tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post3318964515092141681..comments2024-01-02T18:05:23.666-06:00Comments on Streak's Blog: Bush in trouble? GOP for Torture?--a birthday rantStreakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01443433745929880701noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-19160279143858863872007-05-22T08:20:00.000-05:002007-05-22T08:20:00.000-05:00Thanks, steve. I don't think N15 has thought this...Thanks, steve. I don't think N15 has thought this through very well. <BR/><BR/>BTW, N15, my house analogy is still apt. You are correct, I could sell the house or default on my loan or something like that. In any of those cases, I don't get to both stop paying my mortgage and keep the house. What Bush, and most neo-conservatives want, is for Bush and his version of America to change the rules whenever it suits them.Streakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443433745929880701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-47978531507842148002007-05-22T08:11:00.000-05:002007-05-22T08:11:00.000-05:00Ubub mentioned Art. VI of the Constitution several...Ubub mentioned Art. VI of the Constitution several posts back. I'll admit that my undestanding of international law is lacking (I had signed up for a class on international law, but dropped once I realized the professor was an ass), but I do recall some stuff from Con Law.<BR/><BR/>There are numerous cases which show that a treaty has the force of law. As such, the president may not neccessarily be able to set it aside. Your mentioning that Bush set aside a portion of a treaty with Russia doesn't mean that it was proper. Our government has made all sorts of unconstitutional actions and not all of them are challenged. <BR/><BR/>In the case of an international treaty, the country affected by the treaty or a member of Congress would have to initiate some kind of action. If it were a member of Congress, they would have to fufill the requirements of justiciablity described in Goldwater v. Carter (444 US 996) and Baker v. Carr (369 US 186) for the case to be decided. <BR/><BR/>I should note that the case of Goldwater v. Carter involved a situation where Jimmy Carter terminated a treaty with Taiwan. Many Senators were mad that he did this without the consent of the Senate and sued. The court declined to hear the case because the Senate had not exhausted it's own remedies.<BR/><BR/>From readind the various dissenting and concurring opinions, it is unclear how they would have ruled. Some of the justices stated that the president has the power to set aside treaties on his own and others said that he may not without the consent of the Senate. It appears that this issue is undecided, as I cannot find a more recent case.<BR/><BR/>Despite this, it well within the power of Congress to regulate the use of turture by US soldiers and agents. Additionally, they may cut funding to any program or country that used torture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-63345374718244429782007-05-21T23:37:00.000-05:002007-05-21T23:37:00.000-05:00By the way, I'm not a fan of George Bush; I disagr...By the way, I'm not a fan of George Bush; I disagree with many of his decisions, especially on illegal immigration. The last good President we've had, in my opinion, was Ronald Reagan, mainly for bringing down the Soviet Union, and for his economic policy.Brett Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05023795754459092911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-714685527240703092007-05-21T23:29:00.000-05:002007-05-21T23:29:00.000-05:00Well, do you have any memory of it,Ubub? As I rec...Well, do you have any memory of it,Ubub? As I recall, Bush told Putin that he would set aside the treaty, and that was the end of it.Brett Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05023795754459092911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-17834520693850913002007-05-21T23:08:00.000-05:002007-05-21T23:08:00.000-05:00"I don't recall" and its subtle variations, includ..."I don't recall" and its subtle variations, including "I have no memory of that," was AG Gonzales' standard line when he appeared before the Senate. Those who counted his usage of these terms from the transcripts found 64 uses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-38996085526531085812007-05-21T22:03:00.000-05:002007-05-21T22:03:00.000-05:00Authority? Are you kidding? N15 cites the "America...Authority? Are you kidding? <BR/><BR/>N15 cites the "America can do whatever it wants" authority. And I don't think N15 understands the entire ratification process. Nor any of the rest of the American system, frankly. But hey, if Bush did it, then it must be ok, right? <BR/><BR/>Frankly, n15, I don't know what we have to talk about. Most of the conservatives I know actually understand that America's power is not unlimited, nor is their moral standing universal or automatic. I have only met a few wackjobs who have defended torture. You seem to be in the middle--saying what we do is NOT torture, and then saying we should be able to torture as many terrorists as we want because we are more moral and it works. Contrary evidence seems to not matter. <BR/><BR/>So, you guys are welcome to chat all you want. I am not interested in trying to make the argument that "torture=evil" any longer.Streakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443433745929880701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-18542521589310016912007-05-21T21:59:00.000-05:002007-05-21T21:59:00.000-05:00Bush did it, and I don't remember anyone complaini...Bush did it, and I don't remember anyone complaining that it was unconstitutional. Maybe someone did, but I don't remember it.Brett Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05023795754459092911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-34470701802265753922007-05-21T21:25:00.000-05:002007-05-21T21:25:00.000-05:00Please cite a source for this presidential authori...Please cite a source for this presidential authority.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-59919642218899531482007-05-21T21:11:00.000-05:002007-05-21T21:11:00.000-05:00The President also has the ability to set aside tr...The President also has the ability to set aside treaties, as George W. Bush did in order to resurrect the Star Wars missile defense shield.Brett Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05023795754459092911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-42218583062490070372007-05-21T20:50:00.000-05:002007-05-21T20:50:00.000-05:00This doesn't happen all that often, but I have to ...This doesn't happen all that often, but I have to agree with Streak. If a president signed a bad treaty, it would still have to be approved by the Senate, so there are checks and balances. We are still bound by that treaty until such time as we can renegotiate a more favorable one. You may think this policy is not wise, but it is the way things are done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-90535763929143447392007-05-21T20:00:00.000-05:002007-05-21T20:00:00.000-05:00Sorry, Streak, but it's your reasoning that is rid...Sorry, Streak, but it's your reasoning that is ridiculous. If an incompetent President like Jimmy Carter signed a treaty with China to give up all but 10 of our nuclear weapons in exchange for them giving up all but 200 of theirs, that would be stupid and should never be complied with. To do so would be immoral because it would place the lives of millions of Americans in jeopardy. If ANY treaty puts American national security at risk, it should be set aside. It would be irresponsible and immoral not to do so.<BR/><BR/>If your mortgage rate goes up too much, you don't have to pay it; you can sell your house and move elsewhere. That was a pathetic comparison. Really, is that the best you can do, Streak?<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, I would like to know whether you believe it's okay to lie to the enemy during war. For example, to leak the information (to the press, for instance), "We will attack at Point A" when in fact we will attack at Point C. After all, that would be dishonest, and (perhaps in your estimation) immoral.Brett Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05023795754459092911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-25375732728248768542007-05-21T17:13:00.000-05:002007-05-21T17:13:00.000-05:00Right. We should abide by agreements (that we sig...Right. We should abide by agreements (that we signed) if they are in our favor. Just as if you should be able to simply not pay your adjustable mortgage if the rate goes up. Or if the house is worth less than when you bought it. <BR/><BR/>Sorry, but that is ridiculous. This is exactly what has gotten us into so much hot water around the world--deciding which rules we will follow or which agreements we will actually live up to. Not only ridiculous, but immoral.Streakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443433745929880701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-42271242957537368552007-05-21T16:18:00.000-05:002007-05-21T16:18:00.000-05:00By "ridiculously constraining" treaties, I meant o...By "ridiculously constraining" treaties, I meant ones that have outlived their usefulness or are just plain stupid to begin with. For example, Jimmy Carter's treaty with Panama to return the Panama Canal was stupid. The same goes for arms control treaties, unless the US gets the better part of the deal (as in Reagan's treaty with the Soviet Union). If treaties potentially threaten our national security, they should be set aside; otherwise they should be kept.Brett Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05023795754459092911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-86201505534925388172007-05-21T14:42:00.000-05:002007-05-21T14:42:00.000-05:00Suit yourself. I wasn't trying to start a contest...Suit yourself. I wasn't trying to start a contest as to who was least deserving of respect. I am not anti-gov't, but I have a difficult time respecting any gov't. What gov'ts do you respect? Do you think the UN is doing a good job in regards to anything?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-39563742289045498532007-05-21T14:21:00.000-05:002007-05-21T14:21:00.000-05:00By that same line of reasoning, it is hard to have...By that same line of reasoning, it is hard to have respect for any instituion that participates in the overthrow of democratically elected governments, trains and funds foreign death squads who commit atrocities against their own citizens, and generally follows the law of nations only as it suits its own interests. That institution is also under investigation for widespread corruption and ineptitude. I still believe in the promise of the United States even as I weep for the reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-34275373317322613362007-05-21T13:29:00.000-05:002007-05-21T13:29:00.000-05:00While I think the UN is, for the most part, useles...While I think the UN is, for the most part, useless *, we are bound by the treaties we have signed. They have the same force as law.<BR/><BR/>We have outlawed torture in our own country. I believe the UCMJ also outlaws torture. We are signatories to several treaties that ban torture. There are numerous studies that show it is ineffective. What is the appeal?<BR/><BR/>*It is hard for me to have any shred of respect for an organization that is as corrupt and inept as the UN. Most recently, they voted a minister in that is part of one of the most brutal and evil governments in the world, <A HREF="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2078488,00.html" REL="nofollow">Zimbabwe</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-6075864950232755532007-05-21T09:22:00.000-05:002007-05-21T09:22:00.000-05:00I appreciate your thoughts on the UN and "ridculou...I appreciate your thoughts on the UN and "ridculously constraining treaties." Let me respond again to your question this way:<BR/><BR/>"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."<BR/>-United States Constitution, Article VI<BR/><BR/>As Justice Hugo Black wrote, "Great nations, like great men, keep their word."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-19386309779195728982007-05-21T08:38:00.000-05:002007-05-21T08:38:00.000-05:00Oh, and by the way, N15, this may not be popular i...Oh, and by the way, N15, this may not be popular in conservative circles (especially the UN hating ones) but we are obligated by little agreements called treaties. When we sign those, we are supposed to actually abide by them. <BR/><BR/>Of course, since America didn't hold up its end of any of its treaties with Indian peoples, why should our word be any different overseas. <BR/><BR/>Oh wait. I forgot that we were the most moral country on the planet.Streakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443433745929880701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-15364988606701467242007-05-21T08:29:00.000-05:002007-05-21T08:29:00.000-05:00N15, I think the military has had procedures in pl...N15, I think the military has had procedures in place for 50 years that they used against captives. People who fight professionally understand that torture is for sadists and amoral thugs. You, apparently, have no problem with that and think that torture is acceptable as long as we give enough to others. I love how callously you say that we could enslave the rest of the world--suggests that you have a very inflated view of our military power. I am sure the Chinese military would read your post and laugh at the ignorant American. <BR/><BR/>The basic question is what are you willing to have done to our people. If you are willing to allow waterboarding on our people when they are captured, then by all means. Especially if you are willing to be waterboarded yourself. <BR/><BR/>Saying that we are the most moral is another one of your assertions. And when we torture people, we are not being moral. It is a fairly easy equation. Your morality sounds suspiciously like Monty Burns from the Simpsons--who said that he was the richest man in town, and should be able to run over all the children he wants. <BR/><BR/>One last point, and I fear that we have very little in common besides the Broncos. We don't define our morality by our enemies. The fact that radical terrorists are willing to blow innocent people up, does not give us permission to hook up electrodes to individuals or waterboard them. Our morality is defined by how we see individual rights. We don't have to apply our constitution to suspected terrorists, but when we torture people, we lose credibility. In fact, your moral justification for torture is essentially the terrorists justification for terrorism. It works. <BR/><BR/>We should be better.Streakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443433745929880701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-18445265333543259582007-05-20T23:20:00.000-05:002007-05-20T23:20:00.000-05:00Ubub, we are not bound by anything the UN says or ...Ubub, we are not bound by anything the UN says or does, and I honestly wish we would kick them out of the country. As for internationl treaties, we should abide by those unless they are ridiculously constraining, but I don't know of any that apply to illegal combatants like terrorists. The Geneva Convention allows any combatant fighting without a uniform or fighting in another uniform to be executed on the spot.Brett Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05023795754459092911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-29454034971077947852007-05-20T22:58:00.000-05:002007-05-20T22:58:00.000-05:00What is acceptable? Those techniques permitted by...What is acceptable? Those techniques permitted by law, including international law and all relevant treaties and conventions. <BR/><BR/>So why do we torture? Why does it persist? Perhaps because human beings are cruel. It appeals to our base nature, our sense of vengeance, not our utilitarianism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-16673721026895846772007-05-20T22:41:00.000-05:002007-05-20T22:41:00.000-05:00That should be "and potentially save hundreds or t...That should be "and potentially save hundreds or thousands of lives."Brett Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05023795754459092911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-56125468296303074972007-05-20T22:40:00.000-05:002007-05-20T22:40:00.000-05:00You still haven't said what interrogation methods ...You still haven't said what interrogation methods are acceptable to you, or how far we can go to make someone talk and potentially hundreds or thousands of lives.Brett Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05023795754459092911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-24188491880762776252007-05-20T22:38:00.000-05:002007-05-20T22:38:00.000-05:00"Is it purely that you believe that torture works ..."Is it purely that you believe that torture works and therefore is utilitarian? Or that you believe that we are morally superior to begin with?"<BR/><BR/>Both. I believe that any torture should be kept within limits, though, as I stated earlier. We should take care not to torture innocent people; interrogation methods should not cause severe, lifelong handicaps; and such methods should be a last resort. Yes, I believe that the USA, while obviously not perfect, is absolutely the best nation the world has ever seen, and therefore is morally superior to the terrorists. The USA affords more freedom and justice to its citizens than almost any other nation ever has; feeds and clothes much of the world; protected the world from Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union; has led the world in the advance of civilization and technology for more than one hundred years; and all this despite being the wealthiest, most powerful nation in history. We could enslave the world and massacre anyone who resisted if we wanted to, but we haven't; instead we've helped the world. What have the terrorists done? They treat women and non-Muslims like dirt; train their children to blow themselves up and murder as many as innocent people as possible; try to keep their people ignorant and backward; and let their people starve while they hoard all the wealth for themselves. They are evil incarnate, much like Hitler or Stalin. We, the USA, do more than is our duty to help the world; the terrorists want to enslave the world. Yes, I would say that the USA is morally superior to the terrorists, whether it practices torture or not.Brett Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05023795754459092911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5397103.post-61507243976312148352007-05-20T22:24:00.000-05:002007-05-20T22:24:00.000-05:00So are you saying, btw, that it was fine when the ...So are you saying, btw, that it was fine when the Japanese waterboarded American soldiers? That should have been considered perfectly appropriate--and even defensible? What about when the Soviet Union used such techniques--fake burials, hypothermia, waterboarding, fake executions? <BR/><BR/>Saddam Hussein liked waterboarding.Streakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443433745929880701noreply@blogger.com