Simple JUSTICE - Not a witch hunt
It's time to restore JUSTICE. The Department of Justice. The meaning of Justice. And the carrying out of justice - which includes Habeas Corpus and the right to counsel, innocent till proven guilty and trial only after careful investigation and judicious prosecution.
True Justice does not involve a witch hunt. Nor does it involve a media circus. It need not distract the country - for years or even days. It is the quiet, boring gathering of evidence. The tedious and painstaking sifting of information, attention to the law, and the filing of briefs, the briefing of grand juries, the slow, methodical plodding of quiet feet on the well-trodden road of our judicial system.
There really is no way to argue against justice. And We the People have every right to demand it. We have every right to demand redress. And we will only know our justice system has returned to its roots and its values, once we know that it turns once again for us and not against us.
I will continue to call for Justice.
I will not call for a witch hunt. For that way is no justice. That is a straw man, a fool's errand.
The sad thing is that even Justice will not necessarily bring all the crimes to light or adequately address our anguish, our horror, our shame - at what has been done in our name, against our will. Likely a few signature crimes will be enough. Maybe only one. Because a case for war crimes need not indict for every war crime. Just as a mass murderer need not be tried for every murder. But these crimes cry out for Justice. National and international law and even common decency cry out for Justice.
It will take a long time to remake the Justice Department - to erase the injustices perpetrated in the name of expediency and dirty politics and cowardly fear. I have no doubt that the Obama administration, under the able direction of those he has appointed to the Justice Department, will be able to restore that Department to its former place as a beacon of hope for those especially who lack the power and influence to advocate for themselves.
But we cannot move forward unless we insist that Justice look backward. Backward to redress crimes against people who lacked power and influence, who, being totally alone in cells without food, warmth, clothing, sleep, or common human decency were bereft of every legal protection, guaranteed under our laws and by international law.
Put yourself in the place of just one of those poor souls - in Guantanamo or god knows where. Alone. Totally alone. Cold. Hungry. Wet. Unable to escape the cacophony of noise or subjected to an absence of sound, sight, touch, smell. Totally alone. Without human companionship. Unable to call for help. Or any Justice.
We cannot hold our heads up till we allow Justice to take its slow, plodding, exacting course. And no amount of fixing the Justice Department will suffice if Justice is not served.
Whether justice will be served via a Special Prosecutor or some other Prosecutorial method is up to the new Attorney General, in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel. I leave it to the wheels of Justice to decide. But decide they must. And transparency must be served as well. I await the public notification of that. It must come soon. And it surely must come.
Or I, for one, will not let this go. NOT EVER.
True Justice does not involve a witch hunt. Nor does it involve a media circus. It need not distract the country - for years or even days. It is the quiet, boring gathering of evidence. The tedious and painstaking sifting of information, attention to the law, and the filing of briefs, the briefing of grand juries, the slow, methodical plodding of quiet feet on the well-trodden road of our judicial system.
There really is no way to argue against justice. And We the People have every right to demand it. We have every right to demand redress. And we will only know our justice system has returned to its roots and its values, once we know that it turns once again for us and not against us.
I will continue to call for Justice.
I will not call for a witch hunt. For that way is no justice. That is a straw man, a fool's errand.
The sad thing is that even Justice will not necessarily bring all the crimes to light or adequately address our anguish, our horror, our shame - at what has been done in our name, against our will. Likely a few signature crimes will be enough. Maybe only one. Because a case for war crimes need not indict for every war crime. Just as a mass murderer need not be tried for every murder. But these crimes cry out for Justice. National and international law and even common decency cry out for Justice.
It will take a long time to remake the Justice Department - to erase the injustices perpetrated in the name of expediency and dirty politics and cowardly fear. I have no doubt that the Obama administration, under the able direction of those he has appointed to the Justice Department, will be able to restore that Department to its former place as a beacon of hope for those especially who lack the power and influence to advocate for themselves.
But we cannot move forward unless we insist that Justice look backward. Backward to redress crimes against people who lacked power and influence, who, being totally alone in cells without food, warmth, clothing, sleep, or common human decency were bereft of every legal protection, guaranteed under our laws and by international law.
Put yourself in the place of just one of those poor souls - in Guantanamo or god knows where. Alone. Totally alone. Cold. Hungry. Wet. Unable to escape the cacophony of noise or subjected to an absence of sound, sight, touch, smell. Totally alone. Without human companionship. Unable to call for help. Or any Justice.
We cannot hold our heads up till we allow Justice to take its slow, plodding, exacting course. And no amount of fixing the Justice Department will suffice if Justice is not served.
Whether justice will be served via a Special Prosecutor or some other Prosecutorial method is up to the new Attorney General, in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel. I leave it to the wheels of Justice to decide. But decide they must. And transparency must be served as well. I await the public notification of that. It must come soon. And it surely must come.
Or I, for one, will not let this go. NOT EVER.
Advertisement
When cries for "justice" start with a presumption of guilt what we have is a witch hunt. We need to understand going into this process that the answers may not be so black and white. That questions of quilt and innocence may require the taking down of a whole host of complicit politicians who abdicated their Constitutional responsibilities.
We must look into what happened these last eight years honestly and without rancor, but we must be willing to accept the outcome of that investigation - even if it determines that no laws were broken or that crimes were given legitimacy by the cowardly acts of a Congress not held accountable by the people. We must also understand that more than half the country probably doesn't see it as a matter of crimes having been committed. The continuing division of the electorate makes matters of guilt and innocence a much more rocky path than would otherwise be found in a court of law.
At the end of the day, these crimes (and many, many others along the path of American history) were committed in our name with our full approval and complicity, if only by our silence or inability to turn out and vote twice a year, every two years. To really achieve justice, we must also be willing to take responsibility for the part we played and acknowledge the structural problems that make this sort of thing possible.
Like many generations before us, moving forward and achieving great things requires us to swallow medicine that would otherwise be intolerable because we are at least partially responsible for the government we condemn.
Thomas Paine said it best in Common Sense:
January 21, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice delayed is justice denied. It is up to the Justice Dept to pursue this. You seem to presume nothing has happened. We have statements that torture occurred by no less than a judge.
January 21, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I presume nothing is true until I know all the facts. Seems to be a justifiable manner in which to live my life. It seems a better process than jumping to conclusions ahead of a full accounting.
If Congress passes laws making "torture" legal or abrogating some of our responsibilities under certain treaties, then no laws were broken no matter how immoral the act may be or how much my conscience is offended. I have worked hard this last year to divorce my ideology from my ideals.
I don't want to be too disappointed if the Bush Junta was smart enough to cover their tracks. I also don't believe prosecuting them is worth dividing the country more than it has already been these last forty years. Moving forward and succeeding as a nation may in fact require inhuman powers of forgiveness on the part of many progressives.
This may be a moment where "justice" delayed delivers for more benefits to our country than justice delivered.
January 21, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice is blind. To call for justice is to call for it's slow, steady pursuit of as much truth as can be ascertained.
I'm calling for justice.
January 21, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
its - not it's...
But justice, for sure.
January 21, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as liberals can keep a presumption of innocence going into the process, I am sure that conservatives will view the resulting proceedings as being motivated by justice. Otherwise, what we will have is more division and distraction at the very moment we need unity and purpose.
January 21, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where in the blog did it call for anything other than a lawful process?
All I'm calling for is that the Dept of Justice do its work. It's quiet, methodical work. I am absolutely insisting that the process not be some kind of public media circus, but instead must be carried out quietly, behind the scenes - with the exception that there be transparency that "something" has been initiated.
I want nothing less than blind Justice herself, with her scales in her hand.
January 21, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't mean to imply that you were, only that certain turns of phrases imply you have made up your mind.
In fact, the very last sentence in the blog says you will never let it go. Is that really true? What if the Justice Department determines that no laws were actually broken? If what actually happens as a result is that we learn what laws need to be undone vice who is going to prison? Will you still not let it go? If not, then justice is not what is being called for.
I am simply offering what may be a different point of view than that normally found in the choir. I figured you would appreciate feedback on places where the "other side" might not understand where you are coming from, even if they agree with the underlying principle.
We see things from two very different perspectives in this country. A handicap that isn't likely to disappear over night, no matter who is president.
January 21, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will never let this go until I am certain that DoJ is pursuing an investigation. How they do it matters not. But they must pursue one. That's all I expect. And we must be informed that such a judicial and judicious investigation has been ordered.
I am satisfied to leave it to the Justice Dept. I assume that once the public is notified of some type of Special Prosecutor or whatever they want to call it, that we will hear no more until such an investigation has been concluded.
I am free to call something torture if I want to, but you may have noticed that I did not even use that word once in the blog. Not once.
I would be very upset if any investigation operated like a witch hunt. That is not justice. And you will admit, I hope, that even my title was chose in view of that end. Simple Justice. In my first paragraph I noted a presumption of innocence etc.
The Dept of Justice must be free to do its work. But it must do its work. Obama himself wants a government "that works."
January 21, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. As I suspected, we have no quarrel on this issue.
January 21, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see little agreement here myself. But I can clearly see the import of this blog to you. It encourages me to keep on this.
January 21, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Therein lies the essential conundrum for this country. Even when "conservatives" and "liberals" agree on what needs to be done, they can't agree on how to do it. I suspect we will be working through this handicap for the entirety of Barack's two very successful terms in office.
January 21, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of platitudes there. I just want investigators to roll up their sleeves and get to work. I'm not asking if they're liberal or conservative. Patrick Fitzgerald would suit me just fine!
January 21, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't speaking of the investigations themselves, just the tone used when calling for them. You said there was little agreement that you could, while I see mostly agreement even if we approach it from two different directions. That was really what I was commenting on.
January 21, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're trying to make it look as if we're in agreement. There's a bit of agreement only is what I'm saying.
January 21, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 22, 2009 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it does distract us, I don't foresee that happening for years. A thorough investigation will likely take years.
Most of a trial will likely be so boring with details that many people will tune out.
We'll have to see how this plays out. Sounds like you're assuming this will happen. I hope your prediction is right.
January 22, 2009 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you miss the last 8 years entirely?
Conservatives don't ever consider anything to be just if they don't like it. They're the biggest hypocrites on earth! They excoriate gay activity by Senator Craig but the highly illegal, long time use of prostitutes by Sen. Vittert is okay as long as he says he has asked the Lord for forgiveness. Please! There's nothing that can be done to satisy those people. Nixon was given every benefit of the doubt and treated more than fairly. They still are outraged at what happened to him (and he got off scott free!). They think Oliver North who was a rogue (engaged in and convicted of multiple felonies on the part of the Reagan White House) got picked on! They think we are under no obligation to observe international law unless we like the law and it favors us. They think the UN, which we created, is a plot against us. They think They think CNN is liberally biased for God's sake and that the Libby pardon was obligatory despite the man's clear guilt in outing a CIA officer! They think Ted Stevens should have been pardoned too!
You're only kidding yourself if you really think anything would satisfy the lunatic conservatives of the Republican Party (which is all of them by the "conservatives" by the way).
January 21, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make my point for me once again.
Your version of "justice" is to string everyone up who claims to be conservative or a republican and truth be damned. They are all guilty! That, pal, is a witch hunt. If "conservatives" truly never change, Barack Obama would have never been elected.
You call yourself a "liberal" yet you're rhetoric is everything but liberal. It is dogmatic and vengeful and refuses to envision an America that stretches back further than the culture wars of the 1960s.
This is the precise reason I caution democrats to reign in their far left wing. Otherwise, we will simply continue on as a bitterly divided country, accomplishing nothing over the next four years and making President Palin a distinct possibility instead of a Twilight Zone nightmare.
January 21, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Psssst... Jason! I think if you check it out quick there's a chance Rush might still be on the air in your area. If not, Hannity is no doubt going to be on soon. Your impression of their sad tactics is pretty good, but needs some work before you become a full blown dittohead. Keep workin on it bud!
January 21, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironically enough, it is you are who are doing the fair impression of far right blowhards. Love the ad hominem attacks, though, that help make my point for me.
January 21, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, he hasn't offered any indication of reading what you are writing or even thinking about it. He's just starting off assuming you're wrong without showing how or why. He's caught in a classic partisan delusion.
January 22, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for noticing, Mike. I may not always agree with everything that is said around here, but I try to give every opinion the respect and consideration it deserves. The truly ironic thing is that I agree from a purely philosophical standpoint with the most liberal of liberal positions. I simply think we need to find a new way to accomplish such substantive change and have found that way of thought embodied in our new president way more often than the party faithful.
January 22, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your righteous anger is more than justified, oleeb! And eloquently expressed.
January 21, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP, I write this knowing how closely we agree on the vast majority of topics and how good your intentions are. Please understand why some of us (just as angry at the Bush administration as you) suspect that this way lies madness and suffering enough to dwarf the preceding eight years.
As you tell Jason at the near-outset, above:
Yet in your post, you write with the moral certitude of a foregone conclusion, which is anything but "blind Justice":
Further, you justify ad hominem attacks against your opponents:
I am sorry, TheraP. You seem to be leading a lynch mob. Justice is never obtained that way. Our rule of law has as much to do with process as crime and punishment.
It pains me to say all this. Yet you toy with a Pandora's box of further woe.
January 21, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it bad to be angry and want to see criminals punished when over 100,000 people have died as a result of those criminal acts? And even if it was one person only that has died due to the lawbreaking of the Bush regime, why is it bad to be angry about that murder? Would you see this as a lynch mob if it were your son or daughter who died or was maimed or driven to insanity? It is morally and legally wrong to engage in the acts we know for a fact were committed. How do we turn our heads and act like it didn't happen and claim to be in any way concerned about such things happening again? Perhaps next time it will be your son or your daughter.
January 21, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ripper, if you think I'm leading a lynch mob, you are sadly mistaken. I've done many, many posts on this. And you never accused me of a lynch mob in those posts. So why this sudden accusation?
We are obliged by law to investigate War Crimes - if any have been committed. It's as simple as that. A lynch mob is lawless. I am urging that the Dept of Justice must look into this.
I am private citizen. If I want to call something a crime, I can do so. I don't work for the Dept of Justice. I want them to investigate. And others too have used the words "war crimes."
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree over this.
I want to see the Rule of Law restored. I want to see the Constitution obeyed. Our Constitution mandates that treaties be obeyed. We are signatories to the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against torture - which mandates that countries pass legislation in conformity with the convention against torture - which has been done. Thus we're mandated to investigate.
It's our law. I want it enforced. How can that possibly be called a lynch mob? But accuse me of that if you want. I can't control how you view my words. And that will not in any way change my view of things. Indeed, the outcry here only strengthens my convictions that this must be looked into.
Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. But I know I'm not alone in my view. That I know. No less than Eric Holder called "waterboarding" torture. No less than Dawn Johnsen, the new OLC, has said war crimes must be addressed. A case was just dismissed at Guantanamo because of "torture" being used during interrogations.
Once a Special Prosecutor, or whatever, is named to look into this, it will all happen quietly behind closed doors and it may be years before we learn the results of any investigations. That's all I'm asking for.
January 21, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well said, TheraP.
And I would react strongly to any accusation that I seek a witch hunt in demanding accountability from my President. But I do want our priorities to be set straight. Our President swears an oath to defend, preserve, and protect the Constitution. In his oath, we ask virtually nothing more of him than that, but we also expect nothing less. When it appears that the oath may have in fact been wilfully violated at considerable cost to the rights of others, it is appropriate that we pursue Justice as our primary order of business. We have no choice. It is not a negotiable policy choice, but rather a responsibility to our sacred Constitution and to the world community in which we live.
And it should be accomplished, as TheraP keeps insisting, in an orderly way in accoradnce with our Constitution. Let DOJ pursue this without prejudice - one way or the other.
January 21, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you, SJ! Bless you.
Yes, we're looking at something very simple here. Simple Justice - as I put it in my title.
January 21, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with Ripper regarding your commending of Oleeb's "righteous anger". His anger was expressed in terms of they and them - all conservatives in one fell swoop. I do not believe that is the message of your posts, or the belief that you hold. You wish for justice regarding those specific individuals who have committed alleged crimes. On both sides of the aisle and ideology. Let us all hope for the truth to prevail. However - quietly and behind closed doors may be wishing for a wonderland scenario. Once the public and the media are made aware, as you necessitate, the doors will be blown off their hinges and the noise deafening. Perhaps worth the collateral damage, perhaps not.
January 21, 2009 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. I do not castigate everyone. Not at all. (and sometimes I can be accused of skimming, but I honestly think oleeb has his heart in the right place) Thanks for your comment, stilli. Mine is not really anger. It's a moral duty we have. To call for action. I await word from DoJ. As soon as we have an AG. Once we have that, I can relax.
January 21, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me, barefooted, I erred in calling you stilli.
January 21, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the spirit of your posts, does having one's "heart in the right place" negate the actual words? Or deeds (not inferring Oleeb)? Many defenders of Bush, especially during the days following September 11, 2001, when fear had a cold grip on all of us, would likely use those very words. We'll give up our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, our very rule of law to follow him because although we're too frozen to think straight ... his heart's in the right place. He'll take care of us and get the bad guys. Members of Congress were the first in line. But we all cheered.
January 22, 2009 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've read many, many of oleeb's posts - I'm not going on just that one. I view oleeb as a prophetic voice here. Reminds me of Jeremiah, not known to be a man of reasoned speech, but calling Israel to account with great rage and lamentation.
I respect your feelings here, barefooted. And yes, your voice matters (I saw your blog). Very much. Each of us has our own voice. Each our own limitations. Not every comment is perfectly crafted - hardly any actually. But if my support for that particular comment of oleeb's offends you, then I sincerely beg your pardon.
As for oleeb, I don't endorse his every word - I endorse his voice. Just as I endorse yours. You are a tender soul and it concerns me that you feel disturbed by this issue or the conflict it generates. (And we haven't elected oleeb, so I have no fears that his voice will damage the country. There's a huge difference when someone is writing on a blog and when they're president, in terms of doing damage.)
I thank you for returning here to discuss this further.
I extend my hand in peace. Namaste.
January 22, 2009 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to be clear that I was not referring to Oleeb in my second comment regarding Bush. Simply the phrase you used to describe him. Nor did I ever intend to give the indication that you followed Bush at any point - up to and including the aftermath of September 11th, 2001.
By now, you have read my post with a different eye than previously. You know I was not speaking of myself, but of us all. Pieces of a whole.
The comments here are that, as well. All worthy of consideration, all a part of the pattern that binds us. We do an injustice to ourselves and each other when we let righteous indignation - no matter how steeped in truth - divide us.
All voices matter. It is simply more difficult to listen to those that we don't immediately understand.
January 23, 2009 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
barefooted, I got everything you were saying, both here and in your post. You did well to say what you did. And I apologize for being in a hurry or distracted. I appreciate your voice. I heard the rebuke. I've accepted it in the good grace it was given. I hope this satisfies your concerns. And I thank you for your graceful presence here.
January 23, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, let's be clear: I never followed bush.
Not even after 9/11. I was proud my Senator voted against the Patriot Act. And many other of bush's policies as well. I did everything I could to try and prevent the war on Iraq.
January 22, 2009 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I reread that particular comment of oleeb's, yup, I think he kind of lost it there. It does no good to paint everyone with a broad brush. Particular people, but not everyone in a group.
January 22, 2009 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't blame TheraP for my disgust at JEM and his tedious right wing blather. I'll be happy to take the blame. Furthermore, it is all the conservatives and Republicans and enough of the Democrats along with them that are the problem here. Our politics has for far too long dispensed with common decency and morality in favor of playing "the game" of politics and it is high time we returned to enforcing some kind of standard for moral conduct on the part of our leaders when it comes to serious violations of our laws, our constitution and our international treaties. That's the bottom line here. It's quite simple really. The only complications come from those who want to avoid facing the truth and dealing with it.
January 22, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, dear oleeb, let's hear it for moral conduct!
And you do remind me of Jeremiah at times! :)
January 22, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, tedious right-wing blather is what I have been writing here. I am surprised people can even tell me apart from Savage or Rush.
Your lack of understanding is only surpassed by your inability to think reasonably and rationally about anything that doesn't confirm or conform to your very narrow view of reality.
Sure am glad that much more than the democratic base is working to help Obama succeed or we would be well and truly screwed.
January 22, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ruby Ridge? Waco? Who brought up that business and tried to equate it with war crimes? Nobody talks about that stuff but wingnuts and dittoheads. Nobody. You just became a Republican in August and you are not a right winger? Please! We aren't all that gullible. There's no one left in the Republican Party but right wingers. And your whole argument on this topic is nothing but pure psuedo-intellectual sophistry. You would make a great commentator on FOX.
January 22, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I equated those things to the same arrogance and conceit that led us to Iraq. How many Iraqi children did Bill Clinton kill through sanctions instead of solutions. Again, partisan nonsense that anyone can smell a mile away.
January 22, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a presumption of guilt.."
JEM, you are mistaking the PRESUMPTION of guilt with with the SUSPICION of guilt. The evidence leads most of us to suspect guilt, but we do not presume it until it is proven.
When evidence creates suspicion, then investigation should follow.
An investigation is neither an innocent or a guilty verdict, it is the public's tool to deal with the SUSPICION of guilt that is created by evidence.
Anyone who suggests there isn't evidence that Bush and Cheney committed war-crimes is either in total denial or they are working for Darth.
An investigation would end the denial. And you jumped to "presumption" without even acknowledging "suspicion", which makes me suspect, and even presume you are listening to Rush and Hannity.
Dumb and Dumber, leading the blind off towards the ditch...
January 22, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, because I am a republican or because I disagree with you? Both your suspicion and your presumption is wrong, which leads me to believe you aren't even reading what I am writing.
If I was on a jury panel and the defense attorney asked me: "Do you suspect this man is guilty of his crimes?" an affirmative answer would disqualify me from serving on that jury just as surely as if I had said I presumed he was guilty.
I am not sure why you need to descend, as so many before you on this thread, to casting aspersions or putting words in my mouth.
January 22, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I presume nothing is true until I know all the facts."
I know of very few events in life where all the facts are known. I believe that knowledge of some facts—as long as they are substantive—is sufficient for presuming it is true.
Ugly things happened in our name. We did not give approval for these things being done, because we were not given even a few of the facts. We were given obfuscations and misleading rhetoric. We were misdirected as much as a good magician misdirects the audience to perform a trick.
We have plenty of "known knowns" left over from the last eight years. It will take work to find out what the "unknown unknowns" and even the "unknown knowns" are.
But unless we want another set of magicians misdirecting us in our government, we had better find out what happened and ensure it will never happen again.
January 21, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo! Thanks for commenting. :)
January 21, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we were so convinced that we were being lied to and led astray, then the voters should have turned out en masse to protest. If that didn't work, then politicians should have lost their jobs every two years until they did our bidding.
As long as we refuse to accept responsibility for our role in our own debasement, nothing will ever change. We are all responsible for those things done in our name. Some may even have agree with many of them. None of this is so black and white. Deep in the shades of gray is where the truth usually resides.
Making up my mind based on myths and supposition is what I refuse to do, all the hair splitting aside. We can't presume guilt because what was done offends us. If we collectively accept responsibility, then perhaps collectively we can change the system that allowed these things to come to fruition.
This is hardly a new tale, despite the new characters and the modified plot. We have long been a nation of laws that were mandatory for common citizen and purely advisory for those in power.
January 21, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, you sure are working hard against sunshine.
January 21, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Advocating personal responsibility on all our parts isn't fighting against sunshine.
To say that this was all done against our will and without our knowledge is rewriting history. To say that our goal is to never let this sort of thing happen again and then totally ignore a key fact that led to it happening is fooling ourselves at best.
At worst, it is making sure we fail before we ever get started.
January 21, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Torture was done with our knowledge? Please....
January 21, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have been "torturing" people since we started having secret operations aimed at thwarting other secret operations. That this came out into the open is the only unique part of Bush's years in office. Plenty of rendition going on during Clinton's years in office as well as every president since the end of World War II. I am not saying it is right, but to think that this is all new seems ridiculously naive to me.
January 21, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Say what you will, I'm calling for justice! Your sidetracks won't sidetrack me!
January 21, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. I am right there with you! When we are done with Bush, we can start heading backward until we run out of guilty presidents. Does it matter if they are still alive or not?
January 21, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This, sadly, is true. If we want to pursue Bush-Era crimes, mustn't we pursue Clinton Era ones? I believe rendition started under Clinton.
I'm leaning towards JEM's perspective on this, only because at this point I think most people calling for JUSTICE (not you necessarily TheraP) are only thinking in a vacuum of things done by GWB these past 8 years. If we want JUSTICE, we need to be prepared to accept that we weren't living in a perfect world on Jan. 19, 2000.
January 21, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not telling any prosecutor where to start or what to rule out. I just want to be sure we obey the law. And the law says that War Crimes must be prosecuted.
Let them investigate War Crimes wherever it takes them!
January 21, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, and I wholeheartedly agree.
In fact, for any such investigation to overcome the hew and cry from the right and be successful, it would have to turn a harsh eye on more than just the Bushies.
January 21, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
But with a nod to Jason, having voted for Clinton, I feel partly responsible for Rendition.
January 21, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are responsible for what our country did - even if we did not vote for the perpetrators.
It was done in the name of America. It was done in my name. And therefore I will not stand idly by and leave my name sullied. I am seeking redress, by my country, for what my country did!
January 21, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pursue them all, but you will find without any question that the level and degree of criminal behavior during the Bush years outstrips anything previously known by a very large margin. The problem with this handwringing is that people who make this claim that we will somehow be obligated to look into every President, etc... is that it is a false argument. Because we investigate crime a that we know occured, do we need then to investigate the possibility of crime in all instances in the past? No.
We know these crimes occured. that is indisputable. The question is who was involved and at what level? The truth is that we have had such investigations in the past that were very useful and productive and that helped our nation. You seem to be unaware of them.
The Church Committee, for example, went into great depth on the illegal acts of our intelligence agencies and the Executive Branch from the inception of the CIA through the moment they were in. They exposed activities that were obviously immoral but not, in numerous cases, technically illegal under US law or in some cases not clearly illegal so they passed laws making such activities indisputably illegal. Many of those laws were broken in siginificant degree for the first time under W. Extensive investigations and prosecutions took place in previous wars and in previous eras of illegal government activities.
Prosecutions have occured in the past for such crimes, but direct involvement by high ranking officials at the policy level was not the issue then. It is notable that in Viet Nam when US Personnel were prosecuted for the war crime of torture via waterboarding and other illegal methods there was no coverup that we're aware of. Those methods were illegal and not endorsed at either the policy level or by the military commanders. We are not operating in a vacuum with no history here. The idea that the widespread criminal activity of the Bush administration should somehow be ignored is what begs disaster. TheraP is calling for closing, not opening Pandora's box.
January 21, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goerge Bush lost two effing elections! The first one, he got appointed by the Supreme Court! The second one was finagled in Florida and Ohio! Ask Mike Connell -- oh, never mind --
What were you saying? Because the evidence died with this guy. Go here: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Killed_GOP_pilot_suspected_plane_had_1222.html
January 21, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, how impolite of you to bring up such messy details! After all, it isn't as though people who seize power illegally are any different from those duly elected!
January 21, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about what we think happened, it's about what can be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. Sorry for pointing out the messy fact that these guys may have covered their tracks so well that convicting them may not be possible or even desirable to Obama's DoJ. I am simply advising that we not be surprised (or disappointed) if that is the case, because they aren't getting away with anything that many presidents before didn't get away with in spirit if not degree.
January 21, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, you have to know who's complicit before you take action. We know some things occurred, but we need to know more. And, except for people like Addington, Yoo, and Gonzales—over whose jobs we had no power—it's not yet clear who knew what.
Remember the warrantless wiretapping that the Gang of Eight apparently approved? Well, from what came out even then, there were things they weren't told.
It seems that you're faulting an ignorant electorate for ignorance that was mostly unavoidable. We can't all spend our days ferreting through government documents, and even if we could, please acknowledge just how much has been kept secret the last eight years. Much of what we've learned has come from people who spoke out at risk to their careers, because their consciences finally made them.
Having a thorough investigation into torture, at the very least, will allow those who did not have the courage to step forward during that administration a venue in which to reveal what they know.
January 21, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I am blaming a mostly ignorant and complacent electorate for not holding our leaders accountable.
Ignorance can be cured by reading books and paying closer attention. At a minimum, if your life isn't better today than it was when you voted someone into office, it is your duty to show up and vote them out of office.
Americans have never taken their part of the Constitutional compact all that seriously.
January 21, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you not understand how specious your argument is? Fer Pete's sake, man, you will make yerself dizzy for all the circles you spin.
Those of us of perhaps the less schizoid persuasion have always had great difficulty turning out en masse, there being only one of me and all that, you know?. In trying to raise the alarm, however, we individuals have known keen frustration in encountering milquetoasts who insist instead that "we should simply vote them out of office."
Pretty difficult to accomplish with an electorate that will not listen or who fails to share the sense of alarm and will not entertain arguments otherwise. (NOTE: "Campaigns" usually precede elections, and what are campaigns if not the airing of grievances such as TheraP and others have tried to accomplish here.)
Beautiful prose wrapped around bunkum.
I believe TheraP is indeed accepting responsibility and is attempting to get others to see that they have a responsibility here as well. And yet you continue playing games. It is as if someone yells at you to come help carry the pail of water, because their neighbor just lit the house next door on fire. Your response? Sit and watch the house burn, and then declare that we all share equal responsibility for the basement fire because none of us were effective in putting the fire out. If you can't see how ludicrous your logic is here, then your comand of english prose is greatly offset by your deficit in english comprehension. Deep in the shades of grey? Fer chrissakes, man, read what you write!
In other words: "You might tell me that the house next door is on fire, but how can you know this before it is officially decreed? We can't just assume the neighbor is the culprit, even if we saw him with the gas can and matches and he has bragged about torching the place. If we collectively accept responsibility, then perhaps collectively we can put the fire out. Meanwhile, you'll have to do better than that to get my fat ass out of the chair to help you carry that pail of water."
"Hey, the world is full of wisened fat asses like me who can't be moved to action in any circumstance. Why try now? Don't worry your pretty lil' head about such matters. If it is meant for the fire to be extinguished, then someone will surely get it done."
"Meanwhile, pipe down with all your alarmist talk won't you? Your scaring the women and children."
Incredible! What next?
January 21, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No surprise that you don't get my argument and use bluster in place of logical framing to "refute" it.
Perhaps if you could develop something resembling objectivity you would understand what I am saying. As it is, I fear liberals such as yourself will be a continuing thorn in the side of the Obama administration as they try to get something down instead of drive us further apart.
Sorry to say it, but the boomers are becoming more trouble than they are worth.
January 21, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, as sleepin and I both said, in response to your comment that if we don't like a leader we should vote them out:
SEE ABOVE:
BUSH WAS NEVER ELECTED! IT IS EXTREMELY HARD TO VOTE SOMEONE OUT WHO WAS NEVER VOTED IN!
January 21, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell that to the half of the country that believes he was elected. Twice.
We have standards of reasonable doubt for a reason. The freaking Supreme Court legitimized his election the first time and there was not even a whiff of investigation the second.
I am not saying it is right. I am simply saying it is what it is. Unless you want to fight yet another civil war, understanding that more than half the electorate disagree with your stance is an important fact to understand.
January 21, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much of the country believes that adam and eve car-pooled on saddled-up dinosaurs? Since when does the prevalence of ignorance have anything to do with what is true?
January 21, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille, as I've said in the past, your humor really cracks me up! Bravo!
January 21, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Derision and hyperbole doesn't make my argument any less true. There is what you know and what you can prove. Only the later matters in a court of law.
January 22, 2009 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, that's offensive to me. People are entitled to their opinion, as you are entitled to yours for certain. But you are pleading for people to raise the tenor of the debate and here I believe that you are failing.
I'm not a boomer and I am still trying to figure out what I think about investigating the Bush administration. I'll tell you though, the more I listen to the arguments against investigation, the more I think I'd like to see investigations take place. The arguments of you and others that I have heard are not convincing.
You argue that presumption of innocence is the keystone to our justice system and you're right, but I think you're confusing the time where that presumption of innocence begins, and that is at the trial. Of course there's a presumption of guilt in the beginning. Otherwise, nobody would ever be arrested for anything. It's the jury that is instructed to begin with the presumption of innocence. Not the investigators and not the general public.
You argue that citizens should have protested en masse. Some citizens did protest fairly loudly. But the mechanism set up to determine whether those protests were valid failed us all. No one should be above the law. The Bush administration appears to have broken it and then used the Justice Dept to stifle any and all investigation of criminal activity. We elect officials and pay taxes to see our government work for us. It's ridiculous to suggest that we should protest when we want to see justice done. The system is not perfect, but it exists to execute justice on behalf of the citizenry. When I see a crime committed, I call the police. I don't stand on a street corner holding a sign in protest.
January 22, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You would have to read the entire thread to put that comment in context. Obviously it isn't all Boomers, but many are stuck in an Us versus Them mentality that will not let go and is hardly helpful or representative of what Obama is talking about.
I am not arguing against investigations. I haven't said that once. But SOME of the hue and cry from the left makes one think they are going into this with minds made up and the gibbets ready to fill with them evil repugnicans. It doesn't include the blog author, but it certainly includes many of the people I have been going back and forth with on this one and many other things involving their ideological opposites.
We should investigate under the assumption that the Bush administration is innocent of crimes that will certainly put a strain on this country anew should they be true. If they are guilty, they should be punished according to the law. If they are found innocent or not enough evidence is found to seek an indictment, liberals need to let it go.
That was my only point, as confused and corrupted as some have sought to make it.
January 22, 2009 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Investigators don't investigate under the presumption of innocence. They assume everyone is a suspect and they go about collecting facts. Until they have them, I believe they are not supposed to rule anything out.
I have read the whole thread and I think you may be round the bend on this one. I see you doing the lion's share of the name-calling here and dogmatic thinking here. You're convincing me of exactly the opposite of what you're arguing.
January 22, 2009 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Show one place where I called anyone a name. Unless, of course, you find the word liberal or democrat or progressive to be an example of name calling.
I, on the other hand, have been tagged with just about all of them. I think this is yet one more example where you guys get "offended" before you understand what I am saying and start firing with both barrels because it is how you've been conditioned to act. I am the "enemy" and away you go. I find it ironic and hypocritical and kind of sad that a "liberal" would be arguing for guilty until proven innocent as the standard mode of attaining justice.
We just got rid of that mindset and you want to bring it back?
January 22, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get a grip, Jason. First, I'm not arguing for guilty until proven innocent and I think you are willfully misunderstanding my point.
Second, please cease playing the victim card. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean it's because you're not a member of your party or their "tribe" as you so condescendingly put it. People who hold a different opinion than you do aren't necessarily stupid or blinded by their allegiance to their party.
You don't have to pretend for the duration of the Obama administration that everybody that disagrees with you is doing so because you've joined the republican party.
Finally, you asked for examples. You attacked a person and not an argument here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/01/simple-justice---not-a-witch-h.php#comment-3346750
And here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/01/simple-justice---not-a-witch-h.php#comment-3346536
You can express your views however you want, but lecturing others on their tone out of one side of your mouth while insulting them out of the other isn't just condescending. It's hypocritical.
January 22, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really, two barely examples that came after several frustrating back and forths and only after the person started attacking me first. Great examples. I think is you all that need to get a grip. If only the choir is welcome, then why bother having pews?
January 22, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
What church do you think you're in here, since you at least twice have mentioned "choir" and now mention pews?
If this were the church of truth and reason, what would be your contribution if you were in the choir and not a troll?
January 22, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There it is. The last refuge of the hack. Calling me a troll. The "choir" is the democratic party. The echo chamber. Why do you pretend to be much dumber than you actually are?
January 22, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not in the Democratic Party, for one thing.
You post like a troll, that's why I asked. And you answered like a troll, instead of answering the question asked. Easy.
January 22, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 23, 2009 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: Remaining civil when you write these sorts of screeds is becoming more and more difficult. Since I post under my own name, I am required to be a bit more measured and logical than you are with the ad hominem attacks and name calling. If this is the way you have presented your arguments all your life, no wonder "liberals" haven't accomplished much during the Boomer generation's tenure.
January 21, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If'n you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
And I'll tell you what... The beautiful look I saw on those faces on the mall yesterday? This is one liberal who will take some degree of pride in having done my part in helping to make it all possible. Truth be told, I've accomplished a great deal in this lifetime in alliance with many other liberals, and your pissant whining about "nothing being accomplished by libruls" says more about your personal inadequacies than anything found to be true in the real world.
And one more thing: I will match my rhetorical skills and my logic and my reasoning against anyone, and I usually enjoy the exercise regardless of the political philosophy of the opponent. But understand that I do not suffer fools gladly, nor do I shrink from my responsibility to compel others to defend their arguments using reason and common sense - similar to what I expect of myself. And if that makes you uncomfortable, then I suggest you might want to stay on the porch rather than try to run with the big dogs.
And lastly, the name is Jeffrey Raymond Pieterick. Hopefully that will preclude any future whining about how handicapped you are to be known as jason everett miller. But make no mistake about it - I am proud to be known as SleepinJeezus, and you will know me by the straightforward honesty in my discussions.
January 21, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
JEM, sadly, you've described yourself:
January 21, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
ooops... that was of course meant for JEM, to whom it is addressed, not for you, SJ, and I applaud your comment above!
January 21, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that is all you take from what I write, then it is you I am sad for. For an educated and empathetic woman, you really do get caught up in your tribe's antics sometimes.
January 21, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that is not all I take from what you write. But you keep engaging in what you accused someone else of. I was quoting your very words, Jason.
That's all I was pointing out.
January 21, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quote an ad hominem attack that I made. I didn't once attack the person rather than the argument they were making. When a person is communicating in an arrogant and condescending manner, pointing it out is not ad hominem.
January 21, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You came in here and started ascribing beliefs to me that I do not hold. I stand by my statement that "liberals" have been preaching progressive ideals for more than forty years and we are still fighting the same battles today. There is not a substantive record of achievement for your side to stand on over these last few decades.
You can blame it on whatever you choose, but the simple fact of the matter is that despite whatever small successes may have happened, your tactics have been mostly ineffective. Until Barack Obama came along.
Without moderate republicans, John McCain is president.
Without Barack Obama, the democrats still can't win in a country whipped to within an inch of its life by Baby Bush and Darth Cheney. That to me says there might be a lesson to be learned from your new president, but you simply engage in more partisan crap that has nothing to do with what my point was.
If I was still an independent or had joined the democratic party this August, both you and Oleeb would "tolerate" my views like many of the other moderate democrats around are tolerated. But because I am a republican, you hit with both barrels blazing as if you can't help yourself.
I will continue to fight against that sort of "liberalism" because to me it is not progressive and not helpful and will eventually drive those moderate republicans away. That is something we can't afford if our long-term goals are true, progressive change.
I am not sure if you wouldn't rather be right than do what is necessary to deliver on your stated principles.
January 21, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm....
Now that you mention it, there is an exquisite irony in taking criticism from a Republican on how to be a liberal.
And therein lies your problem, jason. You are all over the map. Tacking your arguments is an exercise in nailing jello to the wall. When you get cornered, then you resort to old, settled arguments - such as this chestnut that liberals have accomplished nothing in the last 40 years. Although such a claim is laughable on the face of it, I granted the courtesy to you of pursuing that argument some time ago to great effect. It's been firmly settled, and you know it.
You are the self professed "liberal" (oh, excuse me, I mean "Progressive") who chose to align with Republicans after eight years of Bush/Cheney. Forgive me, but it is indeed difficult to follow that kind of trajectory, and your efforts to justify it as some sort of wonderful intellectual experiment causes you to tread all over the map and to lose any consistency in your positions.
You call it nuance and wisdom and claim your vision to be intellectually superior to all political thought that has come before it. From here, it looks quite simply like a case of the one who stands for nothing will fall for anything.
January 21, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, you claim I choose to align myself with Bush and Cheney and the modern incarnation of the GOP. You base your entire understanding of me based on a logical fallacy. That make understanding impossible. It's not a hard argument to get: the republican party comes from progressive roots and needs to return there.
As a self-professed liberal you are terribly judgmental and lacking in empathy.
My positions don't change and the simple fact is that liberals do need instructions on how to be liberals. Obviously. Obama won because he communicates 180 degrees out from most liberals. That requires democrats to take a round-turn on their methods. You seem to think you can keep up the same sarcastic and scolding tone and somehow get different results.
I am way more liberal than most liberals on this site. My arguments have nothing to do with ideals or policies. I am 100% behind the platform that Obama ran on. I simply believe (and have years of history to prove) that there are other methods that can be used to reach those ends.
Barack is the embodiment of that idea.
January 21, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hold the damn phone a minute . . .
Oh boy oh boy oh boy....
Those scary nasty talking "libruuuuuuuuls" of the baby boomer era have offered nothing worthwhile in the eyes of the poor ol' blustery babbling bullshit spewing self-anointed middle of the road right-winger?
Well well . . . do tell.
Good God ya'll!
~OGD~
January 22, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see the list of things accomplished over the last forty years.
I have been hearing about the environment and living wages and health care and pay equality and all the rest for my entire life. It wasn't until a new generation started to take over that things started to get done on those progressive fronts. The problem is the culture war you have been living since the 1960s. It keeps your generation lined up along ideological divides, firing for all your worth and not giving a damn about collateral damage.
I suppose we could chalk it up to coincidence, but that is too much of a stretch for me.
January 22, 2009 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Uh . . .
I think the blustery big-bossman should sit on his thumb and munch on plum.
I'm not anyone's servant-boy...
Maybe he should hire someone else do the research for him.
Hahahahaha . . .
~OGD~
January 22, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
There it is. The obligatory suggestion for some sort of rude act having to do with my ass. You are tiresome, Billy.
January 22, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo, SJ!
January 21, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you missed it, let me slow down what I am saying using your overwrought metaphor: Standing on the curb shouting and screaming that we must track down the alleged arsonist before we extinguish the flames is stupid.
Assuming we know any or even most of the facts before we even begin investigating is the shortest way toward dividing the country just when Obama brought us together. Using the right wing's methods toward different ends doesn't make them anymore right in the left's hands.
Sarcasm and arrogance is not a recipe for being understood.
January 21, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Logic usually works for me.
Where in anything that I've written (Or TheraP or others on this topic) can you find anything other than a call for due process to be engaged in a criminal investigation of alleged crimes based upon a reasoned suspicion that these crimes have been committed.
It is you who introduces all these qualifiers concerned about half the people in the country who "might not like this," or the fact that it might not be real convenient to pursue justice at this time, or whatever other contortions you can cook up just to polish bullshit with a patina of faux wisdom and knowledge.
There is plenty of detail on record to at least convene a "Grand Jury." And there should be a plain understanding that we will not stop short of pursuing these alleged violations of human rights and our Constitution for any reason. Without Liberty, we have nothing, and so there is no greater charge for our government and ourselves than the defense of Liberty, regardless of how politically unpopular it might be or how inconvenient it is to exercise this solemn responsibility.
January 21, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do I win the prize for being the 100th post?
January 21, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I'll give you a prize!
January 21, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I might add, no matter how high or low the persons who might have abridged our liberties or been the object of such abridgment.
January 21, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not debating the need for investigations nor the need to establish a clear preference for the rule of law, but to do so without clear understanding that this will be the first time in American history that we have done so may lead to a tone and tenor that comes off as anything but just.
It's not a qualifier. It's not justification for not looking into things. It is a simple acknowledgment that if the goal is justice then the path must be narrow and straight. I never claimed that Thera was seeking vengence, only that certain phrasing may come off as such from many people we must seek to convince of the processes legitimacy.
I would really appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth every time you offer a rebuttal to what I am writing.
January 21, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you wrote is a thing of beauty. Bravo!
January 21, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, oleeb. I kinda' had a feeling you would appreciate it. :O)
January 21, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Mutual Adoration Society in full force.
January 21, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Stop the frickin' crying . . .
Someone get a hanky, quick.
I can't stand seeing snot running out of a supposedly grown man's nose.
Unless it's at a funeral...
~OGD~
January 22, 2009 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
No surprise that OGD joins the circle jerk.
January 22, 2009 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Ooooo . . .
Circle jerk?
Now the blustery bag of bullshit has sunk into accusing a group of mass masterbation.
Wow! Such high and mighty discourse from such a progressive right-winger.
And I'm not surprised that this clown looks upon masterbation as something "dirty" and "uncouth." I bet this yo-yo isn't even aware that female self-masterbation often relieves migraine headaches.
He ought to try it sometime.
~OGD~
January 22, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lovely response. Just goes to show you are just as incapable of self-reflection as the "right wingers" you so like to denigrate.
January 22, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: It is in fact mental group masturbation when all you do is stand around and congratulate each other on how astute and intelligent your contributions are. Seems you are the only blustery bag of bullshit around here. The irony is you will never see it for yourself.
January 22, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hey . . .
Sit and spin butthead!
~OGD~
January 22, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This assumes that the laws legalizing torture or abrogating treaties pass Constitutional muster.
Given that we signed treaties which explicitly criminalize torture, and further explicitly require that such crimes be prosecuted to the fullest extent of lay, and more importantly that per the Constitution, those treaties once signed are the law of the land - they CANNOT pass Constitutional muster.
I.e. Laws were broken. And would have been under your hypothetical as well.
I'd also like to point out that the public declarations of a federal judge on legal status fall pretty close to what can be deemed indisputable facts.
Justice, nor fairness, does not requiring bent over backwards contortions to construe behavior in the best, most legal light possible. It requires treating the statements of victims and perpetrators with equal credulity, colored by discovered facts.
January 22, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, should the decision that comes out the other end of a fair and sober process find that treaties and laws were broken, I don't think anyone would find fault with that outcome.
To enter the process with preformed conclusions, though, is supposed to be against the rules. Many of us didn't agree with the Supreme Court putting Bush into office, yet our system allows for the SC to decide what is or isn't Constitutional.
I don't agree with it, but that is the system we have. The only place were guilt is self-evident is in dictatorships. I would prefer we avoid making Obama a benevolent dictator to counter Bush's malevolent dictator in some sort of plan for evening the scale of justice.
I am simply advocating calm and reasoned discourse as we discover who did what to whom.
January 22, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of WWII combat veterans are still alive. Maybe you ought to start in on them first. After all, the longer you wait, more and more of them will escape your justice just by dying. Then the Korean war vets, lots of them dying now too. Better get crackin'!!!
January 21, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can be sure I've been arguing politics with my 91 year old repub dad since I was 15 years old! Yet I certainly honor his Naval service.
January 21, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
pssst...Thera ( she says in hushed tones) don't feed the troll...
January 21, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, dear stilli! (I try hard not to. But your advice strengthens my resolve. How could I not listen to you?) :)
January 21, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"At the end of the day, these crimes (and many, many others along the path of American history) were committed in our name with our full approval and complicity, if only by our silence or inability to turn out and vote twice a year, every two years."
Jason, I usually have a great deal of respect for your reasoning, but this is bullshit! I never approved of these crimes (belligerent invasion of Iraq, detainee abuse, warrantless wiretapping), I made a lot of noise about it (to my elected reps among others) and I voted my conscience every chance I had. And that goes for a hell of a lot of other people, too. So don't you try to tell me I provided ANY approval or complicity.
January 21, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand how it may seem counter-intuitive on blog for political junkies, but that you did your best does nothing to change the fact that Americans are still complicit for not holding our leaders accountable.
In a representative democracy, the collective "we" are responsible for everything our government does. With 96% of incumbents being re-elected each election, an average of 18% turnout for primary elections is a pretty key statistic in my mind and contributes directly to our misery. Our guilt is as a group, no matter how many individuals may have done what is right throughout the years.
As Paine noted, we are responsible for the means by which we suffer in a representative republic - either by action or inaction.
January 21, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if dissent is not unanimous across the populace, my actions mean nothing? Hogwash. I've gotta say you're coming across as sanctimonious on this one.
January 21, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said dissent means nothing, only that collectively we are responsible for the actions our government takes if we refuse to turn out and vote in big enough numbers to keep them honest. I am not sure what is so controversial about that statement.
Call me whatever names you choose, but that doesn't change the facts.
Maybe if "liberals" had been more effective then none of this would have happened? Maybe if "liberals" had found a way to talk to "conservatives" without being condescending and scolding then we would have all come together and demanded more from our leaders. Maybe if "liberals" had actually supported Jimmy Carter instead of cannibalizing themselves we would be in a different position today.
Call it sanctimonious if you will, but I try not to blame other people for my mistakes.
January 21, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you'll note, I did not say you ARE sanctimonious - I said you are coming across that way. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but that's how your comments are striking me. Your tone seems condescending and dismissive.
January 21, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironically enough, so does yours. Where does that leave us? I still say that we must become the change we seek. For progressives to finally bring substantive and sustainable changes to this divided country, we may have to take responsibility for things that may not even be our fault. I freely admit that it is a bitter pill to swallow, but one that may be necessary nonetheless.
January 21, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem taking responsibility for what's happened in our name. That's why I also am taking responsibility now and calling for justice! Let Justice be served, I say. And I completely want every lawful protection - including the presumption of innocence - something which was never given to persons taken to Guantanamo - at the time they were incarcerated there.
January 21, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree. We must restore constitutional protections to everyone equally, if they are to have any meaning for each of us individually. That goes double for our "enemies" - both at home and abroad.
January 21, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the point of my blog!
January 21, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yes, I have 2 avatars/identities. Putty is an alter ego and we usually don't hang out together on the same threads.