home

Waterboarding Is a War Crime

Meteor Blades correctly pointed out that former Vice President Dick Cheney confessed to a war crime when he said "I was a big supporter of waterboarding." As I have written earlier, you can argue that we should be committing war crimes against suspected terrorists, but you can not deny that Dick Cheney has confessed to a war crime. Unless you are the AP's Ron Fournier. Meteor Blades details Fournier's inability to report fats. Fournier wrote "Whatever one might think of Cheney's interrogation policies, the former vice president has never been charged with a war crime, much less confessed to one."

Actually, whatever one might think of Cheney's interrogation policies, which included waterboarding, the one fact that is clear is that Cheny confessed to a war crime when he stated his role in the adoption of waterboarding as US policy. Because Cheney has not (and will not) be charged with committing war crimes, does not mean he has not confessed to them. Stalin was never charged with war crimes either. Does anyone doubt he committed them? Perhaps Ron Fournier.

Speaking for me only

< Some Key Points in President Obama's Health Care Proposal | Onion Ready: WaPo Urges U.S. Stay In Iraq To Keep Chalabi Out >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Are the people who trained (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 12:57:37 PM EST
    people (they're the luckiest people in the world) at the School of the Americas and the people who participated in Operation Phoenix protected by any statute of limitations?

    The question maybe (none / 0) (#2)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 01:12:05 PM EST
    shouldnt be whether Cheney committed war crimes, but how many administrations have?

    To make it easy, we could start with Nagasaki..

    Cheney and co, after all, Im sure were quit aware of the country's capacity for being in moral denial during "a time of war"..

    Parent

    Red Herring (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by ricosuave on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 09:23:20 PM EST
    Just thrown out there to annoy us no-nukes liberals.  Nagasaki and Hiroshima were horrible, but they were war, not war crimes.  Arial bombardament of civilian areas wasn't shocking or out of the ordinary in wartime since 1914, when the Germans did it in Antwerp.  The level of destruction, while awful, was not really any different that what was happening in Europe in places like Hamburg and Dresden.  It was amazing that it was delivered with a single bomb, but there was nothing about it at the time that would really be considered a war crime.

    Waterboarding WAS considered a war crime.  It was prosecuted as a war crime.  By us.  But they were the "greatest generation."  We shouldn't try to live up to the standards they set...

    Parent

    Wow! (none / 0) (#3)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 01:39:12 PM EST
    has Nagasaki been declared a war crime?

    pssst, (Hiroshima came first)

    Parent

    By me, yeah (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 01:44:13 PM EST
    or do we always have to wait until Newsweek and the NYT declares it first..

    The idea is that there MIGHT be an argument made for Hiroshima, but imo, Nagasaki was inexcusable..


    Parent

    Say what we will... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 01:59:51 PM EST
    about Truman's decisions...but that man was in a tough spot....weighing the bomb vs. the casualties a full invasion of Japan would entail.

    Cheney and crew weren't in anywhere near as tough a spot...not even in the ballpark.

    Parent

    At the very least (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 02:08:56 PM EST
    one would've done it..N was about going ahead with the plan - and sending a message to the Rooskies - no matter what..

    Japan was out on it's feet..N had less than zero to do with saving lives..

    We all know Cheney should be cleaning toilets in a leper colony -- and smoking Havana-rolled turds in Purgatory in the after life.

    Parent

    With time off for good behavior (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 02:12:11 PM EST
    Certainly plausible... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 02:17:58 PM EST
    I have a soft spot for Harry and might be giving him more lee-way than I should....the 2nd bomb is harder to make excuses for.

    Parent
    Well, the facts are that one (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 02:30:02 PM EST
    didn't do it. And even after the second factions within Japan were planning to seize control and fight on.

    Parent
    If fanatical factions (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 02:39:06 PM EST
    were going to fight on after one, why wouldnt they fight on after two?

    One atom bomb wasnt a strong enough message? lol

    Parent

    And please DA (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 02:41:59 PM EST
    no fifteen hundred word cut 'n pastes from the Gen Jack D Ripper historical society..

    Parent
    The point is the world (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:31:38 PM EST
    was brought to an end with two.

    Parent
    drats (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:32:39 PM EST
    war was brought to an end with two.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 02:12:05 PM EST
    At least, according to Wiki:

    Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population", high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes--which included advocating for and against the invasion. Afterwards, they were reused in the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

    • In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.

    • A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.

    • In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.

    Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.

    - A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

    Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."



    Parent
    jb (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 02:19:19 PM EST
    Get that in screenplay form with story boards and you've got the job..Kid.

    Parent
    There is a pretty good account (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:31:19 PM EST
    that the Japanese were closer than is commonly thought to surrender before we dropped both bombs....

    Parent
    Cites, please (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:38:19 PM EST
    Here is an interesting account (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 04:01:05 PM EST
    Ike and Bull Halsey were against dropping the bomb, among many others:

    Contrary to conventional opinion today, many military leaders of the time -- including six out of seven wartime five-star officers -- criticized the use of the atomic bomb.

    Take, for example, Adm. William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Moreover, Leahy continued, "[I]n being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

    President Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."

    Adm. William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used.  

    Link

    Not conclusive....but it is not the open and shut issue many present....

    Parent

    thank you (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 04:06:42 PM EST
    I believe the sticking point (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 05:24:34 PM EST
    with the virtually defenseless, sitting duck Japan, was the issue of "unconditional surrender", with it's implication of the virtual abdication of the Emperor..

    Over THAT another 50 to 100 thousand (depending on if you're including fallout's longterm effects) had to die..

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 05:38:30 PM EST
    if we had promised to not try the Emperor and leave him as a figurehead (which is what we did anyway) they would have surrendered.  Remember we had talked about hanging him and even Nimitz or Halsey had threatened to ride his white horse down the Ginza or something.

    (Little known, kinda dark trivia:  When Halsey heard of Pearl Harbor he is reputed to have said "The only place you'll ever hear Japanese again is in Hell!"  Charming.  LOL)

    But what is being forgotten in this thread is the fact that the Red Army attacked Japan and were cutting through them like a hot knife through butter and that terrified the Japanese leadership.  Remember, burned out cities weren't exactly a new thing for Japan, but 100,000's of Red Army soldiers was, and they wanted nothing to do with them.

    Jackson

    Parent

    Ah yes, that well known fact (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 07:03:03 PM EST
    The lovely Soviets helped out so much at Iowa Jima... Phillipines.... etc., etc.

    BTW - When did thy actually do anything and what did they actually capture?

    Parent

    Iwo Jima? Phillipines? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 07:51:49 PM EST
    No, but they did invade and occupy Manchukuo, Mengjiang (inner Mongolia), northern Korea, southern Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands, in August of 1945.

    "The rapid defeat of Japan's Kwantung Army was a significant factor in the Japanese surrender and the termination of World War II."


    Parent

    Yeah, after the war in the Pacific was (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 08:33:02 PM EST
    over.

    Parent
    The only other thing (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 08:48:34 PM EST
    those goldbrickers ever did was engage and turn back 70 to 80% of the German Army on the eastern front..

    Parent
    Yes, they did after the Germans had (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 08:13:42 AM EST
    invaded them.

    In violation of the peace treaty they signed with Hitler.

    Somehow that seems to lower the moral position of their efforts.

    Of course I still appreciate their help. After all, as I have said about the Shah and others who I didn't always agree with, "An enemy of my enemy is my friend."

    ..... Until the current fight's over."

    Parent

    Stalin made Ivan the Terrible (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 12:19:31 PM EST
    look like Captain Kangaroo, there's no question about that..But Im sure the average Russian soldier just cared about getting back to his (or her) family, somewhere as far away from the line of fire of the "glorious revolutionary party" as possible..

    Parent
    True. but we're writing (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 03:29:26 PM EST
    about national policy, not man's universal love for home and hearth. That is universal.

    Parent
    Just answering ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 09:34:09 PM EST
    When did thy actually do anything and what did they actually capture?

    ... your question.

    BTW - If the war in the Pacific was "already over", the Soviet decimation of the Kwantung Army (the largest Japanese military force), it's strange it would be deemed as a significant factor in the Japanese surrender and the termination of World War II.

    Parent

    OT, but a link for you (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 01:52:35 PM EST
    waiting for an open thread to post it, but i'll give you a special.

    parts 2 and 3 of "the early daze" are up.


    Parent

    I could use some of that (none / 0) (#8)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 01:57:12 PM EST
    my good man..

    The drugs dont work the way they used to :)

    Parent

    Another triumph, Dadler (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 06:03:31 PM EST
    Right on point and hilarious..just what the good doctor ordered.

    Parent
    Dadler, excellent! (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 07:01:58 PM EST
    100 true (none / 0) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 01:43:12 PM EST
    At least from the 1900's on, they all likely have and they likely are still doing so.

    Parent
    Let's not (none / 0) (#6)
    by Zorba on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 01:47:06 PM EST
    make it too easy, jondee.  How about the genocide we perpetrated against Native Americans?  I'm not counting the enslavement of Africans as a "war crime"- it was a horrible crime, but we weren't at war with them.  We were at war with various Native American tribes.  Or, if you want to keep it to the World War II era, the firebombing of Dresden, the bombing of Tokyo- lots of civilian casualties in both.  Rounding up Japanese-Americans and putting them in concentration camps.  And, of course, as you are alluding to, the count of war crimes by various administrations just goes up from there.

    Parent
    One of the most chilling (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:08:03 PM EST
    videos I have seen was a WWII clip of Gen. LeMay describing how the bombs dropped over Japan were designed specially to make the rice paper housing of civilians burn quicker....

    And that guy was wanting to nuke the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Parent

    Well sheeebus... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 02:04:44 PM EST
    Both our misbegotten adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan qualify as war crimes. That they included war crimes like torture as part of their execution is just extra doubleplus goodness.

    At the very least, there ought to be (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 02:57:10 PM EST
    a full and open investigation of Cheney and the rest of his minions.  If they want to brag about how much they loved the waterboarding policy, how they had full authority and power to order it, let them do so under oath; my guess is not a single one of them, least of all Cheney, would have the courage to do so.

    I have no doubt that we have shameful and illegal acts in our history, but that is no excuse for ignoring the ones sitting right under our noses, or for ignoring those being invited onto talk shows and bald-facedly crowing about the size of their testicles.

    Obama thinks he's being statesman-like and above-the-fray in pronouncing that we need to look forward, not back, but to me his unwillingness to bring even a modicum of accountability to this issue seems craven and cowardly; I'm sick beyond description of what keeps being done in our names, with no repercussions.


    An investigation would be good (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:10:34 PM EST
    We may not get one--but we are learning a lot.

      Cheney is coming more and more clearly into focus as a fascist....

    Parent

    It's called (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:13:13 PM EST
    "Preventive CY" - Obama and the administration don't know what tactics they may have to use (if they aren't already) and by trying to hold Bush Cheney, et al accountable, it will just open the floodgates for the next president to do the same.

    Parent
    Should be (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:13:35 PM EST
    "Preventive CYA"

    Parent
    In other words.. (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:35:39 PM EST
    In a time of war - and when isnt it? - all bets on decency and humanity are off..

    Parent
    Regardless of whether there is an (none / 0) (#36)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:54:58 PM EST
    investigation, or indictments or any accountability, it is still possible to know what is permissible/legal and what is not - just because those who came before this administration have probably broken an assortment of domestic and international laws does not give the current or succeeding administrations carte blanche to follow in their footsteps.

    I don't think it's a question of not knowing what tactics they may have to use in the future - we aren't supposed to be considering illegal tactics at all; I think it's a combination of the authoritarians holding sway with Obama's approval, and the rule-of-law watchdogs having been appropriately muzzled, also with Obama's approval.  There's nothing quite like knowing that the you-know-what might hit the fan if the microscope gets focused on you to keep you willing to protect those who came before you.

    It's a mutual protection racket, and as usual, it is others who pay the price.

    Parent

    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 04:00:15 PM EST
    That's what I meant - the current administration doesn't want to be held accountable for anything it might do in the future, so this is a case of "we'll turn a blind eye to this" with the implicit promise that a future administration will do the same.

    Parent
    Obama loves Cheney (none / 0) (#43)
    by Emma on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 04:37:33 PM EST
    I'm sure the administration loves how Cheney's pushing the bar on "what is torture" ever higher.  The more torture that gets normalized, the freer the administration is to pursue whatever ends it wants through whatever means it believes are necessary.

    It's like Russia never objecting to the Iraq invasion because a policy of pre-emptive invasion suits them just fine.

    It's collusion all the way down to the ground among these guys.  I think Cheney knows for sure he'll never be prosecuted.  How you think he came by that knowledge -- did he just intuit it or was he told it? -- depends on the level of your cynicism, I suppose.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if Cheney is acting with the go ahead of the WH.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#44)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 04:42:33 PM EST
    Where' I'm from, you gotta stick up for family

    Parent
    MIlitary Commission Act (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:40:40 PM EST
    Cheney does not need to worry because the MCA exempts him and his cronies from US prosecution. He has lawyers working full time to make sure that he could thumb his nose at any US attempt to prosecute him. Prosecution abroad is another story.

    Two provisions of the MCA have been criticized for allegedly making it harder to prosecute and convict officers and employees of the US government for misconduct in office.

    First, the MCA changed the definition of war crimes for which US government defendants can be prosecuted. Under the War Crimes Act of 1996, any violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was considered a war crime and could be criminally prosecuted. Section 6 of the Military Commissions Act amended the War Crimes Act so that only actions specifically defined as "grave breaches" of Common Article 3 could be the basis for a prosecution, and it made that definition retroactive to November 26, 1997. The specific actions defined in section 6 of the Military Commissions Act include torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse, and the taking of hostages. According to Mariner of Human Rights Watch, the effect is "that perpetrators of several categories of what were war crimes at the time they were committed, can no longer be punished under U.S. law."[32] The Center for Constitutional Rights adds:

    The MCA's restricted definitions arguably would exempt certain U.S. officials who have implemented or had command responsibility for coercive interrogation techniques from war crimes prosecutions.
    . . . .
    This amendment is designed to protect U.S. government perpetrators of abuses during the "war on terror" from prosecution.[33]

    WiKi

    Gee, I wonder if the (none / 0) (#37)
    by Zorba on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:57:32 PM EST
    International Criminal Court in The Hague has changed its definition of "war crime."  I realize that we have not joined, but I would love it if Cheney visited one of the member-countries and was arrested and turned over for trial.  Since 110 countries have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute, that may limit his international travel plans.

    Parent
    Yes, I am sure (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 07:07:03 PM EST
    the Danes... no French... no Spanish... darnit, some one will be invading any moment.

    Parent
    More likely the Chinese (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 07:29:06 PM EST
    when they decide it's time to collect on those war loans.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#11)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 02:07:41 PM EST
    You'd be hard-pressed to find a country as deeply implicit in war crimes and violations of international law than the good ole U.S. of A., including what Zorba has listed above just for starters. Next stop: The invasion of Iran.


    So what if Cheney said waterboarding (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 02:37:26 PM EST
    was okay? Is that a crime?

    Suppose someone kills a person I know and I say, "I'm glad. I support killing John X?"

    I don't think that's a crime.

    different (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by CST on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 02:39:58 PM EST
    it would be more like the head of a corporation saying "I support killing John X".  And then they pay one of their employees to kill John X.

    Parent
    It was done pursuant to Cheney's orders! (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 06:03:26 PM EST
    He "signed off" on it.  Jeez

    Parent
    Jim, the average person (none / 0) (#23)
    by Zorba on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 02:59:01 PM EST
    is not in a position to influence what others do, whether he approves of their subsequent actions or not.  Cheney was most definitely in a position to influence any decisions by the previous administration, including the use of waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques," known to most people, and international law, as "torture."  Cheney was one of the most powerful vice-presidents in recent times.

    Parent
    Not true but (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:37:53 PM EST
    if you want to try Cheney go ahead. I would love to see Pelosi and Reid under oath...

    BTW - If you didn't know.... I think we did the right thing.

    But hey, that's just ole protect the country me.

    Parent

    The difference is that (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Zorba on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 04:09:24 PM EST
    neither Pelosi nor Reid were in a position to change the administration policies at the time.  I fault them (a great deal) for not making it public then, if indeed they had the whole story, but that's not the same as being in the Executive Branch and working to make and influence policies, as Cheney did.  I'm sure you were okay with many of the Bush administration policies, but I don't happen to agree.  I don't see that war crimes and human rights abuses, and, for that matter, the erosion of our own citizens' civil liberties, made us any safer.  But that's just me.  

    Parent
    They can all (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by lilburro on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 04:27:07 PM EST
    go under oath.  But are cowards of the same caliber as monsters?

    Parent
    Torture is wrong, how is that hard to understand? (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 06:02:19 PM EST
    Just as the state should not murder, and I read we killed another 27 Afghan citizens today, it shoudl not torture.

    It is never right and I thank you not to think it is ever necessary to "protect" me.

    Parent

    One of the basic fundamentals (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 06:18:43 PM EST
    of cooperative civilization is that we each become our brothers keeper.

    That tells me quite plainly that if the CIA need to waterboard they should waterboard.

    This means, of course, that I see life as a series of attacks by those who aren't civilized as we see it and am unwilling to exempt them from actions needed to keep them from winning.

    You are welcome to think otherwise.


    Parent

    When "my brothers keeper" (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 06:34:10 PM EST
    becomes a defense of waterboarding, (and Im guessing, anything else the Christian Intelligence Agency ever did), maybe it's time to try a new religion. Or maybe none at all.

    I think you need to widen your paradigm of what life is about just a little, Jim.

    Parent

    Oh, I'm happy with where I am (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 06:56:59 PM EST
    jondee. And I hope you are.

    Parent
    I thought part of the idea (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 07:34:42 PM EST
    was to help future generations be happy being here..
    I can think of better ways of doing that than alienating half the planet and putting the country in the kind of hock it'll never get out of..

    Parent
    It worked so well (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 05:11:07 PM EST
    up to Sept 2000.

    Or was it Jan 2000?

    Parent

    Yeah, Cheney had (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:00:05 PM EST
    no more involvement than that: he just said he approved after it had already occurred..

    Nothin' to see here folks, move along now..

    Parent

    " . . .you can argue that we should be (none / 0) (#48)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 05:59:49 PM EST
    committing war crimes . . ."

    Yes, but only if you happen to be a psychopathic a$$hole like our war criminal former Vice President.  And, like it or not, the lack of prosecution makes our current Administration complicit.

    Well (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 06:14:44 PM EST
    this is the reason that I kept yelling a year ago that Bush/Cheney should at the minimum be interrogated if not downright charged with crimes. Obama failed to kill off the vampire and he's living to see another day and maybe even influence another President. How smart does Kumbaya look now?