Speaking to the graduating class of U.S. Naval Academy, President Barack Obama told the graduates that the best way to protect our nation is to stand up to its principles. I discussed the detainee issue last night on this segment of Countdown.
President Obama stated: “We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to — not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe, . . . When America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops.”
If only the White House would match its actions to its rhetoric, this country would be able to regain our moral and legal leadership in this troubled world. He needs to guarantee a trial for all detainees and to investigate the U.S. torture program.
For the story, click here.
Gyges 1, May 25, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Mespo, Et Al,
This is why I stay away on the weekends.
That’s why I should.
I do not think that Jill is a Troll. I like what she has had to say. I may not agree and skip past it. I have yet to see her lash out. Now me, Alls I can say is I DID MY PART. And Daddy make her quit looking out my care window. She can use her own. . . .
Anon
You wrote: am pleased that you keep contributing. Yes, I am of the age to remember pol pot. I have had friends that went to nam as a defender, defender of what I am not sure. And I have had friends tour and the sickness I felt when they described some of the details.
Thanks for your warm welcome and the chance to share ideas with you.
I may have mentioned that I traveled to Viet Nam and Cambodia a few years ago for numerous reasons. My visit to the Killing Fields and Tuol Sleng prison in Phnom Penh and the Hanoi Hilton in Viet Nam were not on the original itinerary but how can one pass up a chance to see this and have some second hand sense of what most of us only learn in 8th grade social studies or see as part of a movie plot? If we can’t learn by comparing despots with statesman, from comparing the results of enslavement with that of freedom we can’t begin to appreciate that with freedom comes risk. The greatest risk is not to our individual lives, but to freedom itself.
Mespo, Et Al,
This is why I stay away on the weekends.
While I haven’t been coming to this site as long as some, I’ve been here awhile. I remember when people thanked Jill for her links (if I remember correctly from the same sources) when they were about Bush. I also (I believe) remember both Jill and you (Mespo) telling Bron that this wasn’t about Political parties and that if we thought a Democratic president was doing the same things as Bush, we’d want them investigated. You might not believe that that’s happening, but Jill does.
The thing that’s changed hasn’t been Jill’s views, or style of posting (although she has increased the number, but sometimes in a loud room you need to shout), it’s been the reaction to Jill. I think the question should stop being “how do I feel about how Patty treats Jill?” and should start being “How do I feel about how I treat Jill?” (As a matter of fact, I suggest we all stop talking about Patty. I think everyone here has called on Patty to stop her behavior. If she hasn’t we’re not going to change her, and if my theory is right, discussing it only rewards her behavior).
Jill’s not a troll, she’s someone that honestly disagrees with you. She’s reacted rudely or tersely far fewer times than anyone else here, and at times has had the most reason to do so. FFLEO holds Jill’s opinions on the President, and is just as open about it, but I’ve never seen you call him trollish. If you’re sick of reading her posts, skip them. I sometimes do. Let’s not let the most aggressive person set the standard of behavior.
AY, FFLEO,
Did you have a younger sibling (or were you one) and do you remember the best way to annoy them?
I know it’s hard (I’ve been in your shoes with this sibling), but in some cases the best revenge is letting someone stew in their own juices.
Everyone,
Seriously, 140 some odd posts, and probably 20-30 of them on topic.
Slart
You asked:With that in mind, what do you suggest we do with a member of al-Qaeda who calls himself an enemy of the US but has committed no overt act?
We do what we do within the confines of the law. If the threat of someone with an idea is enough to cause us to rationalize then legalize indefinite imprisonment we are no better than Stalin loading up the Gulag. We can obtain legal warrants for surveillance. But even with that in mind, the guys, the terrorists who flew those planes into the Towers were living lawful lives, seemingly unaffiliated with any terrorist organizations, going to work, taking their kids to soccer and apparently well-assimilated until they were told to grab their box cutters and you know the rest. And I still would not have advocated for them to be arrested unless their plan was uncovered and they could be charged with a specific crime and then tried for that crime.
We must have some clear sense that there is a plan and that the means to carry out that plan is emergent. Is being a member of Al Queda illegal? Is it illegal to sit around and talk about anti-government stuff? If the latter is true than any of us here could and should be rounded up and placed in camps, indefinitely.
So… what do we do? Give them a means to earn a living. Give them access to the middle class and seduce them with sales at Macys and the chance to send their kids to decent schools and give them good health care. Yeah, I know that the 9/11 terrorists had that,but what is our hope for the promise of freedom if it isn’t made accessible to even those who would wish us harm?
Innocence until guilt can be proven is still something that everyone is entitled to.
I am amazed also that we still debate waterboarding and many other things as to whether they are torture. I have to give credit to the conservative talk show host who had enough intergrity to test his proposition that it was not. But still, why would anyone think it wasn’t in the first place?
Slartibartfast 1, May 25, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Shush young um, They will see you and lock you up. lol
GWLawSchoolMom 1, May 25, 2009 at 8:28 pm
I am pleased that you keep contributing. Yes, I am of the age to remember pol pot. I have had friends that went to nam as a defender, defender of what I am not sure. And I have had friends tour and the sickness I felt when they described some of the details.
FFLEO,
I admit that that position was at least somewhat hyperbolic, but I was interested in provoking discussion. With that in mind, what do you suggest we do with a member of al-Qaeda who calls himself an enemy of the US but has committed no overt act? What about my analogy – do you think it is not pertinent or do you disagree with my conclusion? I know that the ACLU lawyer on the link you provided argued that anti-terror statutes are so broad that all of these people can be prosecuted in the court system, but what about people who once could have been prosecuted in the courts but now have had all of the evidence against them hopelessly tainted by torture? Or worse, people who were innocent when the were detained but have been radicalized by our torture of them? (I will admit that I can’t argue for detention in these cases, but releasing them would seem to be politically impossible, too.) In an ideal world I think that you are totally correct, but in the real world I think that these issues are more complicated and can’t be divorced from the political realities with which we (and especially President Obama) must contend.
AY,
I agree with your view on preventive detention, and would add that I support torture as well as using the resulting evidence at trial in the case of Dick Cheney.
Jill,
I don’t know about anyone else, but the reason I post here is to engage in debate with people that don’t agree with me. I’m trying to convince you that I’m correct and I honestly consider other people’s ideas an am willing to change my mind if you convince me (I’ll admit that I haven’t followed all of the links you have posted, but I don’t have unlimited time). My compliant with you is that sometimes you seem more interested in climbing on your soapbox or picking a fight than engaging in debate (although you certainly aren’t the only one guilty of this). I see that you just posted a response to my earlier comment addressing the issues that I raised, which shows everyone the difference between you and a troll like Cherry (who, I must admit I have been guilty of feeding). So since you’re doing exactly what I was asking you to do here, feel free to disregard this comment and I’ll go and take a look at what you have to say…
Anon
You wrote: Interestedly, Do you remember the Justice Department Prosecuting a San Jacinto, Texas case where the Sheriff and 3 deputies were convicted in about 1983 of Waterboarding? Geeze they deemed it Torture, what do you say to that.
6. Texas Sheriff Convicted of Torture (1983):
In 1983, James Parker (Texas Sheriff for San Jacinto County) and three of his deputies were charged by the Department of Justice with committing torture because of their use of water torture on prisoners. The four were convicted of “water torture,” which was upheld on appeal. They were sentenced to 10 years each. The case name was United States v. Parker et al.
Sheriff Parker & three deputies were convicted of “water torture.” The conviction was upheld on appeal (United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl Lee, Defendant-Appellant)
In the indictment the officers were charged with subjecting prisoners to “a suffocating ‘water torture’ ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning.”
I’m still not understanding why there is any discussion at all regarding whether water boarding is or is not torture. It is torture. It has been torture for centuries. Depots like Pol Pot used it (I’ve seen his actual own personal water board) and while I’m not any expert on torture — for me standing in line for more than 2 minutes anywhere for any reason, or having to be in hot humid weather for more than 2 minutes is torture and I’ll give up everything I’ve got including my Platinum card to make it stop– I’m not any expert, but the truth is that even the most hardened terrorists are people down there somewhere who would vote for pleasure over pain if given half a choice in the matter.
I’m just not able to wrap my head around why my government, supposedly the most enlightened of any in the history of the world would choose to behave like Pol Pot.
“If the only way we can end al-Qaeda is by throwing 100,000 of its members into prison for the rest of their lives, so be it” (startb)
Let’s look at this from a number of perspectives to see if it makes sense.
1. We are told that we fight al-qaeda because they are trying to destroy our way of life. Who needs al qaeda when our president and congress will do that for us? If we reject our own principles and destroy the rule of law the work of the terrorists is complete. It is over by our own hands. There is no point in fighting for freedoms that no longer exist or that we no longer believe in ourselves.
2. We know from experience that every person we lock up becomes a recruitment tool for many more. Unjust, unconstitutional imprisonment makes more enemies, not fewer. Holding trials and imprisoning the guilty while releasing those we cannot convict, not only upholds our values, it is the only thing that will keep us safer (nothing will keep us safe).
3. Since when do we believe the power to determine who is a terrorist rests not with a jury, but with the president? The president will determine who is a terrorist and who should be locked up. This is anti-Constitutional and it is against every moral and legal value of this nation. We are a nation of laws, not of men. The power of preventative detention is clearly a govt. of a man or a small group of men. This is the work of a dictatorship, not a democracy.
4. Since when have Americans become so utterly terrified that they will sacrifice our highest values, anyone and anything, for the supposed goal of “safety”? The old right wing used to say, “better dead than red”. Where are these people now? I know this statement is funny, but seriously, these people weren’t going to sacrifice their principles because of fear. Look how far the right wing has sunk. As to the left wing: it is unspeakable that anyone who opposed the rule of men under Bush would suddenly abandon this opposition in favor of the rule of men under Obama. Is this who the left is now? If it’s our guy, anything goes? This is not a stand for the rule of law. This is a belief in the cult of personality.
No, preventative detention is not our way and we should not tolerate it as such. It doesn’t make sense as a way to treat al qaeda or anyone else.
Former Federal LEO,
Oh you think I was Jesting? I kid you not you were warned. You will or get turned into an Arizona Toad. Better watch it.
Now under the analogy you presented sir, You and I and a lot of others could be detained. Now the question is would we get the good ole time waterboarding treatment as well?
AnonY wrote:
“You forget you are not an original Turlee and you are not blueblooded enough to carry on a conversation. So don’t you forget that. You were warned yesterday and MY God I have to warn you too. I would trust your approach better than others.
I am only kidding.”
_______
That one, AnonY.
I wonder, could I get preventive detention for wanting severe punishment for BushCheney…
Former Federal LEO 1, May 25, 2009 at 7:25 pm
AnonY:
I realize your jest above.
*************************************************
Pray tell sir, what words do you mean for gosh sakes, I have uttered many, many words. which words do you wish for me to admit to?
Preventive Detention, the government can imprison a person for some time. It means that if the government feels that a person being at liberty can be a threat to the law and order or the unity and integrity of the nation, it can detain or arrest that person to prevent him from doing this possible harm.
I am all for it if it involves GeoI, Cheney, Rove, Armitrage, Bybee or all other the others.
Interestedly, Do you remember the Justice Department Prosecuting a San Jacinto, Texas case where the Sheriff and 3 deputies were convicted in about 1983 of Waterboarding? Geeze they deemed it Torture, what do you say to that.
6. Texas Sheriff Convicted of Torture (1983):
In 1983, James Parker (Texas Sheriff for San Jacinto County) and three of his deputies were charged by the Department of Justice with committing torture because of their use of water torture on prisoners. The four were convicted of “water torture,” which was upheld on appeal. They were sentenced to 10 years each. The case name was United States v. Parker et al.
Sheriff Parker & three deputies were convicted of “water torture.” The conviction was upheld on appeal (United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl Lee, Defendant-Appellant)
In the indictment the officers were charged with subjecting prisoners to “a suffocating ‘water torture’ ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning.”
Link:
http://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles/background_information_waterboarding.pdf
AnonY:
I realize your jest above.
Let’s get your idea on preventive detentions, from another lawyer’s perspective.
Slartib wrote:
“If the only way we can end al-Qaeda is by throwing 100,000 of its members into prison for the rest of their lives, so be it”
_________
I strongly disagree with that concept, no holds barred.
Thanks for taking the time to listen to the link discussion.
Jill,
Do you feel that when people comment on what you have to say that you are being stalked?
Jill,
Ah but I was blind but now I see.
That’s why I like this blog. Here we have only our words. They stand or fall of their own accord. I always liked the bible quote: “He who has eyes to see, let him see.”
Jill 1, May 25, 2009 at 6:01 pm
I’m curious. Why would such erudite, highly educated, sophisticated and insightful people spend their blog time trying to discredit someone who’s ideas are of no account? If it were me, I’d spend my time making my points about the topics at hand, but that must be because I’m so uneducated and poorly spoken. Oh Well!
FFLEO,
I love you Constitutional Hour idea. It would be really great.
******************************************************
I like both of your ideal. Some people have to try and prove that they are smarter than most and rub its nose that you are not as good as they. You know most people that base their belief as Jesus as the savior would reject him for the simple reason that he was dark skinned and smelled. Can’t judge a book by its cover.