classic sign of a despot

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Cmon DK---are you really afraid that Bush will become a despot with every Dem in the US waiting for him to make the slightest mistake so they can hang him.? Our checks and balances are securely in place.

One, no. I don't expect him to become a despot.....yet. Thats why my post is titled 'classic sign of a despot'.

Two, if our checks and balances were securely in place then we wouldn't have had the patriot act signed into law without full debate, the USSC wouldn't have let the executive use Gitmo as a legal black hole, and we wouldn't have 'indefinite detentions' which is a clear violation of the US constitution.

 

[MtnBiker]

Some say the MCcain-Feingold Campaign law is in violation of the Constitution. So if that is a qualifier does that law show signs of despotism?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Some say the MCcain-Feingold Campaign law is in violation of the Constitution. So if that is a qualifier does that law show signs of despotism?

No, if its unconstitutional then it would be made null and void, right?

Despotism is about absolute power or authority, whether its by an individual or a party. The democrats were guilty of it during the impeachment process by protecting a perjured president instead of upholding the law. The republicans may well be guilty of it by protecting an administration instead of upholding the law. Bush exhibits signs of it by evading responsibility for the results of some of his policies.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Two, if our checks and balances were securely in place then we wouldn't have had the patriot act signed into law without full debate, the USSC wouldn't have let the executive use Gitmo as a legal black hole, and we wouldn't have 'indefinite detentions' which is a clear violation of the US constitution.




No, if its unconstitutional then it would be made null and void, right?

Can these two statements then be reconciled?

 

[dilloduck]

I believe the USSC will do some more weighing on prisoner policies as more info comes out. I think Bush has delegated a lot of responsibilties to thier proper depts. You call that avoiding responsibilities---I call it efficiency. There's lots of blame to go around and a lot of higher ups OTHER THAN BUSH to pin it on.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Can these two statements then be reconciled?

they can when its been a historical standard to grant a president more 'leeway' and authority in a time of war, as compared to a campaign finance law.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dilloduck
I believe the USSC will do some more weighing on prisoner policies as more info comes out. I think Bush has delegated a lot of responsibilties to thier proper depts. You call that avoiding responsibilities---I call it efficiency. There's lots of blame to go around and a lot of higher ups OTHER THAN BUSH to pin it on.

Isn't the president ultimately responsible for what members of his administration do? In any organization, the one at the top is responsible for overseeing what his subordinates do, even though its a given responsibility, is it not? Thats not saying Bush is SOLELY responsible, it means he's equally as responsible.

 

[dilloduck]

with that logic, he could easily be impeached right now. Lines gotta be drawn somewhere, DK.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dilloduck
with that logic, he could easily be impeached right now. Lines gotta be drawn somewhere, DK.

what could he be impeached for?

 

[Annie]

There is some coverage on this topic through the web media:

Andrew Sullivan, (there are links in the post) http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php...ish_inc=archives/2004_06_20_dish_archive.html

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

THE TORTURE MEMOS: Bottom line: so far so good for the administration. I haven't been able to peruse all the documents but I will wait for other journalists with access to summarize them in time. When I said yesterday that I was relieved that Bush had spoken out so forcefully against torture, I simply meant that I was glad that it was not now official policy. But it still isn't clear that we have all the truly relevant memos. And Gonzalez's statement yesterday was also troubling:
"We're going to be aggressive in our interrogations. There's no question about that," Gonzales said. He insisted that the United States would not engage in torture and said the administration uses the definition of torture provided by Congress as "a specific intent to inflict severe physical or mental harm or suffering."
This still leaves open the possibility of the infliction of "severe physical or mental harm" if the "specific intent" is to gain information. But in general, the Rumsfeld decisions in both December 2002 and April 2003 do indeed appear to exonerate him from approving the worst options. The only technique he approved that is directly linked to the Abu Ghraib horrors is the use of dogs to terrify inmates. Bush's decision to maintain Geneva rules is also heartening. But this story is not yet over. And more will emerge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powerline The AP Spins Out of Control

Today the administration declassified, and made available to reporters, a number of documents intended to show that President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did not authorize torturing al Qaeda prisoners. The Associated Press, perhaps the number one source of media bias, reports on the documents, in an article titled "Bush Claimed Right to Waive Torture Laws." The AP article begins:

President Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture laws and treaties covering prisoners of war after the invasion of Afghanistan, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized guards to strip detainees and threaten them with dogs, according to documents released Tuesday.
You have to read deep into the article to find out the following:

Bush outlined his own views in a Feb. 7. 2002, document regarding treatment of al-Qaida detainees from Afghanistan. He said the war against terrorism had ushered in a "new paradigm" and that terrorist attacks required "new thinking in the law of war." Still, he said prisoners must be treated humanely and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
"I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time," the president said in the memo, entitled "Humane Treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban Detainees."


Rumsfeld, too, authorized only the mildest forms of interrogation of prisoners, even al Qaeda leaders. I found this paragraph, near the end of the AP's account, astonishing:

[Rumsfeld] approved 24 interrogation techniques, to be used in a manner consistent with the Geneva Conventions, but said that any use of four of those methods would have to be approved by him in advance. Those four were use of rewards or removal of privileges from detainees; attacking or insulting the ego of a detainee; alternating the use of friendly and harsh interrogators, and isolation.
I hate to disillusion liberals, but as a trial lawyer, I routinely use two of those four techniques in cross-examining witnesses, and I use at least one of the other two on my children. Frankly, I find it appalling that those in charge of terrorist prisoners may only "reward or remove privileges from detainees" with the permission of the Secretary of Defense. If the Democrats had any sense, they would argue that these documents indict the administration as soft on terrorists.

That won't be the Democrats' tack, however:

"Though this is a self-serving selection, at least it is a beginning," [Democratic Senator Patrick] Leahy said. "But for the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to find the whole truth, we will need much more cooperation and extensive hearings."
Extensive hearings. Right. From now until November.

Posted by Hindrocket at 07:58 PM | TrackBack (0)

 

[DKSuddeth]

Is it me or is it just extremely odd that it requires rumsfelds authority for what seem like the 4 least methods of interrogation?

[Rumsfeld] approved 24 interrogation techniques, to be used in a manner consistent with the Geneva Conventions, but said that any use of four of those methods would have to be approved by him in advance. Those four were use of rewards or removal of privileges from detainees; attacking or insulting the ego of a detainee; alternating the use of friendly and harsh interrogators, and isolation.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
what could he be impeached for?

Crimes commited by soldiers under his command

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Crimes commited by soldiers under his command

I thought that I had made this clear in the early part of the postings. If, by these memo's, he approved the 'harsh' interrogation techniques and is using these other memos to protect himself, then yes...he should be impeached.

If he redid these memos to exclusively define and remove 'torture', so it didn't define it as the pain associated with organ failure or death, and the ENTIRE chain of command stressed these new memo's down the line, and in the end it truly WAS only these 7 or 8 soldiers that committed these of their own volition without the insistence of military intelligence officers, then no.

 

[dilloduck]

What would the charge be for impeachment?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dilloduck
What would the charge be for impeachment?

complicity in abuse and torture of prisoners of war, violations of geneva conventions, a legal treaty and agreement signed into law as per the US constitution.

 

[dilloduck]

I guess the Dems will be going through this with a fine tooth comb as we speak.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dilloduck
I guess the Dems will be going through this with a fine tooth comb as we speak.

they can, and should, go through it all they want but the issue is moot. again, back to my despotism comment, there will be no impeachment because the republican party will circle the wagons and protect the president. It may make it as high as a couple of junior officers and thats it, but with the additional memos coming out, nothing will come of it.

 

[Gaebolg]

so our experiences in the military, being different, makes me full of crap? fuck you then. Do NOT dismiss my opinion out of hand simply because YOU didn't see it from your perspective. Your bullshit attitude is what happens when you deal with shit from a closed mind perspective. As an air traffic controller, or what you would call a 'support job', I've been responsible for lives as well as billions of dollars worth of aircraft. It doesn't matter that it wasn't 'ground combat' because I still received the same training as a marine that you probably received in whatever branch you were in.

Exactly what I thought. Don't throw your jaded experience around thinking that because you didn't take corrective training seriously that it applied to all troops, in all fields. That's your fault, as a soldier, if you blew off training. Talk about a closed minded perspective? You automatically ASSUME that all U.S. troops are doing this based on the actions of a few. You assume that whatever corrective actions are taken will automatically be ignored because "in your experience" they were...maybe that was your fault or your direct superiors, that didn't enter into your "open mind" did it? No, it happened to you and you saw it in a dollar matinee once so that automatically makes it FACT for the entire U.S. military?

Maybe you should think before you post indictments of the entire U.S. military because you had a crappy leadership or a crappy attitude when you served. Especially, when you try to use some fiction film to validate your anti-troops opinion, passing what happened in that film as indicative of what happens in an environment you have absolutely no experience in. You won't hear me in here talking about what Air traffic controllers know, how they are trained or passing off some film like "Pushing Tin" as being indictitive of what they will or won't do so don't come into my area of expertise and do the same. Deal? Stick to the facts.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Gaebolg
Exactly what I thought.

No, you didn't think at all.

Don't throw your jaded experience around thinking that because you didn't take corrective training seriously that it applied to all troops, in all fields. That's your fault, as a soldier, if you blew off training.

I blew off nothing, you assume that these 7 soldiers blew off theirs yet its being said that they were getting orders from higher ups. Don't ignore whats out there simply because you don't want to believe it.

Talk about a closed minded perspective? You automatically ASSUME that all U.S. troops are doing this based on the actions of a few. You assume that whatever corrective actions are taken will automatically be ignored because "in your experience" they were...maybe that was your fault or your direct superiors, that didn't enter into your "open mind" did it? No, it happened to you so and you saw it in a dollar matinee once so that automatically makes it FACT for the entire U.S. military?

I said it wouldn't surprise me if it was that way, nowhere did I say that its factual. Keep putting words in my mouth to make your point since you can't refute what I've legitimately written.

Maybe you should think before you post indictments of the entire U.S. military because you had a crappy leadership or a crappy attitude when you served. Especially, when you try to use some fiction film to validate your anti-troops opinion, passing what happened in that film as indicative of what happens in an environment you have absolutely no experience in. You won't hear me in here talking about what Air traffic controllers know, how they are trained or passing off some film like "Pushing Tin" as being indictitive of what they will or won't do so don't come into my area of expertise and do the same. Deal? Stick to the facts.

no deal, I stuck to the facts and I gave my opinions. Nowhere did I mix the two. you don't like it? too damn bad. Next time don't try to intimate that i'm speaking about facts when I give my opinions. If you were thinking at all, you would have realized that.

 

[Gaebolg]

If you were thinking at all, you would have realized that.

If you were thinking at all, you might have come to the conclusion that those troops are either lying about an order because they broke the law and are trying to cover their ass, broke the law by following an unlawful order (I assume you know what an unlawful order is, since if they were given one it was unlawful) or are complete idiots.