that is a good thing.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 pmape-man, im sure its all just one big misunderstanding.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:48 pmneopardy says: read joe cantwell’s post @ #22.
I’ll give you an “E” for effort but you need to work a little harder on your “comedy act.”
BIG HUG!
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:52 pmNot quite, please don’t forget their perversion in this regard pre-dates 9/11…it’s not something you flip a switch to turn on at the end of your life…
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:52 pmLushMoron is back. This time as neoparody. Still with no self respect still begging us for our pity. Well he is certainly pituful, stupid, and pathetic. Time for a nice vacation in a rubber room shared with somone who is knitting something that isnt there.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:57 pmbunch of nanny state nonsense
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:02 pmEugene atrax robustus Debs Says:
LushMoron is back. This time as neoparody.
Are you sure? I was avoiding responding to “neoparody” because I assumed it was a liberal just sarcastically pretending to be a wingnut. There really isn’t any thrill for me if the other person is faking it.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:07 pmI mean – “neoparody.” The name gives it away, right? Parody of a neocon?
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:09 pmElBruce Says:
Are you sure? I was avoiding responding to “neoparody” because I assumed it was a liberal just sarcastically pretending to be a wingnut.
I certainly don’t know who or why, but I find his/her comments tiresome and difficult to read. If the purpose is to entertain, it’s not working for me.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:12 pmHonest question, slightly off topic but regarding torture. I presume that most people agree that killing another in self-defense is justifiable, but how would torturing in self-defense be different? As I ponder this 3 differences come to mind: 1) immediacy of perceived threat, 2) duration of suffering, and 3) assuredness of threat.
1)For the immediacy, it is very probable that some occasion would find a suspect holding knowledge of an imminent event that left no other reasonable means to diffuse the pending threat without having immediate and specific knowledge, i.e. a 7am interrogation of a 9/11 conspirator.
2)For the duration, I am confident in assuming that there has been, and will be, incidents where an act of self-defense has maimed an attacker in such a way that death was slow in coming and causing extreme suffering. This would not leave the defendant now liable for inhumane treatment.
3)As for the assuredness, suppose intelligence directly and irrefutably links a suspect to an imminent threat.
I’ve never heard an argument that someone should die before killing in self-defense for the sake of holding one’s actions to be above taking another’s life. If the 3 criteria above were met in full, would reasonable torture (I don’t want to even discuss mutilation/dismemberment/etc…) to save another’s life be any different than shooting an attacker to save someone’s life? In self-defense cases there is a review of circumstances to ensure that such defense was justified, could this same concept be applied to every single case of reasonable torture? This is only intended to probe the extremes of the topic in order to understand if this is truly a black and white issue. Hypothetical, yes, but so too were Einstein’s thought experiments. Hear ye, I come in peace and wish only to confront this question. I look forward to your clarity Elbruce…
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:15 pmneoparody Says:
i love dogs – ever read saving sprite by mr. levin?
__________
Hmmm… so you’re the one Li’l Ricky Santorum was referring to…
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:17 pmIt’s not lookin’ good for your Boy, Bu’ushlickers
The OLC “torture memos”: thoughts from a dissenter
Tue, 04/21/2009 – 9:17am
By Philip Zelikow
“I first gained access to the OLC memos and learned details about CIA’s program for high-value detainees shortly after the set of opinions were issued in May 2005. I did so as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s policy representative to the NSC Deputies Committee on these and other intelligence/terrorism issues. In the State Department, Secretary Rice and her Legal Adviser, John Bellinger, were then the only other individuals briefed on these details. In compliance with the security agreements I have signed, I have never discussed or disclosed any substantive details about the program until the classified information has been released…
The legal opinions have grave weaknesses.
Weakest of all is the May 30 opinion, just because it had to get over the lowest standard — “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” in Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture. That standard was also being codified in the bill Senator John McCain was fighting to pass. It is also found in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, a standard that the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 does apply to these prisoners. Violation of Common Article 3 is a war crime under federal law (18 U.S.C. section 2441), a felony punishable by up to life imprisonment. (The OLC opinions do not discuss this law because in 2005 the administration also denied the applicability of Common Article 3.)
The OLC holds, rightly, that the United States complies with the international standard if it complies with the comparable body of constitutional prohibitions in U.S. law (the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments). Many years earlier, I had worked in that area of the law. I believed that the OLC opinions (especially the May 30 one) presented the U.S. government with a distorted rendering of relevant U.S. law.
At the time, in 2005, I circulated an opposing view of the legal reasoning. My bureaucratic position, as counselor to the secretary of state, didn’t entitle me to offer a legal opinion. But I felt obliged to put an alternative view in front of my colleagues at other agencies, warning them that other lawyers (and judges) might find the OLC views unsustainable. My colleagues were entitled to ignore my views. They did more than that: The White House attempted to collect and destroy all copies of my memo. I expect that one or two are still at least in the State Department’s archives.
Stated in a shorthand way, mainly for the benefit of other specialists who work these issues, my main concerns were:
The underlying absurdity of the administration’s position can be summarized this way. Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for “cruel, inhuman, and degrading” you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. So the OLC must argue, in effect, that the methods and the conditions of confinement in the CIA program could constitutionally be inflicted on American citizens in a county jail…”
___
Full article linky.
No “lib’rul weenie” here. Zelikow was Condi Rice’s Policy Counsel.
Pass the popcorn.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:44 pmslip_left Says:
Honest question, slightly off topic but regarding torture. I presume that most people agree that killing another in self-defense is justifiable, but how would torturing in self-defense be different? As I ponder this 3 differences come to mind: 1) immediacy of perceived threat, 2) duration of suffering, and 3) assuredness of threat.
OK, let me restate… If you torture someone, in order to meet the same criteria, you’d have to…
1) Know that there was a highly credible threat and know it was immediate. Like the date a bomb was going to go off, if not the time.
This is fantastical on the face of it. But it’s not impossible. After all, many movie and television plots involve just such a situation, and if they’re credible enough for us to suspend disbelief, then presumably they’re possible. It’s just that the chances of an intrepid investigator finding out about a highly secretive plot within the extremely narrow time window during which preventing it would be possible has about the same chance of winning the lottery.
I don’t think we should make public policy based on something that can only happen against astronomical odds. Especially when said policy violates a long list of significant ethical codes and international agreements.
But let’s multiply those odds further…
2) Torture the person effectively, in such a way that they deliver the information you want promptly.
In my opinion, this flatly impossible in practice.
Torture is not effective in uncovering information you don’t have. Chances are, the actual truth is less plausible than a convenient lie. If I tell you the actual truth, you’re less likely to believe it than any juicy story I can make up. Which means if I tell you the truth, you’ll torture me longer. If you’re torturing me effectively, then the only priority I have is getting you to stop as soon as possible, which means I’ll choose plausibility over truthfulness.
Torture is even less effective in uncovering time-critical information. If I know the bomb is going to go off at 9am, all I have to do is hold out until 9:01, or give you “wild goose chase” information that will take you until 9:01 to uncover. And presumably, I don’t like you.
To make matters even worse, there’s…
3) Know that the person you were torturing had information that could prevent the threat.
You can’t know what you don’t know. And you’re torturing the person in order to find out what they know, that you don’t. If you don’t know what they know, you can’t know that they know it. You know?
It might be possible to meet criteria number one in a theoretically idealized situation, but given any real combination of situation and human beings, it simply will never happen in a billion years. And finding oneself a situation that meets all three criteria would be the ethical equivalent of travelling at the speed of light, or being inside a black hole’s event horizon: while theoretically possible, it bears no relation to reality whatsoever, and is therefore inapplicable to public policy and discussions thereof.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:48 pmslip_left Says:
Certainly immediacy is the key. If you go to court and can not SHOW that the person was trying to kill you AT THAT MOMENT you will not prevail with a self defense motive. As for assurance nothing less than a court decision will suffice. We have already tortured one man because he had a simliar name to the guy we were looking for. The German national el Masri. Self defense is defined and aknowledged under the law. Torture is specifically AGAINST the constitutuion which outlaws cruel and unusual punishment. Since WE convicted Japanese officers, an American sherrif and court martialed a US soldier for just taking part in waterboarding there is no reasonable argument that torture is unlawful. Even if you leave off the other arguments that one alone is enough to aknowledge that torture is prohibited.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:54 pm@Elbruce -
Yep.
Yep. So, I lied to you, and the bomb went off. I laugh in your Infidel face. I come from a hardscrabble cohort demonstrably willing to strap on the C-4 and blow ourselves to Allah. You got No Game on my turf. What’choo gonna do now, Infidel? Torture me some more? Kill me? Bring it, Infidel. I don’t expect to survive anyway. My mission continues to be accomplished, unlike that of your playboy flightsuit preening former President.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:56 pmElBruce Says:
Eugene atrax robustus Debs Says:
LushMoron is back. This time as neoparody.
Are you sure? I was avoiding responding to “neoparody” because I assumed it was a liberal just sarcastically pretending to be a wingnut. There really isn’t any thrill for me if the other person is faking it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many people could there be so utterly pathetic who actually think they are clever? I think is LM. Still just as stupid still begging us to pity him. Just changing names since his act was such an utter failure under the old one
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:57 pmOh no…Condi too?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_interrogation_memos_senate;_ylt=ApYtFH6Wq0lavuJDQWO297qs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJ1MDFjM3I2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNDIzL3VzX2ludGVycm9nYXRpb25fbWVtb3Nfc2VuYXRlBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNhc2J1c2hhZHZpc2U-
Possible purjury here?
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:02 am(um…perjury)
“According to the new narrative, which compiles legal advice provided by the Bush administration to the CIA, Rice personally conveyed the administration’s approval for waterboarding of Zubaydah, a so-called high-value detainee, to then-CIA Director George Tenet in July 2002.
Last fall, Rice acknowledged to the Senate Armed Services Committee only that she had attended meetings where the CIA interrogation request was discussed and asked for the attorney general to conduct a legal review. She said she did not recall details. Rice omitted her direct role in approving the program in her written statement to the committee.”
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 amalph the wonder locust Says:
But you do agree that Rep. Wasserman-Schultz is hot, right?
—
i can’t decide. help?
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 amEugene atrax robustus Debs Says:
slip_left Says:
Certainly immediacy is the key. If you go to court and can not SHOW that the person was trying to kill you AT THAT MOMENT you will not prevail with a self defense motive.
Well, I think the idea here was to make a moral comparison – what about self defense makes it OK to kill a person, and could those same criteria apply to torturing a person?
.
BobbyG Says:
Yep. So, I lied to you, and the bomb went off. I laugh in your Infidel face.
Pretty much. Basically it amounts to this: when we start responding to brutality with brutality, we’re playing their game. We’ve allowed them to set the terms of the conflict. And when we do that, we’re less likely to win.
.
The counterargument I presented above didn’t even get into the fact that torture creates more enemies and blocks off any strategies based on eliminating the local/political support that terrorist networks require in order to exist.
Wingnuts tend to focus on individuals, and who “deserves” what. But when dealing with terrorism, it’s important to remember that a society is not a person. Apparently 48% of our society is pro-torture, from the sounds of it. It’s extremely likely that 48% of the societies that breed terrorists are anti-terror. Thus, defeating terrorism means shifting that number to 51% or higher. It doesn’t have a damn thing to do with hurting and/or killing individual terrorists.
Q: When’s the last time we got a terrorist-breeding society to stop breeding terrorists?
A: Northern Ireland.
It stands to reason that similar approaches as were used there will be effective in our current situation. England used kangaroo courts, denial of habeus corpus, and torture against the Irish Republican Army for decades, and terrorism only increased. By stopping using those methods, they were able to open up strategies whereby the local society that the terrorists relied on for cover and support were no longer willing to give them such assistance, and the terrorism stopped.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:32 amMycelium Says:
Last fall, Rice acknowledged to the Senate Armed Services Committee only that she had attended meetings where the CIA interrogation request was discussed and asked for the attorney general to conduct a legal review.
Perjury aside, I’m trying to imagine how such a meeting would go:
“Hey, is it legal to torture people? Because it would be totally awesome if our guys could torture people.”
“Gosh, I don’t know. We’d better ask the A.G. for an opinion, because I have no idea.”
“Yeah, let’s let the lawyers deal with all that ‘legal’ stuff. That’s not my area of expertise.”
Like any adult doesn’t know that torture is illegal… and these people were running our gubmint?!?
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:35 amDid anyone mention yet that this could be a case of torture by bush and cheney to obtain false confessions? If so, consider this a reminder…
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 amcapitalism leads to imperialism and imperialism leads to torture.
poverty leads to terrorism and terrorism leads to torture.
religious fever leads to self righteousness and self righteousness leads to torture.
we blame people and never look at the system.
common human mistake to blame and judge people over system.
few will understand my words very few.
took a revelation and realization for me to understand the impact systems have on human behaviour.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 amslip_left Says:
—
i don’t know that immediacy of the threat is the key. i think it would be the direct nexus between the torture administered (assuming arguendo that there could be circumstances in which it is warranted) and the removal or neutralization of the threat.
let’s say that we captured a terrorist, and he had a bomb *inside his liver* that will kill 10,000 people in five minutes if it goes off. jack bauer has this guy tied up and knows how to extract the bomb *and* defuse it in four minutes, but it will cause extreme pain and possibly the death of the terrorist. who would argue that jack bauer can’t tear the guy’s liver out with a screwdriver and save the 10,000 people, including himself?
that’s because we assumed that he can directly remove the threat by opening the guy up. if there was *any* evidence that torture can directly remove or neutralize a terrorist threat, wouldn’t this be the analysis under the self-defense theory?
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 amElbruce, you are very good. Nice to encounter.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:40 amas long as we blame people and not look at system nothing much will change.
americans this is a decline of wealth of a nation not a recession.
we have been living on borrowed time and money for over 30 years.
when the dollar is no longer the worlds currancy then the real decline will occur in america.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:40 amInside his liver?
Just for the sake of argument, you shoot the guy in the head. He’s dead. Slice him open, remove and defuse bomb. The end.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:41 amI understand that the torture victims may now be partially brain dead… Do you suppose we could all have a look and see now if they’re brain damaged? Is that too much to ask? Where are they?
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:41 amTotally off topic, but a must see! Republicans are just… so… out there!
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 amhttp://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/48944/
It appears that “slip_left” watches too much 24.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:00 amUm. I must disagree. Bad people do bad things regardless of the “system”. The evil only becomes systemic when evil people are left unpunished.
That’s why the guilty parties MUST be punished, otherwise, we have to scrap the system. Scrapping a system always results in hardship, if not actual suffering and death, for everyone.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:42 amstjack Says:
let’s say that we captured a terrorist, and he had a bomb *inside his liver* that will kill 10,000 people in five minutes if it goes off.
I hadn’t even thought of “Saw” situations. I think Mr. Evil has the best solution. But you’ve only got a few minutes to figure it out, and cutting him open alive makes for way better TV.
.
BobbyG Says:
Elbruce, you are very good. Nice to encounter.
Why, thank you! Even nicer to hear.
.
researcher Says:
americans this is a decline of wealth of a nation not a recession.
What’s your definition of a “recession?” Because mine is when the per-capita GDP dips below the cost-of-living index.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:51 amMr. Evil Says:
Totally off topic, but a must see! Republicans are just… so… out there!
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/48944/
Reminds me of this.
.
pete Says:
Um. I must disagree. Bad people do bad things regardless of the “system”. The evil only becomes systemic when evil people are left unpunished.
That’s why the guilty parties MUST be punished, otherwise, we have to scrap the system.
As regards our system, I’d maintain that not punishing people who break the law would constitute scrapping the system.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:10 amCheney tried to turn the US into a banana republic with him and his boys in charge. or maybe it was a badger republic, or maybe a weasel republic.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:12 amCheckitout: Shep Smith loses his everloving mind over this torture crap. Gots to love me some Shep.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:24 amCheckitout: Shep Smith loses his everloving mind over this torture crap. Gots to love me some Shep.
Yeah I tend to want to let things slide with him. He seems like a nice enough guy and shows himself to have morals, but then again it could be that I think he’s very yummy. Still, I have a hard time with anyone on that sorry excuse for a news network.
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:41 amI’ll second that! Just please don’t fill my mind with anymore of those icky cheney self-pleasure images. >.< EEEEEWWWWW!
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:45 amAh, now there’s a question! I’ve wondered that myself. Personally I’m guessing dead or somehow hidden somewhere. Because you know they don’t want these people talking… well to anyone other than the torturers of course.
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:47 amOK OT here, but I’m up late and feeling restless. So… Is it me or is Steve Doocy the world’s biggest closet case? Seroiusly, look at the way he holds himself and flails his arms around when his legs aren’t crossed in that rather fem way. That’s to say nothing of the voice or the facial expressions. You know he’s just not manly.
Not that’s there’s anything wrong with that. *wink*
Hey, I’m a bi LGBT member I’ve got room to talk =P
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:52 amNot that there’s anything wrong
~fixed~
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:54 am.
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:29 amLook, let’s just stop going around in circles here. Admit that the Bush Administration was right, and torture works, and that the Obama Administration is right to prosecute them for it. Logically, then we can torture the Bushies until they admit what they did was wrong. Cuz, y’know, otherwise, this sh*t could go on forever…
.
Slip-left’s exercise is worth thinking about in my opinion. I’ve heard this self-defense argument before, also coupled with the notion that you can kill in self-defense so surely anything less than killing also must be acceptable. I’ve thought about this because on the surface it has some appeal, but for me, it just doesn’t wash.
There are several problems that I have:
1) In order to torture someone you must have them in custody. If they are in custody, how are they a threat? A threat only exists by considering the collection of terrorists that may in fact be hypothetical. How can you have a threat from an unverifiable source?
2) Because someone is in custody, they are defenseless. In my opinion physically or mentally harming someone that is defenseless is morally reprehensible. In this case, the torture was also clearly calculated and planned and not a response to an “immediate” life threatening situation. I’m not sure how it works legally in practice but my notion of self-defense requires a person to be reacting to a present, observable threat. Maybe torture is gratifying in that it makes you feel like you are doing everything you can to prevent another attack, but that is not justification to do physical or mental harm. (This is what I really think was going on in the Bush Admin – making sure they did everything possible, without any thought as to what that actually meant.)
3) Implicit in the argument is that death is worse than anything else. In my opinion, death is not the ultimate penalty or punishment. I think it would be far superior to be dead than holed up in a cage and waterboarded everyday. So, by torturing, we are actually doing something worse than killing. It’s cruel to keep something alive in a constant state of pain and misery.
One last thing that I find troubling is the repeated discussion from some folks that as long as all the damage that is done is mental, it is ok. I find that sickening, ignorant, and absurd. The brain is an organ that responds to chemical signals initiated by internal or external stimuli. By manipulating the stimuli in such a way that it impairs brain function is no less of an organ failure than a faulty kidney. I’d much rather have a kidney malfunction than to be driven insane. This is just another example of how society somehow believes that we have complete control over how our brains work and mental illness is somehow not a physiological problem.
Just my $0.02.
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:12 amBybee’s future looks good for someone eyeing up a judge’s seat/bench on the 9th Circuit Court that will be opening up pretty soon……..
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:35 amWe’re finally seeing some comeuppance after 8 years of Republican/neocon impunity. But just remember, kiddies: Rome was neither built nor dismantled in a day.
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:14 amhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/condoleezza-rice-cheney-a_n_190340.html
Cheney and Rice both signed off on waterboarding. The evidence is mounting so the defense of waterboarding (torture) is growing.
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:02 am(Abu Zabaydah had been suffering a mental disorder following an injury in 1992.)
Listen to the people, Obama. The people want the Bushies – Bush and Cheney at the top of the list – to suffer for their crimes against the world. Gitmo is waiting…
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:26 amCheck out the other MSM newsblogs. Barely a mention of the torture issue. Oh sure, MSNBC has Condi on the front, but as far as MSM is concered, been there, covered that. This is probably the biggest story of the decade and MSM treats it like it’s fodder. I guess Miss America’s comments are more important. Unreal.
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:58 amP.D. Says:
I guess Miss America’s comments are more important.
Maybe somebody should ask Miss America about torture.
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:11 amFascinating..
Why doesn’t Chris challenge her on people following orders with the case of John Demanjack ( pardon the spelling) who is 89 and the Justice Department wants to deport after being acquitted by the Israeli Supreme Court!
The trials after WWII resulted in executions of people who committed the same crimes our CIA and top Executives ordered.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:10 pmtbone Says:
One last thing that I find troubling is the repeated discussion from some folks that as long as all the damage that is done is mental, it is ok. I find that sickening, ignorant, and absurd.
That’s what everybody said when we found out about MK Ultra. And when it came out that the KGB was experimenting with driving people insane via sleep and sensory deprivation. It’s no worse then than it is now. In fact, I’d say that intentionally causing permanent neurological damage to people is much worse than causing them extreme pain.
.
P.D. Says:
Check out the other MSM newsblogs. Barely a mention of the torture issue. Oh sure, MSNBC has Condi on the front, but as far as MSM is concered, been there, covered that. This is probably the biggest story of the decade and MSM treats it like it’s fodder.
Odd, that. They’re missing out. By the time they notice, they’ll have been totally scooped.
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:30 pmThanks SitesSesli Sohbet
April 30th, 2009 at 8:52 amSesli Chat
SesliSohbet
SesliChat