Graham: Approving Torture Techniques That Are ‘Clearly Illegal’ Are ‘Not Criminal Mistakes’
Graham: Approving Torture Techniques That Are ‘Clearly Illegal’ Are ‘Not Criminal Mistakes’
This morning on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, a caller asked Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) why he would not support a possible criminal investigation into the Bush-era torture program. Graham defended the Bush administration by saying they “overreacted” “out of fear,” but insisted that Bush’s “mistakes” were “not criminal mistakes”:
GRAHAM: The reason I don’t want to go back any more than we have already done is because I know what happened. Out of fear, we overreacted. … They took a view of the law that I think was aggressive, and I would not have approached it that way. Right after 9/11, we all thought we were going to be hit again. So as we go back and try to hold people criminally liable. I think we’re doing a lot of damage to the country, because their mistakes were not criminal mistakes. They were mistakes made out of fear.
Watch it:
The Bush administration approved, among other gruesome techniques, the use of waterboarding; waterboarding is torture, and torture is a crime. And it’s not just retired military experts, presidents, presidential candidates, and 71 percent of Americans who say so: Graham himself declared, in October 2007, that waterboarding “is clearly illegal under domestic and international law”:
GRAHAM: I am convinced, as an individual senator, as a military lawyer for 25 years, that waterboarding…does violate our war crimes statute and is clearly illegal under domestic and international law. … I don’t think you have to have a lot of knowledge about the law to understand this technique violates Geneva Convention Common Article Three, the War Crimes statutes, and many other statutes that are in place. So I do hope that he will embrace that.
Apparently for Graham, if you approve something that is “clearly illegal,” it’s not “a criminal mistake” — so long as you are acting out of fear.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Expanding gasbags
June 4th, 2009 at 5:42 pmOften shaped by business suits
Hissing rancid thoughts
Apparently for Graham, if you approve something that is “clearly illegal,” it’s not “a criminal mistake” — so long as you are acting out of fear.
That sounds nonsensical enough to come from a GNOP apologist. Tell me, Ms. Graham, if I knowingly break the law but I do so out of fear, do I get a free pass too? Because I’m scared about making my house payment next month and there’s a bank around the corner…
PEACE
June 4th, 2009 at 5:45 pmYou can most certainly commit a crime out of fear. Cowardice is no excuse.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:48 pmWell, I’m afraid I’ll run out of money! Does that mean I can go rob a bank…?
Liberace, you’re an idiot. And worse, you’re an apologist for torture.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:48 pmParsing pantywaist.
UGH!!!!
June 4th, 2009 at 5:48 pmOut of fear ?!? Ha ! Lol ! and whatever else displays disbelief.
So mr. graham, you would have us believe that the bush administration was living in fear of a terrorist attack on their own family ?!?
I personally wouldn’t define that as ‘fear’ so much as I would ‘paranoia’.
So really, that is just pure b.s.
And here’s another.
GRAHAM: The reason I don’t want to go back any more than we have already done is because I know what happened.
Well said scum-bag.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:50 pmHow many American set in prison today because the committed crimes out of fear? The individual that robed a bank because of fear that he couldn’t make a living any other way.
The Person that robed a store for fear of not have food to put on the table. The individual that was addicted to drugs that he couldn’t live another day without a fix.
Every crime has a story that could fit into the word FEAR…Will they be forgive and released now since (FEAR) is justified for criminal behavior by the Government that enforce the rule of law?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:51 pmActing out of fear or not, Lindsey does admit that BushCheney & Co. committed war crimes. Somebody get AG Holder on the phone.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:53 pmI better not ever again hear Graham Cracka bragging about having been a JAG officer in the military.
He’s a disgrace.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:56 pmGraham: Approving Torture Techniches That Are ‘Clearly Illegal’ Are ‘Not Criminal Mistakes’
– - Techniches: A very suitable position or field for techies.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:58 pmSo if I plot the cold-blooded murder of someone that intimidates me, it’s okay?
Interesting…
June 4th, 2009 at 5:59 pmTake a look at yourself Graham. Find a new political party or perish.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:01 pmThe only thing the CIA torturers were afraid of was that they would end up being the fall guys for the Bush administration’s torture regime– just like the low-ranking people sent to jail for torturing detainees at Abu Ghraib. Their fears were and are well-founded.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:02 pmCriminal mistakes are mostly out of fear!
June 4th, 2009 at 6:03 pmMs. Lindsay committed a crime because he couldn’t say no to the Bush Crime Family.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:04 pmCriminal ‘mistakes’ are probably the bulk of criminality in America. Many of these mistakes are committed out of fear. As a lawyer Graham should know that this is not a defence, but it may make a difference in the sentencing phase only.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:04 pmAt least Lindsay acknowledges that the Bush administration was cowardly in its approach to fighting terrorism.
Using that cowardice as a way to excuse criminal behavior, however, is not generally accepted as a defense in a court of law.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:08 pmIf Clinton had used systematic torture during his administration, how quick do you think Lindsay would have been calling for impeachment and prosecutions? Graham’s a hypocrite.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:08 pmI was thinking the exact same thing.
How understanding do you think Republicans would be if it were a Democratic administration responsible?
Especially if someone got a blow job out of the deal.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:09 pmHow many of the “detainees” were beaten to death?
Last count that we know of is 98…NINETY EIGHT!!!
They were never charged with anything, we will never know if they were innocent or not, yet our “over reaction” caused their deaths.
I know, I know…you Republic Fascist Party members don’t care because they were “Brown People”.
Fcuk the Republic Fascist Party
June 4th, 2009 at 6:10 pmMr. Graham, do you have any case law to support your assertion ?
After all, you are a **LAW**yer aren’t you ?
June 4th, 2009 at 6:11 pmYeah, let’s all take a big mulligan for post-9/11 behavior.
So let’s start following the Law riiiiiiiight NOW!
June 4th, 2009 at 6:13 pmDid the Viet Cong torture because they were afraid? Does that make it OKey DOkey?
What kind of people turn to torture when they are afraid? Cowards and bullies.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:13 pmI’m very alarmed and afraid for my family because of our economy. Is is okay if I torture my banker?
June 4th, 2009 at 6:17 pm“Techniches”? — c’mon, TP!
June 4th, 2009 at 6:17 pmWell yeah, except for one thing. THEY DIDN’T TORTURE OUT OF FEAR OF ANOTHER ATTACK.
They tortured to obtain false confessions of links of 9/11 to Sadam, in order to justify an illegal and unnecessary invasion that Bush & Co. had been planning since inauguration.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:21 pmWait, so If I rob a bank while shaking in fear its not a crime?
June 4th, 2009 at 6:22 pmThe litmus test for any claimed excuse of a crime is: how would that sound in front of a judge?
At the very least, it’s irresponsible of any elected official to attempt to justify a crime with a non-legal argument.
.
So as we go back and try to hold people criminally liable. I think we’re doing a lot of damage to the country…
Quite the opposite. Not holding people criminally liable for the crimes they have committed is doing a lot of damage to the country.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:22 pmIf I think my neighbor has a gun and I get scared and overreact by shooting him thats not a crime?
Cmon Lindsey, we know that the ones that were peddling the fear were using it for their agenda, they werent themselves scared.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:23 pmIt seems the fear of being held accountable is eating the brains right out these people.
Sounds like Lindsey is afraid that the government will take a hit if we proceed as the law says we must. Is he building a case for doing something illegal because of his fear and cowardice?
June 4th, 2009 at 6:25 pmI am scared of Senators with the name Lindsey, ____ _____ ______ ______ _______.
[not really, just wanted to see how people finish this sentence]
June 4th, 2009 at 6:27 pmSo as we go back and try to hold people criminally liable. I think we’re doing a lot of damage to the country…
Most people have come to realize their is a big difference between our government and our country. Certain individuals within our government (both past and present) are responsible for criminal behavior. A growing majority of our country wants them to answer for it.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:27 pmMaybe Miss Lindsey needs another look at the Abu Ghraib photos to see who was afraid of whom.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:27 pmYer a little late, jack. The “holding the administration accountable for following the law” bit started on Jan. 20 for the Republicans
June 4th, 2009 at 6:28 pmOMG, WTF!?! In-the-closet Graham has got be kidding?
Graham outta fear can I go and torture Cheney and Bush for breaking domestic and international laws and for running the country into hell for their utter lack of ineptness?
You just said it was ok and after I torture them, you can call it a “mistake.”
June 4th, 2009 at 6:28 pmGraham admitted guilt. that’s a start. He wants to go easy on them because they were afraid. That’s probably not true except maybe at the very start, and certainly not once the torture program turned to obtaining false confessions.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:31 pm“But, your honor, I was afraid the video store was going to charge me a late fee on my Call of Duty game so I just had to blow the store up.”
June 4th, 2009 at 6:35 pmThis would make for a very dramatic courtroom scene (picture your favorite tv/movie lawyers here):
The defendant is on trial for a most horrible crime. The prosecutor finished his/her opening remarks. The judge asks for the defense to present its opening remarks.
The defense attorney stands up. “Your honor, my client did do this horrible thing, but acted out of fear.” The defense attorney sits back down. The prosecutor grimaces.
The judge curtly announces “The charges are dismissed, the defendant simply acted out of fear.” Stroke of the gavel. Case closed.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:37 pmJust when I think Graham can’t sink any lower he manages to do so.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:39 pmEVERYTHING right wingers do is out of fear
they are a bunch of ignorant, pansy, frightened, pussy, sissy, cowardly, quivering little piss bags
they disgust me
June 4th, 2009 at 6:39 pmCheney, sitting in his undisclosed location, ordering big burly CIA contractors [read: "thugs for hire"] to torture and humiliate defenceless prisoners in irons: Pants-crapping fearful
Various detainees, shackled, hooded, slammed into walls, and sleep-deprived: Necessarily “brave” (because they don’t have any choice)
Do I have that right?!?!?
Cheers,
June 4th, 2009 at 6:41 pmSo as we go back and try to hold people criminally liable. I think we’re doing a lot of damage to the country, because their mistakes were not criminal mistakes. They were mistakes made out of fear.
Except they were planning on invading Iraq before 9/11. That makes it premeditated, and no simple mistake in judgement.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:42 pmSo the big bad authoritarians excuse is ‘We were scared, we are, after all, Chickenhawks’
June 4th, 2009 at 6:43 pmmalice and forethought, your honor
June 4th, 2009 at 6:44 pmI can prove I was scared, I got five deferments! name here_____
June 4th, 2009 at 6:44 pmI’m sure Richard Nixon would have appreciated more senators like Graham during Watergate.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:53 pmmisscoleopteramolly Says:
“Techniches”? — c’mon, TP!
MissMolly, are those the little built-in corner computer desks? Tech niches?
PEACE
June 4th, 2009 at 7:01 pmThat the actors who committed these crimes also intentionally created the culture of fear that he’s citing as an excuse.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:17 pmthe torture these republican/conservative crackpots are doing to our notions and meaning of law is simply unforgivable. They need to be put under psychiatric care, because they certainly have no reasonable recognizable notion of honesty, integrity, or intellect. They are mental midgets, stunted immature imps making up any ole shit they can dream up – completely detached from reality.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:19 pmMistakes that violate the law are criminal by definition. Graham is a lawyer so he knows fully well what the cornerstone and underpinning of a nation of laws indeed demands that law violators are held accountable in a court of law. Nothing is more basic than this. Cheney has in fact said that given the circumstances he would do the exact same thing again. Graham just invites some future administration to repeat the mistakes of the Bush administration because Graham apparently believes that the Constitution and rule of law can be suspending at the whim of a President. In the old days we called this type of leader King.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:27 pmI disagree, Tommy. Some things they do out of greed.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:29 pmMiss Lindsey is so conflicted. His thought process is so tortured, mirroring his inner struggle with his sexual orientation.
Come out, come out, come out, Miss Lindsey!
June 4th, 2009 at 7:33 pmDallasNE Says:
Graham is a lawyer…
I’m beginning to have my doubts. Ever since John Yoo vomited “Unitary Executive Theory” all over a TV camera, I’ve been of the opinion that anybody who makes such blatantly anti-legal and/or anti-Constitutional statements in public should immediately have their law licence revoked, as they are clearly incompetent in any and all legal matters.
Graham’s statement at top would also qualify as being a blatant exposure of legal incompetence and/or malfeasance.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:57 pmThe Cheney gang fear based policies existed before 911 and comes from self loathing and paranoia. Their motivation was greed. War and torture are never far from a political machine such as this.
Sen Graham tries to both defend and distance himself from the Cheney gang policies. Its rather pathetic considering all the pain, suffering, and death that was caused by those criminals.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:57 pmThe Bush administration was so scared of another dramatic, and terribly photogenic terrorist attack that instead of court-marshaling the commander of NORAD he promoted him? So scared that he cut funding for first responders? So scared that he didn’t order extra security for our ports and nuclear power plants? So scared that he didn’t want to have a real forensic investigation of these attacks carried out? So scared that he would only testify before the 9/11 commission with Cheney in tow (or vice versa), not allowing any notes to be taken of the questioning?
What was he afraid of again?
June 4th, 2009 at 8:19 pmgreed is just fear of being not rich
June 4th, 2009 at 8:26 pmNO, NO it’s not a crime. When a guy robs a bank and it’s a mistake or he acted out of fear, we let him go, don’t we?
Sorry Lindy, you are WRONG again. You republiKKKons never do anything wrong do you? HAHAHAHAHA The republiKKKon party is now the Crackers Against America party aka the “NONO” party.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:46 pmInvading a sovereign nation “by mistake” is a effing crime!
June 4th, 2009 at 8:58 pmwherever this a-hole sack-sniffer went to law school should be embarrassed right now.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:10 pmWow. Big confession there. Legally he left himself no where to go here. He just admitted something the republicans have been denying for a long time. Last month they were “doing the right thing”. Now they “made mistakes” and the excuse is, “because they were afraid”.
So he just admitted to not only being criminals, but cowardly as well. What happened to all that tough right wing rhetoric?
You know, these guys are starting to sound more and more like the leaders of the Nazi party making excuses at Nuremberg.
This was a big statement by Graham. He left himself no where else to go.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:18 pmYou hear that a lot in the federal pen too.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:27 pmexcept they couldnt afford the good lawyer to make it work.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:28 pmI’ld call it the “twinkie defense” but cocktail weenies is probably more appropriate.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:29 pmYou’re absolutely right, WAYNEBRO. But Lindsey, should he even realize the significance of what he said, will simply apologize to Lush Rimjob and consider that to be sufficient atonement.
Though it sure would be nice to see every Democrat and or “librul” journalist, not to mention patriots of all kinds, in the country pounce on him and ask for an explanation of why he thinks it’s any more legal to attack a country in a panic than in malice. Personally, I’ve emailed my Rep, my Senator, and a couple journalists begging them to ask such questions.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:31 pmOops! I hit the button before I could add that:
Lindsey is a weak link. If he’s buried under demands to explain himself he’ll crack and he’s enough of a weasel to throw anyone and everyone under the bus to save his own miserable skin.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:34 pmYup. Cheney and Graham.
Like Goering and Hoess.
Goering denied everything and made excuses and Hoess tried to wriggle out too but ended up confessing and pleading for mercy.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:48 pmWAYNEBRO Says:
What happened to all that tough right wing rhetoric?
Like all other right-wing positions, it folded like a cheap lawn chair as soon as one true fact touched it.
.
tryggth Says:
I’ld call it the “twinkie defense” but cocktail weenies is probably more appropriate.
The weenie defense! We have a winner!
June 4th, 2009 at 10:57 pmI don’t believe you Lindsey…not when the Salvador Option was instituted by the U.S. Govt…not until you put it in historical context do you see the twin sisters of capitalism appear: neo-liberal economic polices and, wait for it…torture…
We weren’t afraid, but we wanted them to be very afraid…so they wouldn’t fight back…
June 4th, 2009 at 11:28 pmThat reminds me. When I heard that Negroponte was being sent to Iraq I thought soon there will be groups of bodies showing up with their hands tied behind their back and a bullet in the back of their skulls. They did. Rat b*stard.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:37 pmHere we have a lawyer and a liar. And of course he is a Republican. Has anyone noticed that our past scandals in the Republican administrations have all been with the help and encouragement of lawyers to blame for, Watergate, Iran Contra, S&L scandals, torture, Gitmo, etc. And they spent two years on Clinton,s blow job. And Ken Starr spent years and 70 million dollars trying to find dirt about Clinton and his finances. And it came to nothing. He even investigated Clinton’s xmas card list and whether or not he paid the correct postage. And travel gate etc. And they found nothing. Now try to remember if the Republicans ever investigated Bush for anything.
If only we could be spared Graham? No such luck. Just think of how many lawyers are responsible for in the last administration. I try to keep all these things in mind when I become angry at something Obama did not do.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:45 pmClearly illegal acts are not crimes? Which law book did he study?
June 4th, 2009 at 11:53 pmIt is so interesting to visit this Republican hate-site to see how you blame-America-first liberals spin every news story to fit your cynical view of America.
Sen. Graham has taken a very balanced, even-handed view of the entire “torture” debate. This article takes different quotes by Sen. Graham totally out of context to spin and distort what his true position is, a position that is reasonable, and one that most Americans can accept. That position is that many government officials, Democrat, Republican, CIA, and military personnel in the period following 9-11 erred on the side of supporting or allowing (including Nancy Pelosi) probably excessive methods of intelligence gathering because of the unknown threat that existed in that period. In retrospect, some of the methods probably fit the definition of torture, but at the time, the consensus opinion was to “push the envelope” so as to leave no stone unturned that could lead to a national catastrophe like 9-11. We just could not take that risk, so excessive methods were justified and used. However, it would be very damaging and divisive to our country to attempt to criminalize these decisions now for political advantage like most of you propose. That is what Sen. Graham was saying.
The attempts at analogy that some of you have posted are mostly petty and juvenile. The big difference is that you cannot point out a single case by a major political or government official in which those individuals did not believe that they were acting in the best interest of the United States government, and in accordance with some interpretation of the law, as much as that is being criticized and second-guessed now, these years later. They were not acting out of personal greed or purpose.
We just had an election, and the country elected a Democrat President, House, and Senate. It would be most reckless, abusive, and divisive for the Democrats to use their political gains and capital to attempt to criminally punish the prior administration because of a difference in political philosophy. They do that in Argentina, not the United States of America.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:59 pmThat’s BS, Phil. Let me try to make this simple.
1. The only universally recognized justification for war is self defense or defense of a sworn ally.
2. Lindsey admitted that Bushco acted out of “fear” and “overreaction” while invading a country by “mistake”.
3. Lindsey admitted to the obvious, Bushco invaded Iraq in defiance of international law.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:16 amPhil. You have been fair with me in the past and I’ve never called you a “stupid troll”. But? You’re pissing me off. You said:
The attempts at analogy that some of you have posted are mostly petty and juvenile. The big difference is that you cannot point out a single case by a major political or government official in which those individuals did not believe that they were acting in the best interest of the United States government, and in accordance with some interpretation of the law, as much as that is being criticized and second-guessed now, these years later. They were not acting out of personal greed or purpose.
Are you effing kidding?
June 5th, 2009 at 12:22 amPete, nothing in this tape supports your assertions, so I will return the favor and call your comments BS.
As far as Iraq, I was not in favor of that action. However, whether it was wise or not, it was entirely legal and performed under a United Nations mandate.
Come on, Pete, do you agree with anything I said? Or are you as much of an ideologue as the rest of the gang on here? Do we have some common ground here, or do you just want to blow hot air with the rest of the Republican-hater hotheads, who are no better than the right-wing blowhards.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:23 amAnd hold the disguise cuss words, or I will report you. Keep it respectful, unlike some of your colleagues on here.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:24 amCurious, it appears that you have a healthy disdain for lawyers, probably a reasonable position. I assume that you are not a Democrat. Every Democrat presidential candidate for the last 30 or so years has been a lawyer, including our current president AND first lady! Incidentally, no Republican candidate over that period was a lawyer.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:40 amLindsey said we acted out of “fear”, “overreaction”, and by “mistake”. None of those are recognized justifications for war. And that’s the point many of us have been making for years. The second it became apparent that there were no WMD’s it became an unlawful war regardless of who signed off. (NOTE: The UN did not actually support the invasion. Look it up.)
And I’ll use “effing” whenever the eff I want and take my chances with the moderators of the site. Knock yourself out.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:46 amYou have always appeared more thoughtful than most of your peers on here, Pete. So I will cut you some slack.
I listened to Sen. Graham’s tape again, and he makes no mention of the Iraq war. In fact, the entire above piece does not mention Iraq. So who is trolling here? I thoughtfully addressed the subject of this piece and am critiquing Graham’s comments objectively. He appears to be one of the more objective and level-headed leaders in this debate. And, clearly, John McCain took a very strong position in opposition to the Bush Administration regarding their interrogation techniques. So the bashing and belittling of him in this site is pure partisan narrow-mindedness at best.
As far as Iraq, most of the leading Democrats in Congress authorized it…one of the reasons I thought it must be necessary, even though I was against it. And it WAS with the authority of enforcing United Nations resolutions.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:58 amIn all due respect, someone who knows the inside scoop better than you disagrees with you…
Source
June 5th, 2009 at 1:00 amPerhaps this comparison will express my opinion?
Arson is a crime even if the arsonist caused the fire by mistake. Manslaughter is a crime when there’s no intent to murder. A nation that wages aggressive war, even when it’s a “mistake”, an “overreaction”, or done out of “fear”, has engaged in unlawful war.
The fact that my country is the one that engaged in unlawful war does not make me more inclined to forgive it.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:00 amSo does a certain person with much experience at the U.N.
Source
June 5th, 2009 at 1:03 amAnd, just for the record, I’m not a: Democrat, “librul”, progressive, conservative, libertarian, Republican, or any other political affiliate.
I’m a humanist, rationalist, moderate; devoid of affiliation.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:10 amAgain, this story is not about Iraq. I will stick by my comment that “it would be very damaging and divisive to our country to attempt to criminalize these decisions now for political advantage like most of you propose. That is what Sen. Graham was saying.”
June 5th, 2009 at 1:14 amPhilip50 Says:
Again, this story is not about Iraq. I will stick by my comment that “it would be very damaging and divisive to our country to attempt to criminalize these decisions now for political advantage like most of you propose. That is what Sen. Graham was saying.”
_______________________________________________________
Yes. This story is about Iraq. Bushco made criminal decisions. If we, as a country, don’t prosecute the crimes of our own leaders? It would not be “damaging and divisive”, it would be fatal.
And you’ll just have to take me at my word that political advantage has nothing to do with my positions or opinions.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:22 ampete Says: “Bushco made criminal decisions.”
That is reckless talk, Pete.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:24 amAgreed…there is a pesky lil thing called the law, whether it be domestic or international…
June 5th, 2009 at 1:25 amSource
June 5th, 2009 at 1:26 amTo bad there is not an easy cure for Bush Derangement Syndrome. Perhaps you can find a support group.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:29 amThanks, pastcaring. You found a great summation for what I was trying to say.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:31 am.
Dear Senator Graham,
How does that saying go, again(?)…
… “When the president does it, that means…” … WHAT!?!?
REALLY?!?!
XXOO
America
.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:35 ampastcaring,
June 5th, 2009 at 1:38 amGreat link! :)
In light of well known activities (in some circles) re: PNAC:
Source
A fair handmaiden to the revised Bush admin Nuclear Posture which threatened the use of preemptive nuclear strikes as well?
P.S. Contrary to popular belief UN Resolution 1441 did not authorize war against Iraq.
And no problem Pete…sometimes I’m right…
:|
June 5th, 2009 at 1:39 amSome of you may be familiar, but I thought it may make for interesting reading anyway…several years ago I stumbled across a little document called the The Quadrennial Defense Review: Rethinking the US Military Posture that is relevant in light of current events…
June 5th, 2009 at 1:44 amSo I guess Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and many leading Democrats who voted for authorizing the Iraq war should also be tried for complicity to commit war crimes? How far do you BDS sufferers want to take this?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:45 amPhilip50 Says:
It is so interesting to visit this Republican hate-site to see how you blame-America-first liberals spin every news story to fit your cynical view of America.
I think America’s great. That’s why I try to help defend it from you people who are trying to destroy it. I do however, hate Republicans. Your ilk are a stain on the face of the Earth.
.
Philip50 Says:
Sen. Graham has taken a very balanced, even-handed view of the entire “torture” debate.
This article takes different quotes by Sen. Graham totally out of context to spin and distort what his true position is, a position that is reasonable, and one that most Americans can accept.
I appreciate that he admits that torture is torture and that torture is a crime. However, in the article at top he claims that the crimes should not be prosecuted because they were done out of fear. This is a patently ridiculous statement in any context.
As you can see above, TP follows responsible citation by providing the full context, as well as links to even more context, plus video.
If there’s further context that we’re missing, please cite it, and we will take it into consideration.
.
Philip50 Says:
In retrospect, some of the methods probably fit the definition of torture…
No, it was torture at the time too. Not just “in retrospect.” All of these practices have been considered torture for centuries.
.
Philip50 Says:
…but at the time, the consensus opinion was to “push the envelope” so as to leave no stone unturned that could lead to a national catastrophe like 9-11.
Torturing people was not submitted to national consensus opinion. If it had been, I’d like to think we would have remembered our humanity.
Also, invading Iraq for no other reason than to “spread freedom” was not submitted to national consensus either. Instead the case was made based on false intelligence manufactured by the Bush White House.
.
Philip50 Says:
However, it would be very damaging and divisive to our country to attempt to criminalize these decisions now for political advantage like most of you propose.
There’s no political advantage to it. There are other things we would prefer to “spend political capital on.” It is, however, necessary to investigate crimes, particularly ones as foul as these.
You are arguing on behalf of letting criminals go free and crimes go without justice. Consider this before you spout off about how much you love America again.
.
Philip50 Says:
They were not acting out of personal greed or purpose.
Neither was Al-Qaeda on 9/11. Do you excuse that too?
.
It would be most reckless, abusive, and divisive for the Democrats to use their political gains and capital to attempt to criminally punish the prior administration because of a difference in political philosophy. They do that in Argentina, not the United States of America.
Argentina has been a stable democracy since 1983, you mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging idiot.
For an example that you may have been reaching for, I refer you to Augusto Pinochet’s Chilen regime up until 1988.
Pinochet went to jail.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:49 amAll the way back to 1992,(further if necessary)…including everyone who was involved with either crafting, supporting or somehow furthering to doctrine of preemptive warfare…that’s how far…
June 5th, 2009 at 1:51 amPhilip50 Says:
So I guess Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and many leading Democrats who voted for authorizing the Iraq war should also be tried for complicity to commit war crimes? How far do you BDS sufferers want to take this?
Aside from the smear in the last sentence, that’s a fair question. My answer, speaking only for myself, is that anyone who knew Colin Powell was lying to the UN should be punished.
And, as far as I have been able to surmise, no one outside the White House or intelligence community had any suspicion that he was lying.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:51 amChilean. Oops.
.
Philip50 Says:
So I guess Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and many leading Democrats who voted for authorizing the Iraq war should also be tried for complicity to commit war crimes? How far do you BDS sufferers want to take this?
The Senate was as victimized and lied to as the rest of us. Were you not keeping up with the news back then? Bush flatly stated that he needed the authorization solely so that he could negotiate with Saddam from “a position of strength.” He told Congress that he had no intention of using it. Within a week after passage, he was then saying “diplomacy has failed” and gearing up for invasion.
It would be some years before anyone would have any idea that there were no WMD’s as Bush had claimed. He had access to the intelligence saying they existed – or at least to the empty manila folders where that intelligence should have been. The Senate did not.
I’ll be happy to take it wherever it goes. However, not once have you blame-spreaders been able to produce a shred of proof that anyone on Congress was either knowledgeable or complicit in any of the crimes under discussion here.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:55 ampete Says: “My answer, speaking only for myself, is that anyone who knew Colin Powell was lying to the UN should be punished.”
That’s pretty narrow, Pete. I thought you were ready to convict everyone who authorized the Iraq war? What happened?
And by the way, your criteria would convict no one. Do you not believe that Colin Powell knew everything Bush knew, and do you think Powell was lying?!
Come one! This is foolishness and counter-productive. Let’s learn from the past and move forward.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:59 amThe thing is, Phil, we don’t know who was lied to and who acted on lies. That’s why we have to scare the crap out of everyone in the loop until someone cuts a deal and gives up the conspiracy.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:01 amWow, Pete. If there were a conspiracy, someone would squeal. There was not a conpiracy…just inadequate intelligence and perhaps a naive perception that we can “spread democracy” by force in a country like Iraq, and be welcomed as liberators.
We can agree on the mistakes, but let’s not get carried away with revenge that only obscures those mistakes and divides us as a nation. I only ask of you zealots who want revenge for honest mistakes to consider what is best for our country.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:09 am‘Honest mistakes’ don’t take 11 years of planning…
:|
June 5th, 2009 at 2:12 amSee:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:13 amSource
pastcaring Says: ‘Honest mistakes’ don’t take 11 years of planning…
Hmmm. So this began under Clinton?! This does get interesting!
June 5th, 2009 at 2:14 amOr 5 years of laying the groundwork…
From the horses mouth…
So, who’s lawyer are you exactly?
:|
June 5th, 2009 at 2:16 amWrong again Batman…Second guess…Bush 41
June 5th, 2009 at 2:18 amFrom their perspective in 1998, that was a very reasonable position to take. So what?
June 5th, 2009 at 2:18 amOh yessss my precious, it does get very intersting…
Source
June 5th, 2009 at 2:18 amWow, yourself, Phil.
Does the term “criminal negligence” ring a bell?
Also, I don’t want revenge on anyone. Revenge is the primary cause of this whole atrocity. However? I do want justice and what’s best for our country. I think our country would be best served by delivering those who are accused of war crimes for judgment.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:22 amI understand that you are past caring. But don’t give up thinking. You pull documents out of your Google search engine without context. It becomes useless babble.
You can’t blame everything on the Bushes without including the Clintons. Clinton essentially had the same policy against Saddam, and Hillary supported the Iraq war.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:22 amfor every finger you point there are three pointing back at you…your second paragraph proves you are thinking without context…I pulled up facts, not fantasy…welcome to the real world…not my fault if you’re unable to connect the dots
June 5th, 2009 at 2:23 amP.S., it wasn’t the google search engine…I’ve been keeping up to date with reality…for some who haven’t, I can see why a little information is such a shock…you could take it in the spirit it was given…no harm, no foul…
:|
June 5th, 2009 at 2:26 ampete Says: “I don’t want revenge on anyone. However? I do want justice and what’s best for our country. I think our country would be best served by delivering those who are accused of war crimes for judgment.”
I. e. You want revenge. I get it. Hope you get over it. Revenge is the poison you take hoping it will kill someone else.
We just had an election. The people have spoken. That is the way we have “regime change” in America. Not by having
June 5th, 2009 at 2:28 am“war crimes tribunals”. In a couple of years, we will have another election, and those who now seek revenge will come up short, because the American people want to move forward, not to look backwards, except to learn and to do better.
Don’t be a fool, Phil. (Fill phool? Phlip Fill? flhi pool?) You really should just withdraw and regroup when you’re overmastered.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:31 amRevenge is a reightwing concept…in line with fear, anger and aggression, hallmarks of the conservative mindset…
P.S. I googled that because I didn’t have the url on my personal copy…
June 5th, 2009 at 2:33 amPhilip50 Says
It is always great to see ignorant warmonger punks like you snivelling at this site. You are stupid Phil. Of course you are never going to see the obvious. You are DETERMINED not to and of course you are stupid. So why dont you just STFU and spare yourself further embarassment
June 5th, 2009 at 2:34 amPhilip50 Says:
Come one! This is foolishness and counter-productive. Let’s learn from the past and move forward.
That’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re learning from the past – Watergate, Iran/Contra, and moving forward to a future where criminal conspiracies taking place in the White House are punished so that they don’t come back again.
.
Philip50 Says:
Wow, Pete. If there were a conspiracy, someone would squeal. There was not a conpiracy…just inadequate intelligence…
That brings up an interesting thing. Why has been no call from the right for accountability for the guy somewhere in the CIA who presumably screwed everything up? Bush gave George Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom after it became known that there were neither any WMD’s nor any Saddam/terrorist connections. How can that be?
If, as you say, it was just “bad intelligence” then nothing has been done to correct the problem. For all we know, our intelligence is just as bad now.
However, if cherry-picked raw intelligence was being pipelined past CIA analysts directly to Dick Cheney’s office and on to George Bush’s desk and if CIA executives were being constantly told what opinions they were expected to deliver, then I don’t think the word “conspiracy” is too strong.
I refer you to the letter quoted and cited by pastcaring above, for prior demonstration of intent for “regime change” in Iraq.
.
Philip50 Says:
I understand that you are past caring. But don’t give up thinking. You pull documents out of your Google search engine without context. It becomes useless babble.
“No context! no context!” You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The letter is complete in and of itself. It’s dated 1998, two years before Bush took office. It’s signed by most of the people who would later become Bush’s foreign policy staff. What more context do you need?
.
Philip50 Says:
Clinton essentially had the same policy against Saddam, and Hillary supported the Iraq war.
Clinton invaded Iraq? I missed that one. Your planet must be very interesting indeed.
Regarding Hillary’s Senate vote, already rebutted. Learn to page up.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:35 amThis is more than just a pet peeve of mine. Not to pedantic or priggish here, but there is a world of difference between a preemptive attack and a preventive attack. I find it appalling and suspect it’s political when officials who NO DOUBT no better, use the term “preemptive” when describing an preventive assault—such as our invasion of Iraq.
preemptive attack an attack that preempts an attack that is imminent or taking place. Imminent means imminent, not hypothetical, not dreaded and feared, not hypothetical. If an attack on the U.S. by another nation were imminent we’d probably have pictures of it, and probably would have been following the preparation for it for quite some time.
preventive attack an attack to disarm a nation before it has a chance to attack. It’s based on a perception, a posture—it’s attitudinal. Hitler invading Poland was a preventive attack. Though it wasn’t a war crime at the time, Germany was charged with a war crime, and that is our precedent.
Preventive attacks— crime against peace
June 5th, 2009 at 2:35 ampreemptive attacks— good planning
To the rest of you TP’rs have a wonderful evening…what’s left of it anyway…must…get…some…rest…ZZzzz
:)
June 5th, 2009 at 2:36 amPhilip50 Says:
Pete, nothing in this tape supports your assertions, so I will return the favor and call your comments BS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it isnt. You are a moron.
As far as Iraq, I was not in favor of that action. However, whether it was wise or not, it was entirely legal and performed under a United Nations mandate.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
THIS is insanely, stupidly, completely WRONG. The UN NEVER sanctioned the the Iraq war MORON. You can make things up and pretend they are true because you post them but it only makes you look stupid
June 5th, 2009 at 2:37 amPhil, if you don’t know the difference between justice and revenge? I can’t help you. And, when I say I don’t seek revenge? You can take me at my word. In fact, I’ve never told a lie online and never will. If you were to read and comprehend my posts you would realize that.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:39 amPhilip50 Says:
And hold the disguise cuss words, or I will report you. Keep it respectful, unlike some of your colleagues on here.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So WE should treat YOU with respect after you call this a hate site and insult is in your posts while regurgitating the most ignorant talking points imaginable. Nah just STFU
June 5th, 2009 at 2:39 amPhilip50 Says:
NO. WE did the Nuremberg tribunals. In those procedings WE said that starting a war of aggression was the supreme war crime. WE must abide by the same standards WE held others to. It really is that simple.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:42 ampete Says:
“Don’t be a fool, Phil. (Fill phool? Phlip Fill? flhi pool?) You really should just withdraw and regroup when you’re overmastered.”
You wish, Pete. Neither you, nor some of your more abusive and condescending colleagues can shut me up. Isn’t this a great country? Sorry that few people on here want to have a meaningful discussion, but simply spew their propaganda and biases. I have tried in most of my posts to raise the level of discourse on here, but to little avail. But, you can suffer the rest of the night without me. Take care.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:52 amDang it, Phil! You haven’t answered why we should not hold our own leaders to the highest legal and ethical standards.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:00 amYes they are criminal. Criminal and disgraceful of every military service person that has ever served.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:40 amPhilip50
YOU ARE A LIAR. You spewed ignorant propaganda and outright LIES and started your first post with an insult. So do YOURSELF a favor stop embarassing yourself and STFU
June 5th, 2009 at 4:22 amAs soon as he agrees to have his own example of being the subject of a water boarding session video taped I will believe him
June 5th, 2009 at 4:23 amPhilip50 says:
Phillip, when you use the word Democrat instead of Democratic, you immediately brand yourself a wingnut and lose all credibility.
We elected a Democratic President, House and Senate because we don’t trust you fascist wingnuts with power anymore. Spewing your Republican propaganda on a progressive site just encourages the online progressive movement.
It was the crazy fascist wingnuts that created the online progressive movement, and look at what we have already accomplished. We owe a great debt to the Republicans, for they have awakened America to online political activism. We won’t get fooled again.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:01 amTHANK YOU
June 5th, 2009 at 8:38 amseslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat
Phillip50 Says:
Most of us do not propose to criminalize these decisions now. These decisions were criminalized a long time ago. This has nothing to do with “political advantage”. This is about the rule of law.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:58 am74. Philip said, “It would be most reckless, abusive, and divisive for the Democrats to use their political gains and capital to attempt to criminally punish the prior administration because of a difference in political philosophy.”
I don’t know, is it worth pointing out that we’re not talking about punishment because of a difference in political philosophy, but rather the commission of treason and various war crimes?
By Philip’s definition, Nurenberg was punishment based on a mild difference of opinion.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:16 amMapleStreet Says:
“I don’t know, is it worth pointing out that we’re not talking about punishment because of a difference in political philosophy, but rather the commission of treason and various war crimes?”
That is hogwash and political spin. There was no treasonor war crimes…simply bad judgement in the zeal to protect our country. Those mistakes are rectified by elections, not criminal proceedings. Be careful what you espouse or wish for!
June 5th, 2009 at 10:22 ammom Says:
——————————————————————————–
Apparently for Graham, if you approve something that is “clearly illegal,” it’s not “a criminal mistake” — so long as you are acting out of fear.
That sounds nonsensical enough to come from a GNOP apologist. Tell me, Ms. Graham, if I knowingly break the law but I do so out of fear, do I get a free pass too? Because I’m scared about making my house payment next month and there’s a bank around the corner…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EXACTLY and does Graham think we’re all as ignorant as Bush?
I’m really tired of being insulted by these lemmings!!
June 5th, 2009 at 10:55 amOkay, I get it…the Justice Department is holding off until the major legislation is passed this year before putting it’s cards on the table and saying what should be conventional wisdom: Inhumane treatment of detainees is a War Crime.
The more that the GOP makes attempts to distract the American people, those who want a formal investigation are becoming more inpatient. The Obama Adminstration should understand and acknowledge that frustration, before we either shut down or explode.
Graham is just another in a long list who want to “move forward” for fear that his political party will implode before the midterms election…if they are allowed to postpone the Obama Administration’s legislative plans until after the midterms, will they win?
June 5th, 2009 at 11:07 amThe American News Project recently ran a great video showing Graham completely contradicting himself on the torture issue:
http://americannewsproject.com/blog/2009/05/18/lindsey-graham-debates-himself-detainee-torture
June 5th, 2009 at 4:30 pmPhillip50 Says:
You do not get to judge if there was or was not torture. That determination is up to the Red Cross, and they said Bush and Cheney were torturing prisoners. You are wrong Phillip, and no amount of wingnut spin is going to change it.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:13 pmPhilip50 Says:
Poor Phil you are SO stupid. Did you think things like there was no warcrimes would become true just because you SAY so? I suppose you think if you wish hard enough Tinkerbell will come back to life to. You do know you are a moron dont you Phil?
June 5th, 2009 at 7:14 pmthank you seslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat
June 6th, 2009 at 4:14 amfilm izle
June 6th, 2009 at 3:32 pmonline film izle
sinema izle
film seyret
film
internetten film izle
porno film izle
porno izle
sex izle
porno
porno film
sex
sikis
filim izle
filmler
izlesene
izle
okey
oyna okey
giyim
yazlik giyim
kozmetik
film izle
klip izle
müzik
Sesli Chat
Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Görüntülü Chat
June 7th, 2009 at 12:16 amI knew he would still be wallpapering this thread. I take the Holocaust seriously enough not to wear it out. I am not nor have I ever been anti-semitic. I’m agnostic. Why in the world would I be anti-semitic? The assertion that I would “forget” or approve of any persecution and systematic murder is anti-social.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:06 pmSesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
SesliChat
SesliSohbet