For civil libertarians, the decision by President Obama to bar the prosecution of Bush officials for the torture program was always a flagrant choice of politics over principle. Now a poll ratifies that decision. A poll commissioned by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that Americans are accepting torture in greater numbers. The study also shows a decrease in support for Israel in any military conflict and two-thirds saying that they would like the U.S. to be neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
On torture, Americans still reject its use for terrorists by a margin of 56 percent to 42 percent. However, the support for torture “has increased by 6 points since 2008 and by 13 points since the ques tion was first asked in 2004.”
This has always been the concern among civil libertarians: that the Bush program would make torture less of an obvious taboo. This problem has become magnified with Obama who has shielded Bush officials from prosecution while people like Dick Cheney proudly speak publicly about their use of waterboarding. The result is an implied message that torture is allowed or tolerated under some circumstances.
The poll seems to reaffirm a famous passage from Louis Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928):
“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.”
Source: Rawstory
Buddha et al,
Thank you. We’re all very excited (except my Mother in Law, who is a fantastic grandmother once the kid is born, but doesn’t really get into the whole thing until then).
Blouise,
Have you tried that beer? I happen to love spiced Christmas beers and rye beers, and that was a whole heap of both. I’m desperately trying to find a recipe for that particular style to do for Christmas this year, but don’t think I’m going to get everything together in time.
Oh well, maybe a coffee porter would be in order.
Woost,
“the comfey chair is magic…..I blame it all on the moon…. 😉 ”
lol
Me thinks Chambliss office houses trolls
Buddha is Laughing droned – There is no state more contrary to the dignity of wisdom than perpetual and unlimited dependance, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
The truth fears no question, but lies fear all answers.
ROFLMAO at least five time
“Blessed is the man, who having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact.” – George Eliot
the comfey chair is magic…..I blame it all on the moon….;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q75qJ3vCmBw
have a pleasant day everybody…
ps; what’s Chambliss about?
Blouise,
I have marked my accounts payable accordingly.
… my white horse got sweaty
Buddha,
LOL and good morning to you … I defended your honor late last night … it was elegant and you owe me a quarter … or a game of pool.
Elaine,
I saw a headline yesterday that called the Tea Baggers “Koch suckers”.
It’s filthy but accurate.
Blouise,
I don’t know how I missed this story yesterday:
From Think Progress (9/22/2010)
Koch-Backed Groups Helped Kill Law Designed To Prevent Voter Suppression Plot Hatched By Koch-Backed Groups
by Josh Dorner, Communications Director for Progressive Media.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/22/koch-voter-suppression/
Excerpt:
Earlier this week, One Wisconsin Now revealed an alleged voter suppression plot designed to disenfranchise minorities, students, and others in heavily-Democratic areas of the state. At the center of this apparent “voter caging” operation that we reported on yesterday is the Wisconsin chapter of Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity. While the allegations of potentially illegal conduct leveled against Americans for Prosperity, the Wisconsin Republican Party, and other tea party groups are extremely serious, a ThinkProgress investigation reveals an even larger and more insidious effort by Koch-backed groups to tamper with the democratic process.
While a federal crime, the most essential voting issues, from registration and eligibility to specific early and Election Day voting procedures, are largely governed by state law. Even before becoming involved in the apparent plot to suppress the vote in Wisconsin, a web of Koch-backed groups played a key role earlier this year in defeating a proposed Wisconsin law that included numerous voter protection measures—including significant penalties for efforts to unlawfully challenge and intimidate voters. In fact, those at the center of the alleged voter suppression plot were caught on tape in June admitting that they could only proceed with their so-called “Election Observer Program” because they had successfully blocked the Voter Protection Act from passing earlier in the spring:
“And since the voter law did not get passed this year that could hit you with $100,000 and three years for unsuccessfully challenging a voter, we can still do this,” said Tim Dake, a prominent tea party member with the Wisconsin GrandSons for Liberty, the group that provided cover for Americans for Prosperity and the Wisconsin GOP by agreeing to be the public face for the campaign.
“Hallelujah,” shouted an unidentified meeting attendee in response.
“Yes, everybody gets to take credit for that,” replied Dake, before decrying early voting and detailing purported instances of voted fraud committed by individuals with Vietnamese surnames.
Tellingly, the Voter Protection Act provision that Dake references only criminalizes acts that “make use of or threaten to make use of force, violence, restraint, or any tactic of coercion or intimidation in order to induce or compel any person to vote or refrain from voting or to refrain from registering to vote at an election.” It also put in place less severe penalties for attempting to prevent someone from registering or voting “based upon fraudulent, deceptive, or spurious grounds or information.” If the goal of their “Election Observer Program” was simply to weed out ineligible voters and notify the proper authorities of any issues—rather than the deliberate use of intimidation and other tactics to suppress votes—it’s unclear why Dake and his compatriots would have been concerned about this provision or considered it an impediment to their plans.
“There is no state more contrary to the dignity of wisdom than perpetual and unlimited dependance, in which the understanding lies useless, and every motion is received from external impulse. Reason is the great distinction of human nature, the faculty by which we approach the same degree of association with celestial intelligences; but as the excellence of every power appears only in its operations, not to have reason, and to have it unemployed is nearly the same.” – Samuel Johnson
The right to have an opinion is not a guarantee that it will be accepted without challenge.
It is the nature of the big lies that those who propagate them do not want them challenged because lies break under the light of reason and the hammer of evidence. You trolls, when challenged did not rise to the true assertions with a true counter argument, but with lies plain for the world to see – including the lie to yourselves that your attacks on me made you look anything other than simply childish and foolish.
“When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.” – Rospo Pallenberg and John Boorman’s screenplay, Excalibur, based on Le Morte d’Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory
The truth fears no question, but lies fear all answers.
I made another sincere effort late last night but I’m not in the mood this morning and would prefer discussions on a different topic mainly because I have nothing left to say … further words would be a repeat on my part. That’s the beauty of a blog … physical force has no role and threats of same are empty.
I haven’t yet tackled the on-line news but am waiting with bated breath to learn what excuses Chambliss will offer … they are bound to be hilarious. The people of Georgia have got to know that Max would never have embarrassed them like this.
Blouise,
I fell asleep much earlier than usual last night. I’d be happy to accept the gift of a hat that would render me invisible made by the loving hands of your grandchildren. Thanks for the offer.
Our IT lurker may have been Johnny-on-the-Spot in the Chambliss story. One never knows???
😉
*****
Lottkatz,
Like Blouise, I often scroll past certain comments…as I did this morning. It’s not that hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
If you have a big enough Dictionary, just about everything is a word:
Definition of Bitch
a: a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman
b: something that is extremely difficult, objectionable, or unpleasant
Definition of SCABBY
: mean, contemptible
Definition of DIRK
: a long straight-bladed dagger
“Language is not an abstract construction of the learned, or of dictionary makers, but is something arising out of the work, needs, ties, joys, affections, tastes, of long generations of humanity, and has its bases broad and low, close to the ground” – Noah webster
“The much vaunted male logic isn’t logical, because they display prejudices – against half the human race – that are considered prejudices according to any dictionary definition.” – Eva Figes
You might want to excuse the typos and truncations, my mind tends to wander at certain points in the day.
Blouise
“Well, good to see you aren’t worried about posting from a government supplied IP.” – not in the slightest, we were given this access an they can take it away, they have freedom of choice and power of control – sayin that, if they made an attempt to sancion, then that would make an interesting read and might even appear on here – that would be ironic, Toady supportin our cause LOL
Your problem with Buddha is your problem. I like him and his grasp of the subject matter at hand. I find his knowledge base impressive which is saying something for mine is pretty broad.
I have no problem with knowledge, or even logic, they makes the world what it is, for better or for worse. I have no problem with individuals but I do take issue when such knowledge is used as a blunt object to club down those with differing opinions
That you resent him is obvious from your posts. ……. Your group, by your own definition and admission, came upon this blog and decided an individual poster was “ripe for ridicule” and appointed yourselves as the bully-boys to do it.
I appreciate what you say, even if I don’t agree with all of it, as for the accusation of someone being “ripe for ridicule” and “bully boy” it was buddhas bullying and racist attacks on Spamheed that incited us to post.
But Buddha, as an individual, wasn’t the least bit phased by your assaults ……….… you brought a verbal knife to an intellectual gun fight.
If that’s your interpretation then thats fine and good luck with that one, we saw it more as a case of “the regulars” supporting acts of bullyin and racism
I know you’re not too keen on logic in argument but I’m going to give you the following anyway:
You misunderstand, You can use whatever reasoning you wish in YOUR arguments, if YOUR opinions must be formed out of logic then good luck with that
I don’t seem to be alone with the lack of value placed on a persons opinion by certain individuals Buddha included, a person has the right to form whatever opinion they wish, they do not need to be logical in any way to do so, shouting down in an aggressive manner someone because their opinion isn’t logical is rediculous. a persons opinion is part of themselves and can
“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand: they listen with the intent to reply. They’re filtering everything through their own paradigms, reading their autobiography into other people’s lives.” -Stephen R. Covey
For every argument there is a counter argument
“The most basic of all human needs is the need to understand and be understood. The best way to understand people is to listen to them.” – Ralph Nichols
“Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant, they too have their story”
– Max Ehrman
Blouise I been out of this for a while, so my methods and phrses may not be yours, but I first listen to understand and absorb what I hear, then I formulate my opinion based on what I read, what I also absorb how it impacts on me, whether it breaches my own codes, ethics, morals etc and so forth. This is my opnion and at least as valid as anyone elses and if its not logical, then logic doesn’t matter.
Deliberately callin someone a “Scotty” as a slight on their nationality or origin would never cross my mind no matter how angry or frustrated I was, because it is racist, yet here it is seemingly accepted because one of “the regulars” uses it
Just to clear up one thing
“Dirty Dirk” is a play on words. as a “dirk” is a dagger used in Scottish traditional dress and the word scabby just reflects its condition
Now I have a question for you … what is “fifty faced approach to others” … I’ve never heard it before
A “fifty faced approach to others” is changing ones stance on a whim, taking a hypocritical approach to a subject.
or if you like – bein two faced but on a far greater scale
Ive no problems neither, I love inflating the overinflated and seeing them pop I have my own opinions on these people and will express them at every opportunity.
I have the same positives and negatives as Baker does if only through a common cause, we just handle them diffrently in line with our own personalities.
If somone talks nicely to me then i’ll talk nicely back but if they’tre going to blow crap out of there butts then they’ve really got it coming. I aint no teenager or schoolie but my humour seems to be at that level *snicker*
I also love the use of traps to bring out the suckers, Bakers yesterday was class, and yet despite bein once again weighed, measured and found wantin, the lil green guy still spouts his crap and the sychophants go with the flow.
Bakersfield,
Well, good to see you aren’t worried about posting from a government supplied IP.
Having seen my visitor off to bed I am ready to sleep myself so if you respond I won’t be reading until sometime tomorrow.
Your problem with Buddha is your problem. I like him and his grasp of the subject matter at hand. I find his knowledge base impressive which is saying something for mine is pretty broad.
That you resent him is obvious from your posts. And I gotta tell you that “groups” of persons looking for people who they deem are “ripe for ridicule” can be found walking the streets together, sitting in bars together, praying in churches together, or surfing the blogs. Your group, by your own definition and admission, came upon this blog and decided an individual poster was “ripe for ridicule” and appointed yourselves as the bully-boys to do it.
But Buddha, as an individual, wasn’t the least bit phased by your assaults and didn’t back down one iota but rather came back at you hard and heavy. You did not intimidate him in the least. So then you went after others using porn references and filth calling Elaine a bitch and threatening me with a “scabby dirk”. Instead of quaking in our boots we hit back and turned your ridicule back on you. I guess you thought a bunch of liberals would be easy pickin’s but son … to coin an old phrase … you brought a verbal knife to an intellectual gun fight.
You lost … get over it and move on or stay and learn how to fight with style. I will warn you that the host of this blog frowns on personal attacks against others. You can disagree with another’s opinion … you can even disagree strongly but once you start with words like bitch etc … you will be banned. Our host makes the determination.
I know you’re not too keen on logic in argument but I’m going to give you the following anyway:
“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand: they listen with the intent to reply. They’re filtering everything through their own paradigms, reading their autobiography into other people’s lives.” -Stephen R. Covey
Now I have a question for you … what is “fifty faced approach to others” … I’ve never heard it before.
Is it night time yet? can I come out to play yet?
I started to read this forum/blog out of curiosity, saw a coupla cool examples and thought “yeah intrestin stuff” given my (an several others) predicaments I aint going no place far, so I spend long period surfin and contributin here an there, mostly within my own interests but, hey, we all like diversity. but inm sayin that I aint a logical individual and am happy with that fact.
We as a group started postin in response to the words of one of your regulars, the self importance, the fifty faced approach to others, the superiority complex makes him ripe for ridicule.
I have my own opinions, formed out of my own experiences and emotions, I don’t need to disassemble and corrolate facts to form an opinion because I am me, an individual with freedom of thought, I aint presenting in no court room and don’t need ten pages to support me. My opinion on Torture has been born out of what I have seen personally and the people involved that I know personally, I think that lil ol Scotsman Spamheed had his opinion formed in the same way.
hey, until a few years ago, I dint give torture a second thought as it only happened in other countries and only involved other nations military. But no bookworm wannabe lawyer is gonna blow away my opinion coz of what it says in a I never heard of, or in a law that nobody is followin, or simply coz he doesnt like my postin
yesterday I decided to set a trap for the perp and posted a series of statements, all sourced from the previous posts in this thread, hoping that he would come in all guns blazing and make a huge assumption.
The huge assumption was made and the perp came in arguin about this and arguin about that when no opinion had ever been stated either way, just a number of statements of fact.
so the fool posted and then posted some more and then just kept on postin