Torture-Gate

[helene_t]

President Bush issued a signing statement that indicated he would follow this law when it did not conflict with national security.

This is completely ridiculous. Nobody would argue in favor of torture in cases where national security was not perceived as an issue. So giving the president a mandate to ignore the law whenever he perceives national security to be an issue is the same as having no law on torture.

 

If the president thinks torture should be allowed, fair enough. Then he should just veto the bill. Maybe the congress could overrules his veto. In any case, he should chose whether he wants to abide by the law, or resign.

[Winstonm]

President Bush issued a signing statement that indicated he would follow this law when it did not conflict with national security.

This is completely ridiculous. Nobody would argue in favor of torture in cases where national security was not perceived as an issue. So giving the president a mandate to ignore the law whenever he perceives national security to be an issue is the same as having no law on torture.

 

If the president thinks torture should be allowed, fair enough. Then he should just veto the bill. Maybe the congress could overrules his veto. In any case, he should chose whether he wants to abide by the law, or resign.

From his book a gentleman named Glenn Greenwald wrote: (emphasis added)

 

President Bush has for several years authorized the National Security Agency to wiretap telephones within the United States without a judicial warrant. Doing so is illegal, but Bush claims that security against terrorism requires it. Here our puzzle arises. The administration thinks that certain wiretaps are necessary. But under existing law, it can readily obtain a warrant from a special court. When warrants have been requested from this court, they have never been denied. Why, then, do the minions of the Bush administration decline to seek a warrant? The answer cannot be that sudden emergency leaves no time to go to court, since the law allows for an immediate wiretap so long as judicial approval is secured a short time later.

 

As Congress devised the law, the FISA court plays two critical, independent functions — not just warrant approval but also, more critically, judicial oversight. FISA's truly meaningful check on abuse in the eavesdropping process is that the president is prevented from engaging in improper eavesdropping because he knows that every instance of eavesdropping he orders will be known to a federal judge — a high level judicial officer who is not subject to the president's authority … it is precisely that safeguard which President Bush simply abolished by fiat. In effect, President Bush changed the law all by himself, replacing the federal judges with his own employees at the NSA [National Security Agency] and abolishing the approval and warrant process entirely.

 

So as you seee, the entire Bush Administration does not believe they are above the law; they believe that in matters of national security they are the law.

[mike777]

"So as you seee, the entire Bush Administration does not believe they are above the law; they believe that in matters of national security they are the law."

 

 

American History is replete with Presidents who have acted so.....and been accused of acting King like.

 

We can only hope the next President will consult with his or her lawyers on matters of national security.

 

Just as we can only hope the next CIA will consult with their lawyers before doing any spy type stuff.

 

If there is any conflict of interest, hopefully the lawyers can step in and make the decision.

[Al_U_Card]

Ouch! When you give it over to the lawyers......its just like asking your accountant how to do your job......he is just a scorekeeper.

 

The Bush-league lawyers were probably too busy with their prayer meetings to consider the legal ramifications (as if they knew them based on Gonzales et al) of what laws were being trampled in the name of keeping their interests secure....errr.... national security.

[AisA101]

Sorry, I disagree. To expose our agents to reprisals is counter productive and potentially criminal.

 

I do NOT agree with McCain he is weak minded and not the only combat veteran to have an opinion. He should realize we are dealing with types that do not even consider the Geneva convention. Cutting the heads off of their captives and using bombs strapped to civilians is common place.

 

You do not use the Constitution to protect those committed to destroy it!

[Winstonm]

Sorry, I disagree. To expose our agents to reprisals is counter productive and potentially criminal

 

Repeat after me:

Valerie Plame is real; Jack Bauer is fiction.

Valerie Plame is real; Jack Bauer is fiction...

 

 

You do not use the Constitution to protect those committed to destroy it!

 

Exactly! Instead, you use executive orders and signing statements!

[Al_U_Card]

Strange, how the more powerful one gets, the more likely one is to stoop to the most basic methods to achieve their ends. Something about getting lazy or stupid or both...

 

From what I gather, your constitution (to which you pledge allegiance) contains all sorts of mechanisms for adjustment and alteration....just not at the hand of one individual or one branch of the government. They were quite clever, those framers of the constitution. They understood the use and abuse of power and how to thwart it.

 

I wonder if any Diebold machines were used to count the votes in New Hampshire? Interesting that the agent of change and novelty was "upset" by the favourite and poster-child for the establishment. It only takes a few machines to change 39% vs. 32% to 38% vs 35%. But what a difference in momentum! Tears or crocodile tears?

[mycroft]

"You don't use the Constitution to protect those committed to destroy it!"

 

Of course you do. Otherwise *you're* one of those destroying it, and by your own argument, you don't get the protection of the Constitution either.

 

Many years ago, someone Very American (I hope people understand what I mean by that - there are many very patriotic Americans I know who don't fit) said, defending a similar argument, "The last enemy the U.S. has fought against that followed the Geneva Convention were the <deleted> Nazis". - So why should we? was the point.

 

The answer then, and the answer now, is because we aren't fighting for the life of the United States. Frankly, all the terrorists for all the causes in the world could gang up, make it their sole goal to destroy the United States, and they would barely scratch the surface, even without all the "improvements" since 2001. The United States is going to take more of a hit, in life toll as well as damage, this year from the games played by their bankers than they will from terrorism in a decade.

 

We are fighting for the idea of the United States, for "democracy", "freedom", and the "rule of Law". In other words, we are defending the Constitution - and "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" makes as much sense now that "the village" is the bedrock of the Nation as it did when it was a few mud huts in Viet Nam.

 

Also, "the terrorists hate us because of our way of life, which is better than what they want to impose" - i.e. freedom, democracy, and all those other words the politicians use. Every time we do something "because it's needed to fight the terrorists", we have to look at it and see if we are not doing the terrorists' jobs for them - i.e. destroying our way of life.

 

The proper response, should we actually have wished to do all those grand things that W. said early in September 2001, would have been to say '<deleted> you, you aren't going to make us change. You can do what you can, and It Just Won't Matter." Protect the right thing - which doesn't necessarily mean American Lives - or your or my life, for that matter. Do what the Amish did in 2006, in other words - "you can kill us, but you can't destroy our way of life".

 

Of course, W. et al had no interest in actually doing any of that - they wanted to change "our way of life" to "what they wanted to impose" too, just a different set of impositions, and so we got the DHS, the "you don't mind if we just check up on you and make sure you're a true PATRIOT, do you? Act" and all the rest of the accelerated devolution of the United States into a police state.

 

And the bugger of it is, a lot of Americans are cheering them on.

 

To paraphrase St. Mark, as it has been ruled that corporations are people: "For what shall it profit a country, if it shall gain the whole world, and lose its own soul?"

 

Michael.

[Al_U_Card]

And the bugger of it is, a lot of Americans are cheering them on.

They won't know what they've got 'til its gone.

 

You (the United States) is at the tipping point. If the trend continues into the next mandate, you may never recover (without significant bloodshed of americans by americans). They want you docile and subservient so that they can (re)write history and re-establish the divine right of royal (read corporate) bloodlines.

 

Just look at the lives lost to "terror" versus anything else. (We won't mention the actual fault for 9/11.) You are giving up your ideals and your futures for a set of rules that can only lead to ruin.

 

Good luck.

[luke warm]

when american citizens aren't protected by their own constitution, something somewhere is very wrong

[mike777]

"Just look at the lives lost to "terror" versus anything else. (We won't mention the actual fault for 9/11.) You are giving up your ideals and your futures for a set of rules that can only lead to ruin."

 

 

Ok I will ask:

1) Are you saying we need to lose more lives or that we are doing good things to keep the number down? In other words whatever Bush is doing seems to be keeping the number down.

2) Or we need to stop doing what we are doing and therefore lose even less lives?

3) Ok what or who is the actual 9/11 fault?

4) I hope we are not losing our ideals, if so I pray that new immigrants will renew all of us.

[mycroft]

I don't know from the poster, but I think that the U.S. is keeping the number down, but that the number wouldn't be much higher if the U.S. never did the things that would have been illegal in 2000; and that the cost to the ideals of the United States is much higher than the added number.

 

I also think that the cost in lives to the U.S. by this "turn the other cheek" (seems to be my day to quote Christian Scripture) philosophy would actually be lower than what actually occurred, as it would not have involved restarting the Iraq war. But that's neither here nor there.

 

Freedom isn't free - as other people say. And sometimes, freedom and safety are antithetical. And we all know what the popularly quoted American Founding Fathers had to say when they considered the relative priority of freedom and safety.

 

I sound rather bloodyminded and uncaring - but realize that it's my life and liberty on the line, too.

 

Michael.

[Winstonm]

"Just look at the lives lost to "terror" versus anything else. (We won't mention the actual fault for 9/11.) You are giving up your ideals and your futures for a set of rules that can only lead to ruin."

 

 

Ok I will ask:

1) Are you saying we need to lose more lives or that we are doing good things to keep the number down? In other words whatever Bush is doing seems to be keeping the number down.

 

How these questions relate to the statement is beyond me - they are totally unrelated.

 

What is the purpose of asking these questions when the previous poster made no such assertions either way?

[mike777]

"Just look at the lives lost to "terror" versus anything else. (We won't mention the actual fault for 9/11.) You are giving up your ideals and your futures for a set of rules that can only lead to ruin."

 

 

Ok I will ask:

1) Are you saying we need to lose more lives or that we are doing good things to keep the number down? In other words whatever Bush is doing seems to be keeping the number down.

 

How these questions relate to the statement is beyond me - they are totally unrelated.

 

What is the purpose of asking these questions when the previous poster made no such assertions either way?

What?

 

It is exactly on point.

 

He implies the number of lives lost to terror is less than other things, anything else. Why is the number less than anything else? Do you think he is implying the number is much greater?

 

Secondly he then mentions he wont mention the actual fault for 9/11

 

Finally he says we have given up our ideals.

 

 

that is why I ask..

[mike777]

I don't know from the poster, but I think that the U.S. is keeping the number down, but that the number wouldn't be much higher if the U.S. never did the things that would have been illegal in 2000; and that the cost to the ideals of the United States is much higher than the added number.

 

I also think that the cost in lives to the U.S. by this "turn the other cheek" (seems to be my day to quote Christian Scripture) philosophy would actually be lower than what actually occurred, as it would not have involved restarting the Iraq war.  But that's neither here nor there.

 

Freedom isn't free - as other people say.  And sometimes, freedom and safety are antithetical.  And we all know what the popularly quoted American Founding Fathers had to say when they considered the relative priority of freedom and safety.

 

I sound rather bloodyminded and uncaring - but realize that it's my life and liberty on the line, too.

 

Michael.

I thought you framed the issue well.

[Al_U_Card]

Based on past history (Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, WMD etc.) convenient activities (look at this Iranian situation with the "provocative" naval action....lol) are always presented to further what the administration wants to get done, no matter the legality nor the ethics.

 

You have been inveigled by the fervent and misguided zeal of a number of individuals that consider themselves above the constitutional law (there are unfortunately a lot of precedents) and they took a situation and turned it into a bloodbath.

 

Anyone forget the Middle east before Israel? When, after the war, statehood was proposed, most arabs were for the arrival of educated and skilled people to the region with the money that they would bring and generate. (Don't forget that the Turks had left quite the vacuum.) It took years of antagonism and infighting to get the various parties to tear at each others throats using.....US arms.

 

Wake up!

[blackshoe]

It took years of antagonism and infighting to get the various parties to tear at each others throats using.....US arms.

 

While I agree with the main point of this, people who want to buy arms will buy them wherever they can most easily get them. I don't hold with the US policy of arming whoever happens to be the current ally of the week, but if the US didn't[/] do that, it wouldn't stop belligerents from getting arms somewhere.

[Al_U_Card]

Unfortunately, very true. The issue is more about fomenting enmity and encouraging belligerence to permit the arms industry to reap profits from the suffering of innocents. As I said, the middle east was ready to welcome Israel and the jews back to their homeland....now all we hear is Death to Israel and Death to America.

[ArtK78]

Unfortunately, very true. The issue is more about fomenting enmity and encouraging belligerence to permit the arms industry to reap profits from the suffering of innocents. As I said, the middle east was ready to welcome Israel and the jews back to their homeland....now all we hear is Death to Israel and Death to America.

Where did this revisionist history come from?

 

The "Middle East" has never been willing to welcome the Jews and Israel back. There was fighting under the British mandate in Palestine and a war the moment that mandate ended and the State of Israel created. There have been repeated wars since then. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was allied with Nazi Germany.

 

This is not the thrust of this thread. But don't change history to fit your argument of the moment.

[Winstonm]

What?

 

It is exactly on point

 

Mike, you may have a different point-of-view, but I believe you questions were unfair for these reasons:

 

"Just look at the lives lost to "terror" versus anything else.

1) Are you saying we need to lose more lives

 

My reading comprehension suggests the writer is stating that regardless of number of lives lost to "terror", when compared to other causes of death it is not a large number.

 

Your question implies that the writer believes that more deaths are required to make the issue of more importance, when you seem to be the one actually making that assertion by the framing of your question.

 

"or that we are doing good things to keep the number down? In other words whatever Bush is doing seems to be keeping the number down.

 

Again, you are forcing the writer to make choices of your assertions and not his assertions - the logic you use is that either the number of lives lost to terror is too small or that this small number means that Bush must be doing a good job.

 

You are asking him to answer a yes/no question based upon a faulty premise - that is there is a correlation between the relatively low number of deaths caused by terrorism and the changes implemented by the Bush administration.

 

If you believe there is a correlation, you should so state it - but to manipulate your beliefs into a question by a faulty logical assertion is a disinginuous method of formulating your beliefs - IMHO.

[mike777]

I think if he is saying there is no correlation he should say and what is keeping the numbers down if not Bush. He raised the issue, I only ask and make no judgements one way or the other, not an issue I raised. I made no such premise, in fact I clearly stated I make no premise. Just read what I did ask and not statements or premises I do not.

 

If you are confused let me repeat, I make no such premise.

 

I do not even assume a low number have been killed.

 

Back to the title issue, I note the guy I first voted for McGovern has called for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. McGovern is a true American hero.

 

Let's see if the Democratic Congress does anything.

 

I am surprised on how few perp walks up to Congress, besides baseball players, there have been.

[Al_U_Card]

Unfortunately, very true.  The issue is more about fomenting enmity and encouraging belligerence to permit the arms industry to reap profits from the suffering of innocents.  As I said, the middle east was ready to welcome Israel and the jews back to their homeland....now all we hear is Death to Israel and Death to America.

Where did this revisionist history come from?

 

The "Middle East" has never been willing to welcome the Jews and Israel back. There was fighting under the British mandate in Palestine and a war the moment that mandate ended and the State of Israel created. There have been repeated wars since then. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was allied with Nazi Germany.

 

This is not the thrust of this thread. But don't change history to fit your argument of the moment.

Hi Art

 

There are many different sources, most of which that don't tow the "official" line that has been drummed into us and them for half a century. the winners write the history books (that we get to read) but there is still lots of alternate info out there. Here is a commentary on one such book.

 

Alternative views of the Arab-Israeli conflict are rare. We are taught to believe that Jews and Arabs hate each other, and no other view of the conflict is given. Blame for the conflict is usually fixed on one side or the other – based on a “moral claim” that one side is not acting nicely toward the other.

 

It is in this context that a book first published in 1938 is critical to our understanding of why the Middle East conflict was created, and to dispute the notion that Jews and Arabs in the Middle East have always hated each other.

 

Although little is known about the author, William Ziff’s book, The Rape of Palestine, (Argus Books, US) is the first attempt to offer an alternative view of the origins of the conflict. The book documents the difference between the overall pro-Jewish sentiments of the British political elite, who saw a strong Jewish presence in Palestine as being good for the empire, and the group of high level anti-Jewish British officials who believed that the Jews would become so powerful (if Britain let them) that they would no longer have to accede to British demands.

 

The latter group was entirely right. A strong Jewish presence in Palestine meant Jewish national independence, which wouldn’t serve the British masters the way the Arab puppets did. Arab tribal leaders were corruptible, and this was how those running Britain’s colonial policies could control them. They realized that controlling the Jews was not going to be so easy.

 

Ziff’s book documents how the British created the opposition to Zionism, and proves that until these so-called “radical Arab leaders” came into the picture, most Arab residents of Palestine wanted nothing more than to live in peace and prosperity with the Jews.

 

“The Moslem religious leader, the Mufti, was openly friendly. Throughout Arabia, the chiefs were for the most part distinctly pro-Zionist: and in Palestine the peasantry was delighted at every prospect of Jewish settlement near their villages. Commercial intercourse between Arab and Jew was constant and steady.”

 

“The Arab National Movement was hated by the huge Levantine population, who continued to regard themselves simply as Ottoman subjects, and looked to the strong, influential Zionist Organization for sympathy and assistance.”

 

“Hussein of the Hejaz looked to the Zionists for the financial and scientific experience which the projected Arab state would badly need. In May 1918, Dr. Chaim Weizmann and Hussein of the Hejaz met in Cairo, where the latter spoke of mutual cooperation between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. In early 19l9 a Treaty of Friendship was signed to provide for “the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab state and the coming Jewish Commonwealth of Palestine.” On March 3, 19l9, another Arab leader, Feisal, son of Sherif, wrote: “We wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.”

 

Ziff writes:

 

“With conscious design, the Administration fostered hostility between Arabs and Jews. It directly advised the amazed Arabs of Palestine and Egypt to abstain from any concessions to the Jews. It formed the Moslem-Christian Association, and used it as a weapon against the Zionists. It instructed astonished Arab young-bloods in the technique and tenets of modern nationalism, in order to resist Jewish ‘pretenses.’ And in London it contacted reliable anti-Jewish elements to form a liaison that has endured to this day. The Arabs were not only instigated and advised, but supplied with funds and their arguments ghost-written by Englishmen in high places.”

[Al_U_Card]

Mike and Winston:

 

It's like Pearl Harbor. They (the US government) wanted into the fight (for good and bad reasons) but public sentiment was definitely against. It took a "sneak" attack...on a mothballed fleet, by an armada whose position was known all the way from Japan, on a force that had had their eyes (radar) and arms (standing orders) dislocated by official order of the pentagon as well as air patrols that were grounded or re-routed so as not to "discover" the incoming attack.......

 

Were 3,000 innocents sacrificed for the government's ulterior motives? Past history says it is possible. Current activity says that it is likely. Only the future will reveal the truth. The fact that the FBI had been intimately involved in the previous WTC bombing and had even supplied the arming devices when the principles got cold feet......

 

It can take quite a while before the US public loses its outrage and comes back to its senses....hopefully not too long.

[Winstonm]

Al,

 

All I've ever wanted to do was raise interest and awareness to the point where others would take the time to do their own investigation - and hopefully that way increase the numbers asking for a new and total investigation.

 

The psychology of the approach is critical to avoid being brushed aside as a crackpot, conspiracy whacko, or lunatic. Thus, basic immutable points are required.

 

1) There is a history for the U.S. and other countries to engage in false flag events to sway public opion.

2) The twin towers along with building 7 fell at free-fall speed. The NIST now admits that it cannot explain why the buildings fell.

3) Scientific evidence of the building's residue is consistent with residue caused by demolitions.

 

I would think if nothing else the fact that the NIST cannot explain why the buildings fell should be enough to call for another complete investigation.

[ArtK78]

Al:

 

Even if what Ziff says is true, and he is the only one saying it, 1919 is not 1948. By the time of WWII and the aftermath, the Arabs were violently opposed to the creation of a Jewish state.