As President George Bush is in China lecturing his counterparts on human rights and detainee rights, pictures have emerged of the U.S. military’s use of small crates to hold detainees in Iraq. The wooden boxes are only 3 feet by 3 feet by 6 feet tall, but the Bush Administration insists that it is a perfectly humane way to hold detainees. That is no doubt something that Chinese will find instructive.
The boxes are used for up to 12 hours at a time. The average Iraqi male is 5 feet 9 inches tall.
In some ways, the exchange of information with the Chinese is only fair. After all, it was recently disclosed that we used torture manuals from the Chinese to torture our own detainees, here.
China previously defended its own abuses by citing the advances of the Bush administration in this area, click here.
It will take years for the United States to be able to speak internationally on the subject of human rights without a round of snickering — as soon by the reception of Bush’s implausible role as a defender of human rights in Beijing. President Bush has robbed the nation of the moral high ground to the point that we cannot even see over the Chinese government from our current position.
For the latest story and additional pictures, click here.
My point was that you say we need oversight and then take a part of oversight off the table.
Gyges, so what is your point?
Excuse me that should just be “You assumed”
I should have said “oversight implies the possibility of negative consequences” I’ll grant you that. That would have been a clearer statement, but even without the addition I’m not wrong. The problem is that you assume that you assumed I meant the negative consequences had to be enforced, where as my statement simply says that negative consequences are part of the oversight process. It never says that that part has to be used, just there.
As to the “implies… impeachment” portion, I gave impeachment as an example of the negative consequences that oversight could imply. I did not give it as THE example. I’ll let you look up difference between E.G. and I.E.
I have to say that I believe Publius is a visitor from the govt. because the administration is nervous right now.
Sorry, Jill, you are wrong. I am a private citizen. I am sure that the prospect of impeachment is giving the administration some sleepless afternoons these days.
The concept of oversight implies negative consequences (e.g. impeachment). Otherwise it’s just voyeurism.
You can have oversight without negative consequences. The concept does not necessarily imply negative consequences. Oversight of an agency may find that there was no wrongdoing, but it is still necessary and useful for public knowledge of agency operations. This is not voyeurism. It happens all the time
There, that is what is wrong.
The other thing that is wrong is that your words state that “oversight implies … impeachment.” Not always. Hardly ever.
Gyges,
There isn’t anything wrong with your statement. I have to say that I believe Publius is a visitor from the govt. because the administration is nervous right now.
Publius,
What exactly is wrong with my statement? You yourself include my example of a negative consequence in a list of negative consequences.
The concept of oversight implies negative consequences (e.g. impeachment). Otherwise it’s just voyeurism.
That is just wrong. There are many things short of impeachment that can ensue from oversight, including legislation, criminal referral to the Justice Department, civil enforcement, and more, including impeachment in very rare cases where a consensus prevails.
Jill,
I don’t know, I really like some of the things Harpo Marx had to say.
I’d like to admit straight out that:
a) the joke’s very dated
b) I stole it from Annie
c) seriously, it’s the one good line
Publius,
The concept of oversight implies negative consequences (e.g. impeachment). Otherwise it’s just voyeurism.
Gyges,
Our celebrities are kind of ditzy!
“The fault, dear Gyges, is not in our stars, But in ourselves.”
Elect a President and a Congress.
Conduct oversight.
Forget impeachment.
Correction “… but in our stars.”
Raff,
Publius is a fatalist. “The fault, dear country, lies not in ourselves, but the stars.”
Well, good luck. Maybe you can get Ralph Nader to run. He should get a rock solid .01 percent of the vote. Why don’t you move there an run yourself. Feel free to stay on her case. You are a delight to the Republicans. There is nothing they like better than divided opposition. Just don’t complain if they cruise to victory again. Or complain. No one cares.
BTW, If you knew that the Constitution does not provide for recall, stop using the word. Recall means that the voters remove the incumbent before the term ends. Don’t use the word if you don’t mean it. Say that she should be defeated for reelection.
Turley lost big time on the Clinton impeachment. The learing curve has to start sometime.
Publius,
I am well aware that this is a site run by a Constitutional Law Professor and I am aware that the Constitution does not provide for a recall. I am referring to her constituents voting her out of office when I wrote that she needed to be recalled by her District. As to staying off her case, you can forget about that. I don’t consider her the enemy, but I do consider that her policy on impeachment is ill advised. And if she won’t budge on what I and others consider a vital rule of law issue, then she is in the way. Have you seen the lame reasons why she stated she took impeachment “off the table”? http://jonathanturley.org/2008/08/02/speaker-pelosis-latest-justification-for-barring-impeachment-bush-would-never-cooperate-with-his-own-impeachment/ This posting by Prof. Turley is right on point.
We can get another Democrat from her district that will follow the law.
Rafflw, get off Pelosi’s case already! She is not the enemy.
Feel free to go to her district and campaign against her, altough her people are unlikely to heed uninformed outsiders.
Also, since this blog is conducted by a conlaw teacher, please note that there is no provision whatsoever for recall in the constitution. The repeated calls for recall betray ignorance.
Members may be expelled by a two-thirds vote of their respective Houses. They may not be recalled by their voters.
Kucinich was free to run against Pelosi for Speaker at the start of this Congress, but did not do so, and will be free to do so again in the next Congress. He will get a landslide vote of one.
All the white man is responsible for this. All of them are!
Where is Nancy Pelosi now? This is against everything that this country once stood for. We are now a torturer with gulags of various sizes and in various locations, under the guise of homeland security. This type of treatment must violate the Geneva convention accords, not to mention common human decency. Pelosi needs to be recalled by her district and the Speaker’s position should be filled by someone like Kucinich.