New York State Senator Greg Ball (R) took little time after the Boston bombing to call for the torture of 19-year-old Dzokhar Tsarnaev. Ball went to Twitter to call for the teenager to be tortured in the name of all of the values we hold dear as Americans.
Ball sent out a tweet stating “So, scum bag #2 in custody. Who wouldn’t use torture on this punk to save more lives?” It is the new normal in America. Ball feels entirely comfortable in speaking of torture in the most casual terms. It also shows how torture is always the answer since you cannot say for sure that there are not more bombs after an attack.
Later, Ball dismissed notions that torture (which is a federal crime and a violation of international law) is wrong: “If people find that offensive, they’re going to have to check their own conscience,” he reportedly said.
Later his office issued a statement:
“Terrorists play by a different set of rules by manipulating the greatest strengths of our open society against us. One of the questions to be asked is this: is “torture” ever justified in the war against terror, if it can save lives? I am not shy in joining those who say yes, and I believe we must give those tasked with protecting us every constitutional and effective tool to do so.”
“Every constitutional and effective tool” for Ball includes a tool long defined as a war crime. I have previously written about the corruption of American values on torture.
The willingness of politicians like Ball to embrace torture is a product not simply of the Bush Administration’s legitimation of torture but the Obama Administration’s refusal to prosecute anyone for torture. As I have written before (here and here), the Obama Administration has destroyed some of the core Nuremberg principles, particularly in its revisal of the “superior orders defense” to excuse U.S. officials. The failure to prosecute has allowed those who ordered the torture program to continue to speak out in favor of torture. It has destroyed any credibility of the United States in demanding prosecutions in other countries and given support for politicians like Ball to rally supporters behind a banner of torture.
Ball’s bio states that he “grew up on the family estate of Stephen and Jean Kennedy-Smith, sister of President John F. Kennedy, where his parents were both caretakers. He is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans, Homeland Security, and Military Affairs.” He is a graduate of United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) and is currently completing his Thesis for his Master’s of Arts in Liberal Studies with a concentration in International Affairs from Georgetown University.
Source: Raw Story
Unbroken helped me understand the hatred some good people, including a couple uncles, had toward the Japanese. Clausen Miller had a sr. partner who would not allow the purchase of any Japanese equipment. When we[myself and my partner] purchased video cameras for surveillance, we had to hide the fact they were Japanese. The partner had fought in the Pacific.
[music]
Hail New Yorkies, New Yorkies Rule the Waves!
Hail Newewww Yorkies Rule da Waves.
Went in dumb, coooommme out dumb toooo!
Hail New eeewww Yorkies Rule da waves.
Yavull Herr Ball. Der Reichstage Decree, Der Patriot Act, ish nuff. Heil Hitler.
Bron, I didn’t know she was THAT US Attorney. I know that case was discussed here, but I know little of it. I thought that case was out of NYC but I defer to you on it. Knowing this MIGHT help explain the unfounded and incorrect Death Penalty=Carmen Ortiz- yada yada previously spewed. She is also “disliked” maybe even more than myself. From what I read here it seems she was overzealous on that case. Hopefully this shitbird doesn’t kill himself, @ least until we get some info from him.
Gene,
I took it OS was questioning his competency…. If so, the Feds have no problem executing incompetent folks…. Even if the have to force feed them drugs to make them competent before they execute them….
As you are aware Gene, I am against the death penalty unless…. And unless it involves a rape resulting in death…. Or abuse of a child…. Then shoot the bast$&$@ on the spot……
So you see there’s really no disagreement…
NICK:
that Ortiz woman is a bit hard core. She brought all kinds of charges against that young hacker who killed himself. Most of which seemed over the top since he posted material (most of) which I believe was paid for with tax payer money.
I think she is probably a POS.
Ball is a NYS Senate legislator, not in Congress. His district is northern Westchester, eastern Putnam, and south eastern Dutchess counties. Hope he loses next time out.
Getting back on track… this New York State Senator needs a little refresher course in what the law here in the states says about torture. We have prosecuted citizens, our soldiers and the soldiers of our countries for waterboarding and other torture techniques. Maybe Mr. Ball should read the book Unbroken and see the descriptions of torture under the hands of the Japanese during WWII.
And as OS stated, the lost airmen of Buchenwald lived past WWII because a Nazi didn’t want his own fellow airmen tortured due to improper treatment of the airmen in Buchenwald.
I watched the video of Senator Ball defending his view on torture. The rational of “if it saves one innocent life” then it’s worth it is the foundation for his belief that torture is justified.
It is exactly the same justification employed by President Obama and VP Biden in their quest to pass gun control legislation. Though I can eaily live with some of the proposed legislation and think that background checks is a rational place to start, I resent the Hell out of the argument for any legislation being founded on one hypothetical innocent life.
All regulation impinges on something or burdens somebody. It’ s appropriate to weigh the utility of the thing being regulated against the probability that there will be a predictable risk that someone may be injured or killed. Guranteed safety, just liked guranteed prosperity, isn’t attainable nor should legislation be pursued on the basis that things that have great utility should be dumbed down to the point that a products usefulness is unreasonably compromised.
Any time a politician wants to support an argument for legislation based upon it providing the greatest benefit to the most Americans, I’m willing to listen to their case. If however the legislation or action is predicated on the notion that it just might, save one innocent life, I will remain suspicious of both the proposed legislation and the motive of the proponnent.
Senator Ball’s preference for torturing a suspect on the speculative notion that it just might save one innocent life is not something that I am willing to abandon either our Constitutional princpals or treaty obligations for. I think Senator Ball’s Jack Bauer fantasy of him and his baseball bat alone in a room with some suspect for a half hour is repugnant to those values that we claim distinguish our political system from inferior ones. Respect for rule of law, and I don’t mean John Woo, Dick Cheney or Jay Bybee’s law, is something that I believe all elected officials should demonstrate. Senator Ball’s contempt for law in my mind makes him unfit to serve in the Senate. It will be interesting to see if NY voters see fit to re-elect him.
AY,
I’m kind of with OS on this one, but for a slightly different reason: pure tactics. Seeking the death penalty in this case has no downside for prosecutors. He’s not a sympathetic defendant and nothing the defense bar can do is likely to change that. If it’s overreaching and they don’t get it? He’s still going away for life. So why not? If they get their death verdict, he’s still going away for a very long time as his appeals dwindle away. This, of course, presumes he’s found guilty. We don’t know the extent or nature of his involvement yet. If he were coerced and there is proof? That’s a game changer for instance. But from the prosecution’s angle, there is no visible downside at this time.
************
nick,
Mike isn’t Jesus, but he is a really nice guy. I also saw him walk across a margarita once, but never water. And for the record, he is never bitter to the best of my knowledge and I’ve known him for years. Cranky a few times, sure, but not bitter.
bitter /ˈbɪtə/, adj.,
2: feeling or showing anger, hurt, or resentment because of bad experiences or a sense of unjust treatment:
What do you know. Words do have meaning. Given some of his experiences, Mike could be bitter, but he isn’t. He doesn’t complain because “it’s just so unfair to Mike” or show hurt, anger or resentment for his bad experiences. Instead, he learns from them and is grateful for the knowledge. See, that’s what most people do when the world feeds them bad experiences. Others are incapable of learning for a variety of reasons.
Let’s stop this childish behavior! Please, for the sake of everyone here. I’ve made this request previously but it has fallen on deaf ears. We need someone who these gents will respect to step up to the plate and talk some sense to them. I’m trying to stop this horseshit, but I will not allow them to take swings w/o swinging back. I’m not Ghandi.
“Never” should always be used w/ extreme caution. To say “Mike is never bitter” is unequivocal and if true, would put him on the same level as Jesus Christ. Words do indeed have meaning.
Update: The DOJ has now come out w/ a statement saying while they have charged the defendant w/ weapons of mass destruction, which carries the maximum sentence of death, they have still not decided whether to seek execution, contrary to what was being reported. Maybe Ms. Ortiz has not shot from the hip. I believe however Eric “The Cannabis Sheriff” Holder has to sign off on seeking execution, but I’m not certain. The barrsiters here may want to weigh in on that. There will be some politics since Ma. is not a death penalty state. However, as we know, Federal law trumps the state, and he is obviously being prosecuted Federally.
One should not mistake dislike for resentment.
They are not the same thing.
dislike /dɪsˈlʌɪk/, v.,
:feel distaste for or hostility towards:
resent /rɪˈzɛnt/, v.,
:feel bitterness or indignation at (a circumstance, action, or person):
Mike is never bitter although I have seen him indignant with circumstances or actions, but never with a person. To be clear:
indignant /ɪnˈdɪgnənt/, adj.,
:feeling or showing anger or annoyance at what is perceived as unfair treatment:
Words have meaning.
Just sayin’.
OS,
From what I’ve gathered… Federally it’s minimal competency…. And if they need to force feed him drugs in order to make him competent they will do that as well…. Federally, he can be executed….. If he was tried in Massachusetts …. They have no official death penalty on the books…. I might be wrong…. But that’s from what I’ve seen…
Some folks are blinded by hate and incapable of reading..even Ivy Leaguers. Still stinging from being called out on the horribly insensitive “Enjoyed the day off” comment. Read it again, innuendo man. Maybe you need to revert to diagramming sentences. You are diminishing yourself on almost a daily basis. Remember, resentment ends up destroying the person w/ the resentment, not the person who is resented. They remain unscathed.
Nick,
You’re the angry one and your constant innuendo’s about me show it. I don’t resent you, how could I? To me you are little more than an obnoxious clown, who as Gene and I have pointed out from your beginning here, cannot construct a logical argument. Angry at you? I think you’re hilarious. 🙂 Most times I don’t even bother to respond to you and your infantile behavior.
The chances of him even being able to meet the competency criteria to stand trial is suspect at this point. Death penalty? Somebody is blowing smoke.
Death Penalty = Carmen Ortiz = Strategy to get a confession = Her M.O.
I have no doubt Nick kind of liked her……his kind of person.
nick,
In re the death penalty:
You’d find a mixed bag going by previous conversations. Some are for it when certain legal standards have been met, some are opposed only on practical grounds such as cost of appeals having risen well above the cost of lifetime incarceration (my personal position), some are staunchly against it for a variety of ethical and/or religious reasons. However, I wouldn’t say any one view dominates over another.
I just read the DOJ will be seeking the death penalty. At the news conferences last week I kind of liked the US attorney, Carmen Ortiz. The different LEO’s @ those pressers were all male political/bureaucrats for the most part loving the attention. Ms. Ortiz seemed like she would rather be @ her desk compiling info. And, when prematurely asked but a reporter if the death penalty would be sought she gave a good response saying much information needed to be assessed prior to that decision. Well, I’m sure she worked all weekend but this seems like a shoot from the hip decision today. I personally don’t believe in the death penalty. But, I don’t wear that on my sleeve and I NEVER preach about it. My beliefs are based on religion and years of experience in the criminal justice system. Although many of my beliefs have become more moderate from my liberal youth; that belief, which was solely relgious in my youth, has been reinforced by real world experience. The practical implications of my belief is I will never be a juror on a capital case. I imagine most folks here also don’t believe in capital punishment but I don’t remember any discussions since I’ve been here. I know I’ll find out! I hope and pray the discussion is civil.