A Sad State of Affairs

April 24, 2009 at 8:45 am | Posted in American politics | 10 Comments

Obama can’t get a truth commission going. Essentially because Boehner told him Republicans will be even more obstructive and destructive.

President Obama rebuffed calls for a commission to investigate alleged abuses under the Bush administration in fighting terrorism, telling congressional leaders at a White House meeting yesterday that he wants to look forward instead of litigating the past.

In a lengthy exchange with House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), Obama appeared to back away from a statement earlier this week that suggested he could support an independent commission to examine possible abuses, according to several attendees who spoke on the condition of anonymity so they could discuss the private meeting freely. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, also seeking to clarify the president’s position, told reporters that “the president determined the concept didn’t seem altogether workable in this case” because of the intense partisan atmosphere built around the issue.

“The last few days might be evidence of why something like this might just become a political back and forth,” Gibbs said.

The sad thing is that if we truly are a nation of laws, that means that those who committed crimes, no matter how high up in government, need to be punished, or we undermine the strength of the rule of law!

Is this really what conservatives want? I mean, I realize conservatives today have lost sense of reality and are really stupid, but do they really want their country to become a lawless dictatorship? I realize they think it is headed that way right now (solely because a Democrat won the last election), but what exactly are they doing to strengthen the rule of law when they act this way?

I wish Obama would take the political risk and stamp down such lawless acts. The ironic thing is that the individuals who have acted beyond the scope of the law are from the same stock of the Nixon administration (the last administration that broke the law, but who was not held accountable). Nixon’s group were not held accountable. They went on to other careers and then back into power in 2001. What do you think they would do when back in power? Abuse it of course! Because they know they can get away with it! THEY WILL NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE! And their apprentices (people like Scotter Libby, Kyle Sampson) will eventually come to power again and guess what they will do? Abuse their power once again, because once again, they know they can get away with it!

It is time to make the painful act of holding these people accountable and sending them to jail, or if their crime is bad enough, executing them.

Advertisements

10 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Daniel,

    If the United States government is to prosecute those involved with reviewing, approving and ordering the so-called harsh interrogation techniques , should we not also go after the people in the Congressional intelligence committee who were briefed (in detail (?) and perhaps even had oversight) on these methods?

    Also, is not disingenious to absolve those who administered these so-called harsh interrogation techniques simply on the basis that “they were simply following orders?” Wasn’t that the defense used by the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials after the war? We didn’t buy it then and we shouldn’t buy it now.

    If we are to adhere to the rule of law, in my opinion, there can be no middle ground; no exemptions to the rule of law.

    What say you to that, sir?

  2. Brian,

    I think that all who ordered, approved, tried to legalize, and who turned a blind eye to, torture deserve to be punished. Is that a very harsh stand? Yes. But this has to be stamped out, Brian. This is evil stuff. It will poison our country and our morals to a point where we won’t be able to tell the difference anymore between right and wrong.

    Secondly, why would we want to be on the same moral standard as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, China, and others like them? Doesn’t that just make you wanna vomit? As Shep Smith said, “This is America! We Don’t F***ing Torture!”

  3. Thank you, Daniel.

  4. Absurd.

    The House and Senate are controlled by the Democrats. If they want commissions they should be able to muster the votes needed.

    Unless of course, congresspersons and senators are worried about what their constituents say.

    Here’s the real difference between you and I.

    If there were a credible treat against your life, I would do whatever it took to protect you.

    If there were a credible threat against my life, you’d walk away.

  5. Sadly, SCA, enough Democrats are complicit in torture and we won’t get what needs to happen done. Like I said, a sad state of affairs.

    If there were a credible treat against your life, I would do whatever it took to protect you.

    If there were a credible threat against my life, you’d walk away.

    I don’t need your protection though. So please, don’t torture anyone. I’ll be just fine. As would you. Hence why I would not torture anyone. Because they don’t really threaten you.

    Your hypothetical is crappy though.

    1. How do you know a particular threat is credible? How can you know the detainee in your custody even has more information that could help you? You may think he does, but how do YOU know he does? If you knew beforehand that the detainee had other information and you knew what that information already was, why would you need to torture him? To get confirmation? That’s just silly and stupid.

    Seriously, you really are stupid.

  6. It’s a pity you need to resort to personal inventive.

    Considering that you are unaware that Nazi concentration camps were an integral part part of the German military, ‘stupid’ is not a word I would throw around.

    Further, your use of ‘projection’ as argument is both false and inappropriate (to be fair, I understand- clearly you have no expertise or training in the mental health arena).

    How do I know that threat is credible? Well, it isn’t as if we picked up people randomly. KSM, et al, were well known and made no secret of their intent to harm America and Americans. Al Qaeda suspects here and all over Europe made no secret of their desires. Further, we now know (according to Obama DCI) that these interrogations resulted in attacks being prevented (LA, Brooklyn,. NY, etc).

    Now, if you want to disagree with my argument, I am by all means willing to listen. That said, my remarks as of now remain unchallenged.

    “Here’s the real difference between you and I.

    If there were a credible treat against your life, I would do whatever it took to protect you.

    If there were a credible threat against my life, you’d walk away.”

  7. dude,

    How do I know that threat is credible? Well, it isn’t as if we picked up people randomly. KSM, et al, were well known and made no secret of their intent to harm America and Americans. Al Qaeda suspects here and all over Europe made no secret of their desires.

    that’s nice and all, but doesn’t answer the question. Since al-Qaeda has officially declared war against us, clearly they are a credible threat, and when we capture one of them, we’d like to know more. But that doesn’t answer my questions. If you ask this detainee what are future plans and he gives you some answers, how do YOU know he does or doesn’t know more? You don’t. You then think he is keeping stuff back because you assume you would if in his seat. So you think that it is time to “get medieval on his ass”, as if somehow he will give you more information under duress. But when he starts telling you things, how do you differentiate between what is the truth and what he is simply saying to get you to stop torturing him? If you already know what you think he knows, what’s the point of torturing him? No point at all except sadism.

    If there is a credible threat against my life, do not torture someone to try and protect me. I don’t need your protection. I rely on the Lord for my protection, not on the arms of flesh.

    If there was a credible threat against you, I wouldn’t walk away. I would pray that God protect you too, as he does me.

    In my scenario, no one gets tortured and both are saved. 🙂

  8. “If you ask this detainee what are future plans and he gives you some answers, how do YOU know he does or doesn’t know more? You don’t.”

    Actually, we do.

    We know this because time and again we have managed to extract enough credible information to stop and prevent attacks.

    Look, all wars become immoral once the first innocent is killed. That said, some wars are just- and our war against Al Qaeda is one such war, for a multitude of reasons.

    These interrogations may not be pretty, but they have proved to be effective.

    I congratulate you on your faith- indeed, I am somewhat jealous of that. For now however, I will erly on the dictum, “The Lord helps those who help themselves.”

  9. Actually, we do.

    We know this because time and again we have managed to extract enough credible information to stop and prevent attacks.

    Oh yeah? Like what?

    These interrogations may not be pretty, but they have proved to be effective.

    Prove it.

    “The Lord helps those who help themselves.”

    Are you telling me that the Lord approves of torture?

  10. By the way, the FBI director doesn’t think they are particularly effective.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: