The Heavens May Fall

[Winstonm]

Ken,

 

I am almost always impressed with your reasoning and lack of emotional interference in your postings - not that I always agree but they nearly always get me to think and that's a good thing.

 

I would be surprised if Eric Holder would bring charges - unless a deal had been made where Obama would issue a pardon after the charges had been made.

 

This does not halt the rest of the world from bringing charges, though, and other countries or even an international tribunal could be held - doubtful without U.S. cooperation, though.

 

None of this answers the basic question: should charges be brought, regardless of our personal wants, likes or dislikes. If you have watched either documentary, Taxi to the Darkside or Torturing Democracy it brings a reality to what these people authorized, allowed to happen, and then defended as legal.

 

We paid thousands of dollars in bounties for people whose only guilt turned out in being an Arab - we took them to Guantanemo, we held them, and we tortured them - and got nothing out of it - most of those held were not terrorists.

 

Problem is I don't think a prosecution would be attempted and even if it were it would devastate the country - but to let these guys walk goes against every concept I have of justice and basic humanity.

 

Things like this bother me - and it bothers me that as late as last Tuesday Cheney was still saying that what was left at Guantanemo was "the worst". We had someone there who fought FOR US, on our side:

 

Lawyers for Mr. Bismullah, 29, presented sworn statements from officials of the American-supported Afghanistan government of Hamid Karzai that indicated Mr. Bismullah had been named as a terrorist by collaborators of the Taliban who wanted to take over his position as a provincial official. In fact, after Mr. Bismullah was shipped to Guantánamo, a local official said in a sworn statement, one of his accusers stole his car and drove it for two years.

 

Taliban sympathizers turned him is as a terrorist. And the people who authorized this walk with no punishment?

[luke warm]

I would be surprised if Eric Holder would bring charges - unless a deal had been made where Obama would issue a pardon after the charges had been made.

what would be some reasons he would not bring charges? could "no crime was committed" be one of them?

This does not halt the rest of the world from bringing charges, though, and other countries or even an international tribunal could be held - doubtful without U.S. cooperation, though.

what would your views be if, next week, japan tried truman for war crimes committed during wwII? just curious

Things like this bother me - and it bothers me that as late as last Tuesday Cheney was still saying that what was left at Guantanemo was "the worst".  We had someone there who fought FOR US, on our side:

Lawyers for Mr. Bismullah, 29, presented sworn statements from officials of the American-supported Afghanistan government of Hamid Karzai that indicated Mr. Bismullah had been named as a terrorist by collaborators of the Taliban who wanted to take over his position as a provincial official. In fact, after Mr. Bismullah was shipped to Guantánamo, a local official said in a sworn statement, one of his accusers stole his car and drove it for two years.

Taliban sympathizers turned him is as a terrorist. And the people who authorized this walk with no punishment?

would you be surprised if you learned that a lawyer for an accused person spoke words advocating the innocence of his client?

[Gerben42]

There are many reasons why Obama would not allow this to happen, one of the obvious ones being that Obama now inherits this mess, he will be making choices, and he will one day be an ex-president himse

 

That's a bad reason. What if at day one he decides to make no more compromises to the Geneva convention again? He already said he wanted to close Guantanamo right after the inauguration.

[Winstonm]

what would be some reasons he would not bring charges? could "no crime was committed" be one of them?

 

No. President Bush and VP Cheney have both stated publicly that they authorized waterboarding. Eric Holder make it clear that he considers waterboarding torture. U.S. law makes torture a federal crime, a felony.

 

what would your views be if, next week, japan tried truman for war crimes committed during wwII? just curious

 

What war crimes did Truman commit? Did he start a war of aggression? Did he have Japanese prisoners tortured? Did he declare the himself above the laws in wartime? Just curious.

 

would you be surprised if you learned that a lawyer for an accused person spoke words advocating the innocence of his client?

 

No, I wouldn't be shocked. Would you be shocked to find out that this man was released from Gitmo, found to have been wrongly charged?

 

As an aside, it defies all logic to me how any sane, rational human being can attempt to justify the treatment of prisoners held at Guantanemo if that person had done even the most rudimetary investigation as to the methods of capture, conditions of interrogation, and treatment of captives.

[Winstonm]

There are many reasons why Obama would not allow this to happen, one of the obvious ones being that Obama now inherits this mess, he will be making choices, and he will one day be an ex-president himself.

 

Ken,

 

I think you are doing what we all want to do - create in our minds valid reasons for the actions taken by present administration. It is the human and humane thing to try to do. We put ourselves mentally into positions of power and remember the attacks of 9-11 and find justification.

 

This statement about Obama infers to me that Obama would have come to the same conclusions as did Bush and implement the same procedures as did Bush, that the differences are not legal but political.

 

This is the point I believe where the argument breaks down - the entire basis for the administration's war on terror stems from Dick Cheney's concept of Presidential authority, and this White House surrounded itself with like-minded lawyers who wrote legal opinions validating their claims - and thus far there has been no legal challenge to those claims.

 

And THAT is what is Most important - the illegality of torture is wrapped in a shroud of Presidential power theory that has never been legally tested. If we ignore torture, we are accepting the justification granting the authority to torture. By ignoring torture, we accept the theory of the Unitary Executive and unlimited wartime powers of the President.

 

This non-tested acquiescence to political theory we simply cannot allow if we are to remain the same Republic as before.

 

And that is Obama's great challenge - whether or not to voluntarily yield power or to authorize power usurped by design to bypass normal checks and balances.

[luke warm]

what would be some reasons he would not bring charges? could "no crime was committed" be one of them?

 

No. President Bush and VP Cheney have both stated publicly that they authorized waterboarding. Eric Holder make it clear that he considers waterboarding torture. U.S. law makes torture a federal crime, a felony.

why have a trial, then? you and holder have, evidently, declared them guilty

what would your views be if, next week, japan tried truman for war crimes committed during wwII? just curious

 

What war crimes did Truman commit? Did he start a war of aggression? Did he have Japanese prisoners tortured? Did he declare the himself above the laws in wartime? Just curious.

i was thinking that you might have considered the dropping of the 2 bombs to be overkill... also, while not tortured (to my knowledge) he did have many japanese american citizens incarcerated, depriving them of their constitutional rights

would you be surprised if you learned that a lawyer for an accused person spoke words advocating the innocence of his client?

 

No, I wouldn't be shocked. Would you be shocked to find out that this man was released from Gitmo, found to have been wrongly charged?

no... but my point was, you can't take something an advocate says as being proof of anything, necessarily

As an aside, it defies all logic to me how any sane, rational human being can attempt to justify the treatment of prisoners held at Guantanemo if that person had done even the most rudimetary investigation as to the methods of capture, conditions of interrogation, and treatment of captives.

i understand that you can't imagine why anyone would disagree with you, winston... fwiw i'm on record as saying that my personal view is that torture is barbaric and morally indefensible... i'm also on record as saying that i'm very glad *i'm* not the one in charge of keeping this country safe from those who wish to harm its citizens

[Winstonm]

why have a trial, then? you and holder have, evidently, declared them guilty

 

Because a trial is following the rule of law - whether or not I think them guilty is irrelevant.

 

i was thinking that you might have considered the dropping of the 2 bombs to be overkill... also, while not tortured (to my knowledge) he did have many japanese american citizens incarcerated, depriving them of their constitutional rights

 

Had Japan been sealed off and dirt poor, blockaded, with their only source of resistance homeade missiles then yes, the bombs would have been overkill. As Japan was a viable nation at war - it was an act of war and within the limits of legal warfare. The treatment of Japanese Americans while wrong cannot in any stretch of the imagination be compared to buying prisoners in Afghanistan, subjecting them to SERE techniques, and using their confessions as proof of guilt.

 

Would you have agreed if Korea had used the confessions of American pilots to sentence them to death? Make no mistake - any confession we have obtained by SERE tactics has as much validity as the Korean confessions of our troops. The SERE techniques came directly from what we learned of Korean Communists' techniques.

 

i understand that you can't imagine why anyone would disagree with you, winston... fwiw i'm on record as saying that my personal view is that torture is barbaric and morally indefensible...

 

That is quite a stretch. I find it quite easy to imagine disagreement with me and I can be swayed by good arguments - but I reject simplistic notions that are based on nothing more than biases.

 

I can understand how Guatanemo occured - the fear and fright of another attack. I am on record saying that this administration would be forgiven if only they acknowledged wrongdoing. I could understand it, even.

 

But when hubris steps in and continues to say this is the right thing to do, we shouldn't close it, and we are down (once again) to the "worst of the worst" and simple research proves beyond question those claims to be wrong then yes, I cannot imagine how someone without a bias or an agenda can try to justify that.

[luke warm]

Would you have agreed if Korea had used the confessions of American pilots to sentence them to death?

i would have agreed with nuking them if they had ;)

i understand that you can't imagine why anyone would disagree with you, winston... fwiw i'm on record as saying that my personal view is that torture is barbaric and morally indefensible...

 

That is quite a stretch. I find it quite easy to imagine disagreement with me and I can be swayed by good arguments - but I reject simplistic notions that are based on nothing more than biases.

if you say so, but i find it hard to understand how you could be swayed by anyone who you have already labeled illogical, insane and irrational ("...it defies all logic to me how any sane, rational human being can attempt to justify ...")

[orlam]

There are many reasons why Obama would not allow this to happen, one of the obvious ones being that Obama now inherits this mess, he will be making choices, and he will one day be an ex-president himse

 

That's a bad reason. What if at day one he decides to make no more compromises to the Geneva convention again? He already said he wanted to close Guantanamo right after the inauguration.

There are reasons why Obama will stop a possible prosecution, but this is not one of them.

[Winstonm]

if you say so, but i find it hard to understand how you could be swayed by anyone who you have already labeled illogical, insane and irrational ("...it defies all logic to me how any sane, rational human being can attempt to justify ...")

 

You cherry pick a portion of a passage, removing the context and thus the modifiers of the claim. I should be more careful with phrasing, lest I be misquoted.

 

It defies all logic to me how - after doing even a cursory examination of the evidence concerning the methods of capture, the treatment, and the basis for the interrogation methods - any sane, rational human being could still attempt to justify Guantanemo and the treatment of those prisoners.

[Winstonm]

Would you have agreed if Korea had used the confessions of American pilots to sentence them to death?

 

 

i would have agreed with nuking them if they had

 

You are saying that tortured confessions resulting in death are justifications for terror, then....

 

Or are you simply saying that whatever your side choses to do is justified but is not justified when done by others?

 

I guess there is a certain consistency to this type of inconsistency. It is the same type consistent/inconsistency I find that Bush uses to justify his claims.

[luke warm]

Would you have agreed if Korea had used the confessions of American pilots to sentence them to death?

 

 

i would have agreed with nuking them if they had

 

You are saying that tortured confessions resulting in death are justifications for terror, then....

 

Or are you simply saying that whatever your side choses to do is justified but is not justified when done by others?

 

I guess there is a certain consistency to this type of inconsistency. It is the same type consistent/inconsistency I find that Bush uses to justify his claims.

hasn't that been long settled in watercooler philosophy class, that might makes right? if not (and iirc helene said it hasn't been), what does "make right"... this assumes you don't believe there is a real, objective 'right' or 'wrong' - i might be wrong about your thoughts on that

 

did u.s. law allow bush et al to take the actions they took? there is a difference between being against something (even abhorred by it) and in prosecuting those who you think should be prosecuted

[Winstonm]

Jimmy,

 

Perhaps this sounds arrogant but I feel humbed by my own ineptness - what I search for is the truth, unbridled, unbiased, and raw. I am also quite aware there is a difference between truth and pragmaticism, between what is right and what is real.

[jtfanclub]

what would your views be if, next week, japan tried truman for war crimes committed during wwII? just curious

 

What war crimes did Truman commit?

There were a couple of warehouses and a military hospital in Hiroshima. No military airports or other bases, no factories, nothing that could reasonably be considered a valid military target.

 

If killing 50,000 civillians for the purpose of showing your military might combined with using those civillians as test subjects for new technology is not a war crime, how can anybody claim with a straight face what Israel or Hamas is doing is? Dozens of people maimed by white phosphorus vs. tens of thousands slowly dying of radiation poisoning. There's just no comparison here.

[mike777]

what would your views be if, next week, japan tried truman for war crimes committed during wwII? just curious

 

What war crimes did Truman commit?

There were a couple of warehouses and a military hospital in Hiroshima. No military airports or other bases, no factories, nothing that could reasonably be considered a valid military target.

 

If killing 50,000 civillians for the purpose of showing your military might combined with using those civillians as test subjects for new technology is not a war crime, how can anybody claim with a straight face what Israel or Hamas is doing is? Dozens of people maimed by white phosphorus vs. tens of thousands slowly dying of radiation poisoning. There's just no comparison here.

Needless to say I disagree with your facts as well as your analogy.

 

OTOH the firestorm bombing that the USAF set off would be a fair analogy.

 

I expect the General and Truman would have been shot. I expect many men would have become slaves and women turned into "comfort girls". I expect Japan would have taken over some land and treasure and stolen it from americans.

[jtfanclub]

Needless to say I disagree with your facts as well as your analogy.

You're right, last estimates were 140,000 dead, my mistake. The first number was the number of immediate dead.

 

I expect the General and Truman would have been shot.  I expect many men would have become slaves and women turned into "comfort girls". I expect Japan would have taken over some land and treasure and stolen it from americans.

 

Nah. In less than a year Japan would have been conquered if we hadn't used nukes. The problem is, it would have been conquered by the Russians. With the defeat of Hitler, Russia was moving troops into Manchuria. They declared war on Japan on August 8th and would have invaded soon after. The staggering number of troops and materiel that the Russians could have sent against Japan would have defeated them in short order.

[mike777]

Needless to say I disagree with your facts as well as your analogy.

You're right, last estimates were 140,000 dead, my mistake. The first number was the number of immediate dead.

 

I expect the General and Truman would have been shot.  I expect many men would have become slaves and women turned into "comfort girls". I expect Japan would have taken over some land and treasure and stolen it from americans.

 

Nah. In less than a year Japan would have been conquered if we hadn't used nukes. The problem is, it would have been conquered by the Russians. With the defeat of Hitler, Russia was moving troops into Manchuria. They declared war on Japan on August 8th and would have invaded soon after. The staggering number of troops and materiel that the Russians could have sent against Japan would have defeated them in short order.

hmm My post assumed Japan wins, it seems you do not disagree if they win.

 

Now given you feel we can win in a year without nukes..how many die in total in the next year? How much property is destroyed. Granted given my Granddad in the Pacific would have been one of those who may die....I may be biased

 

As a side note remember when Russian invaded China they raped and stole at will. Give them another year how many millions die and are raped by USSR?

 

In any event I thought firebombing was a better analogy.

[kenberg]

Needless to say I disagree with your facts as well as your analogy.

You're right, last estimates were 140,000 dead, my mistake. The first number was the number of immediate dead.

 

I expect the General and Truman would have been shot.  I expect many men would have become slaves and women turned into "comfort girls". I expect Japan would have taken over some land and treasure and stolen it from americans.

 

Nah. In less than a year Japan would have been conquered if we hadn't used nukes. The problem is, it would have been conquered by the Russians. With the defeat of Hitler, Russia was moving troops into Manchuria. They declared war on Japan on August 8th and would have invaded soon after. The staggering number of troops and materiel that the Russians could have sent against Japan would have defeated them in short order.

The fact is this: Worrying about what happens to those on the other side is a modern development. I suppose there were some folks who worried about such thins in 1945 but they were not paid any heed. I'm sure I mentioned before one of my childhood memories. At Halloween we had a large woodpile at the playground. On top were figures of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito. We all cheered as the adults poured gasoline on the figures and put a match to them. Made me what I am today, no doubt.

 

Before Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese did not surrender. After, they did. I doubt that many, especially families with boys in the Pacific, thought about it beyond that point.

[PassedOut]

Before Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese did not surrender,After, they did. I doubt that many, especially families with boys in the Pacific, thought about it beyond that point.

My father made it home from Europe after heavy combat there, and was going to the Pacific theater after Germany surrendered. He told my mom he did not expect his luck to hold out there. Our family was overjoyed that he could return home when Japan surrendered.

 

Now we have friends and relatives in Japan that we love dearly.

 

It is vital to avoid war whenever possible. That includes avoiding policies and actions that incite others to attack.

[mike777]

"That includes avoiding policies and actions that incite others to attack."

 

 

Yes we must avoid any policy or action that may incite others to attack.

[Winstonm]

The fact is this: Worrying about what happens to those on the other side is a modern development. I suppose there were some folks who worried about such thins in 1945 but they were not paid any heed.

 

I think this is as much a statement about modern "war" and "war crimes". Since WWII, the American Congress has abdigated their responsiblity to declare a war and left it in the President's hands where to take actions - this has led to the "police actions" and "limited warfare" that produced a whole new term of "collateral damage" when talking civilians.

 

In WWII, the allies were at declared war with the nation states of Germany and Japan - not the Nazi party of Germany and Hirohito and his followers in Japan. These were national wars with national consequences.

 

I do not see any correlation with WWII and to conflicts that have occured since - Israel goes to "war" with Hamas? How can it be called war when only one side has military arms and the orther side is a political party that is trapped within a prison-like area with no retreat possible? That is not war. That is nothing more than a punitive action designed to cause suffering.

 

And how can American go to war on terror? How is that possible? Before you can war on terror you must define terror - which is exactly what no one wants to do because it limits the power of where we can go and who we can attack. We like to call our operations war, though, because it makes it sound more important than it truly is to national security. But targeting small groups is not war in the traditional sense of a national task - it is an excercise in military tactics.

 

War requires a stategy.

[jtfanclub]

hmm My post assumed Japan wins, it seems you do not disagree if they win.

.

.

In any event I thought firebombing was a better analogy.

Firebombing is a better analogy. I tend to pick the most heard of instead of the best, for fear of getting sidetracked.

 

It simply wasn't possible for Japan to win. What were they going to do, conquer Russia?

 

Now given you feel we can win in a year without nukes..how many die in total in the next year? How much property is destroyed. Granted given my Granddad in the Pacific would have been one of those who may die....I may be biased

 

As a side note remember when Russian invaded China they raped and stole at will. Give them another year how many millions die and are raped by USSR?

 

No argument there, but can't the same be said in Israel? If they don't attack, how many die from rockets and malnutrition? My point was not that what Truman did was a war crime, but surely if what Truman did was not a war crime, that what Israel is doing during the invasion can't be a war crime either.

[Winstonm]

what Israel is doing during the invasion can't be a war crime either.

 

I agree for the reason that before there can be war crimes there must first be a war. To elevate the Israel-Hamas conflict to the status of war is simply an excuse for Israel to utitlize military power - the Israeli Iron Fist - instead of negotiating.

 

Much of what we term "war crimes" are about world perception of who was right and who was wrong. In the past when Israel was viewed as David battling the Arab Goliath their Iron Fist methods were cheered - but time has altered perceptions to the point now that the Palestinians have taken over the mantle of David while Israel is now the Goliath - so the same Iron Fist actions that used to be cheered are being criticized as crimes because Israel is in the superior power position.

[luke warm]

In the past when Israel was viewed as David battling the Arab Goliath their Iron Fist methods were cheered - but time has altered perceptions to the point now that the Palestinians have taken over the mantle of David while Israel is now the Goliath

how so, winston? i think you view the palestinians in a vacuum, as if syria and jordan and iran and saudi arabia, et al, don't want israel (i'm sorry, i mean the zionist state) to be destroyed

[sireenb]

In the past when Israel was viewed as David battling the Arab Goliath their Iron Fist methods were cheered - but time has altered perceptions to the point now that the Palestinians have taken over the mantle of David while Israel is now the Goliath

how so, winston? i think you view the palestinians in a vacuum, as if syria and jordan and iran and saudi arabia, et al, don't want israel (i'm sorry, i mean the zionist state) to be destroyed

Keep Jordan out of this. Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel zillions of years ago when King Hussein was still alive.

 

Long live peace!

 

Sireen (from Jordan)