PDA

View Full Version : Andrew Sullivan: Bush Administration Officials Will Be 'Indicted For War Crimes'


jAZ
04-07-2008, 08:54 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/06/andrew-sullivan-bush-admi_n_95305.html

Andrew Sullivan: Bush Administration Officials Will Be 'Indicted For War Crimes'

April 6, 2008 02:14 PM

Media coverage of the disclosure of the "torture memo" authored by Bush Justice Department official John C. Yoo has been mostly a deafening silence. But on this morning's Chris Matthews' show, someone finally fired a shot. As we mentioned in this morning's liveblog, credit goes to The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, for taking the opportunity to ensure that this matter got out into the televised discourse somehow.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EzZq0j_LJMw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EzZq0j_LJMw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

SULLIVAN: The latest revelations on the torture front show the memo from John Yoo...means that Don Rumsfeld, David Addington and John Yoo should not leave the United States any time soon. They will be, at some point, indicted for war crimes.

The moment came during a segment on Matthews' show where the panel is invited to "tell him something he doesn't know," though this might be more accurately termed, "something he doesn't know he should talk about." Matthews is hardly alone. Via Sullivan, we are directed to the blog of Glenn Greenwald:

Here are the number of times, according to NEXIS, that various topics have been mentioned in the media over the past thirty days:

"Yoo and torture" - 102

"Mukasey and 9/11" -- 73

"Yoo and Fourth Amendment" -- 16

"Obama and bowling" -- 1,043

"Obama and Wright" -- More than 3,000 (too many to be counted)

"Obama and patriotism" - 1,607

"Clinton and Lewinsky" -- 1,079


I'd also like to quote Greenwald at length here:

Every day, it becomes more difficult to blame George Bush, Dick Cheney and comrades for their seven years (and counting) of crimes, corruption and destruction of our political values. Think about it this way: if you were a high government official and watched as -- all in a couple of weeks time -- it is revealed, right out in the open, that you suspended the Fourth Amendment, authorized torture, proclaimed yourself empowered to break the law, and sent the nation's top law enforcement officer to lie blatantly about how and why the 9/11 attacks happened so that you could acquire still more unchecked spying power and get rid of lawsuits that would expose what you did, and the political press in this country basically ignored all of that and blathered on about Obama's bowling score and how he eats chocolate, wouldn't you also conclude that you could do anything you want, without limits, and know there will be no consequences? What would be the incentive to stop doing all of that?He couldn't be more right, I'm afraid.

Direckshun
04-07-2008, 08:56 AM
Actions good. Consequences baaaaaaaaaaaaad.

Chief Henry
04-07-2008, 09:02 AM
Ridiculous

StcChief
04-07-2008, 09:05 AM
BS from this pole smoker.

stlchiefs
04-07-2008, 09:12 AM
yeah, f-ing right. This will never happen.

jAZ
04-07-2008, 09:24 AM
A rather straight to the point summary of John Yoo's memo for those unaware. And who would expect you to know, what with all the liberal media bias under-reporting this story and all...

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2008/04/02/john-yoo-a-touch-of-evil/

John Yoo: A Touch of Evil
4/2/08, 4:39 pm EST

I’m still trudging through John Yoo’s newly declassified memo that gave the greenlight to torture as a natural extension of Executive Privilege in 2003.

But the logic is laid out in all its evil circularity early on.

It goes like this:

The Fifth Amendment’s due process protections and Eighth Amendment’s prohibitions against cruelty do not apply a) to aliens abroad and b) are rendered meaningless by the president’s totalitarian powers during time of war.

And if the president is above the constitution, he’s certainly above the law. Among the federal criminal statues that Yoo says “would conflict with… Commander in Chief power”: “assault… maiming… interstate stalking… war crimes… and torture.”

If foreign detainees held on foreign soil have no protection from U.S. law, what about international law? Well, says Yoo, the Geneva Conventions do not require anything more of the United States than what is provided for in the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, which as we just learned do not apply to foreign detainees. Furthermore: “international law is not federal law and the President is free to override it at his discretion.” (!)

To recap: The president is unbound by international law — ever — and not constrained by either federal law or the Constitution in his role as commander in chief, which gives him carte blanche authority to have illegal enemy combatants who are detained on foreign soil assaulted, maimed, tortured, and otherwise subjected to war crimes, so long as the president deems it necessary or in “self-defense” of the nation.

I’m literally sick.

Tim Dickinson

patteeu
04-07-2008, 09:54 AM
I can believe that there may be some indictments. I also believe that any American who supports or encourages them is a traitor.

StcChief
04-07-2008, 10:01 AM
I can believe that there may be some indictments. I also believe that any American who supports or encourages them is a traitor.
we have a bunch of Liberal traitor, these media types that have leak intel info in the name of headline story..... Should be shot by firing squad.

NewChief
04-07-2008, 10:04 AM
Traitors! Traitors! One and all. String 'em up!

Let the purges begin.

Taco John
04-07-2008, 10:14 AM
I can believe that there may be some indictments. I also believe that any American who supports or encourages them is a traitor.


You're becoming a charicature of yourself with statements like this.

If these men did anything illegal, they should be tried and prosecuted, period. I believe any American who doesn't support this statement is a traitor... :D

patteeu
04-07-2008, 10:16 AM
Traitors! Traitors! One and all. String 'em up!

Let the purges begin.

That idea is no worse than the idea of branding Bush administration officials as war criminals.

Taco John
04-07-2008, 10:17 AM
That idea is no worse than the idea of branding Bush administration officials as war criminals.

I think you just committed treason.

Taco John
04-07-2008, 10:18 AM
Oh crap, I think I just committed treason by posting that.

jAZ
04-07-2008, 10:19 AM
That idea is no worse than the idea of branding Bush administration officials as war criminals.

Except for those pesky facts of the matter and all.

patteeu
04-07-2008, 10:31 AM
You're becoming a charicature of yourself with statements like this.

If these men did anything illegal, they should be tried and prosecuted, period. I believe any American who doesn't support this statement is a traitor... :D

If they did anything illegal, they should be dealt with by domestic authorities. Not by an international body and not as war criminals. Ever. The US should never allow it's leaders to be subject to such a thing regardless of our own internal political disagreements. I would have thought that a Ron Paul guy would be able to appreciate that.

When it comes to interpreting the constitution, the President's good faith interpretation is as valid as anyone else's. Afterall, our founders, of whom you claim to be so fond, failed to create a mechanism for prospectively ruling on the constitutionality of Presidential actions. To the extent that you accept the SCOTUS as the final arbiter of constitutional meaning, the President shouldn't be faced with consequences any more severe than those that Congress faces when they pass a law that is later deemed unconstitutional.

If the President violates the constitution without the support of a good faith interpretation, the remedy is impeachment (and possible subsequent criminal indictment) not handing him over to an international tribunal for a war crimes trial.

patteeu
04-07-2008, 10:33 AM
I think you just committed treason.

Treason has a constitutionally defined meaning. Traitor is more generic.

StcChief
04-07-2008, 10:36 AM
Traitors! Traitors! One and all. String 'em up!

Let the purges begin.Sold

patteeu
04-07-2008, 10:43 AM
Except for those pesky facts of the matter and all.

What facts are you talking about and how does that relate to my post?

jAZ
04-07-2008, 11:05 AM
What facts are you talking about and how does that relate to my post?

That memo (along with any others) and the implementation of a policy of war crimes as defined by the law of the land.

As to how it relates to your post, I'm not sure... given that you've gone on to explain that your post was essentilally meaningless, that traitor doesn't have an actionable meaning in your mind and that these men could be tried for crimes anyway in your mind.

SBK
04-07-2008, 11:14 AM
jAZ is never going to give up the fight to make sure Cheney is executed.

CHIEF4EVER
04-07-2008, 11:40 AM
I stopped reading at huffingtonpost.com

Might as well cite moveon.org, they are just as credible...........

banyon
04-07-2008, 11:42 AM
I stopped reading at huffingtonpost.com

Might as well cite moveon.org, they are just as credible...........

HuffPost just links to articles from other sources mainly. There's nothing credible/incredible about it (excepting the op-ed blogs).

jAZ
04-07-2008, 11:43 AM
I stopped reading at huffingtonpost.com

Might as well cite moveon.org, they are just as credible...........

It's almost as if you didn't even read the opening post.

Logical
04-07-2008, 11:47 AM
If they did anything illegal, they should be dealt with by domestic authorities. Not by an international body and not as war criminals. Ever. The US should never allow it's leaders to be subject to such a thing regardless of our own internal political disagreements. I would have thought that a Ron Paul guy would be able to appreciate that.

When it comes to interpreting the constitution, the President's good faith interpretation is as valid as anyone else's. Afterall, our founders, of whom you claim to be so fond, failed to create a mechanism for prospectively ruling on the constitutionality of Presidential actions. To the extent that you accept the SCOTUS as the final arbiter of constitutional meaning, the President shouldn't be faced with consequences any more severe than those that Congress faces when they pass a law that is later deemed unconstitutional.

If the President violates the constitution without the support of a good faith interpretation, the remedy is impeachment (and possible subsequent criminal indictment) not handing him over to an international tribunal for a war crimes trial.


You at least sound thoughtful in this post, almost made up for that silly post you made earliar.

Taco John
04-07-2008, 12:59 PM
If they did anything illegal, they should be dealt with by domestic authorities. Not by an international body and not as war criminals. Ever. The US should never allow it's leaders to be subject to such a thing regardless of our own internal political disagreements. I would have thought that a Ron Paul guy would be able to appreciate that.

I am able to appreciate that, except for the fact that they used UN Resolutions to drum up the war in the first place. I have no problems with them getting burnt by the instrumentation that they used to lead us to war. Doesn't it stand to reason that if these men are going to go to war on behalf of the UN, they be held accountability to the body that they are going to war on behalf of?


When it comes to interpreting the constitution, the President's good faith interpretation is as valid as anyone else's. Afterall, our founders, of whom you claim to be so fond, failed to create a mechanism for prospectively ruling on the constitutionality of Presidential actions. To the extent that you accept the SCOTUS as the final arbiter of constitutional meaning, the President shouldn't be faced with consequences any more severe than those that Congress faces when they pass a law that is later deemed unconstitutional.

The key being "good faith."



If the President violates the constitution without the support of a good faith interpretation, the remedy is impeachment (and possible subsequent criminal indictment) not handing him over to an international tribunal for a war crimes trial.

I'd be 100% in agreement with you except that they used UN Resolutions to drum up this war. I would most definitely rather see him impeached and tried as a criminal here in the states - but if it happens to where he's taken to an international body to defend himself, I'll have a hard time getting too worked up about it -- especially considering that I think our own court system has become corrupted. All I have to do is look at recent rulings on emminent domain to figure that the system has become corrupt.

penchief
04-07-2008, 01:49 PM
jAZ is never going to give up the fight to make sure Cheney is executed.

I'm not for executing him but I am for getting to the truth and holding him accountable for any actions that amount to a betrayal of our laws or the spirit of those laws (even if he acted to preemptively change the law in order to evade future accountability).

patteeu
04-08-2008, 07:51 AM
That memo (along with any others) and the implementation of a policy of war crimes as defined by the law of the land.

That's a lot of meaningless handwaving as far as I can tell. As for the law of the land, nothing trumps the constitution.

As to how it relates to your post, I'm not sure... given that you've gone on to explain that your post was essentilally meaningless, that traitor doesn't have an actionable meaning in your mind and that these men could be tried for crimes anyway in your mind.

I can't think of any crimes for which they could be tried, but if there had been crimes, the appropriate forum for resolving such issues would be our domestic legal system, including the constitutional provisions for impeachment.

BTW, traitor[ous] has meaning, it just isn't as narrowly defined as treason. It's pretty clear that someone who merely cheerleads for the prosecution of our President for war crimes has not committed treason as defined in our constitution.

patteeu
04-08-2008, 08:12 AM
I am able to appreciate that, except for the fact that they used UN Resolutions to drum up the war in the first place. I have no problems with them getting burnt by the instrumentation that they used to lead us to war. Doesn't it stand to reason that if these men are going to go to war on behalf of the UN, they be held accountability to the body that they are going to war on behalf of?

No, it doesn't stand to reason at all. We used the UN as a tool of our foreign policy in the case of Iraq. We didn't invade Iraq because the UN compelled us to do so. We invaded because our policymakers decided to invade. How you can even begin to think there's similarity between voluntary participation in pursuit of your own interests versus an obligation to act against your own interests is difficult for me to understand.

The key being "good faith."

Of course it is. How can this not be a good faith interpretation? We have a long history of Presidents from both parties asserting expansive powers of the Presidency to act in matters of national security. Some of the assertions in this memo may be unprecedented, but they are not particularly extraordinary by comparison to the assertions of previous administrations.

But again, even if someone wants to make a case that this is a bad faith abuse of power, the forum for resolving that dispute is our own system.

I'd be 100% in agreement with you except that they used UN Resolutions to drum up this war. I would most definitely rather see him impeached and tried as a criminal here in the states - but if it happens to where he's taken to an international body to defend himself, I'll have a hard time getting too worked up about it -- especially considering that I think our own court system has become corrupted. All I have to do is look at recent rulings on emminent domain to figure that the system has become corrupt.

No true Ron Paul supporter would rationalize giving up our sovereignty to an international body like this. This must be your Obama side talking. :p

BigMeatballDave
04-08-2008, 02:51 PM
Yeah! Lets waste more taxpayer money...

BucEyedPea
04-08-2008, 03:49 PM
No, it doesn't stand to reason at all. We used the UN as a tool of our foreign policy in the case of Iraq. We didn't invade Iraq because the UN compelled us to do so. We invaded because our policymakers decided to invade. How you can even begin to think there's similarity between voluntary participation in pursuit of your own interests versus an obligation to act against your own interests is difficult for me to understand.
But a big part of our leaders rationale was that Iraq had violated UN resolutions drawn up as part of the cease fire for PGWI which was conducted as a pansy-azz UN police action using our forces. Those resolutions, even without the SC vote, had legal language authorizing force if he didn't disarm. US security was a secondary consideration and was written more like it was attached onto the resolution.

If we decide to invade a nation, which violates the Nuremburg standard that we created, on our own then NO mention of UN resolutions ever needed to be a part of it.

Like it or not, most of these things were still done under the resolutions of this body. Bush wants to create a League of Democracies now instead. I swear he's Wilson incarnate.




Of course it is. How can this not be a good faith interpretation? We have a long history of Presidents from both parties asserting expansive powers of the Presidency to act in matters of national security.
We do not have a LONG history of such. That's post WWII.
By the way I have additional and new info regarding Jefferson on the Barbary pirates. The claims about this in the NC press like NR etc have left out important documentation and events but I'll catch ya' later on it when I have more time.



But again, even if someone wants to make a case that this is a bad faith abuse of power, the forum for resolving that dispute is our own system.

So you'd support impeachment?

Taco John
04-08-2008, 05:50 PM
No true Ron Paul supporter would rationalize giving up our sovereignty to an international body like this. This must be your Obama side talking. :p


I've never claimed to be as principled as Ron Paul is. I have my weaknesses. Seeing murderous people brought to justice by any means possible is one of them.

Nightfyre
04-08-2008, 05:58 PM
I've never claimed to be as principled as Ron Paul is. I have my weaknesses. Seeing murderous people brought to justice by any means possible is one of them.

The precedent set by this event would be devastating. The day an American is tried before an international tribunal is the day we hit one-world government, imo.

Taco John
04-08-2008, 06:19 PM
The precedent set by this event would be devastating. The day an American is tried before an international tribunal is the day we hit one-world government, imo.


My hope is that we head them off at the pass.

StcChief
04-08-2008, 07:00 PM
The precedent set by this event would be devastating. The day an American is tried before an international tribunal is the day we hit one-world government, imo.IF that happens bomb the Hague.

BucEyedPea
04-08-2008, 09:08 PM
IF that happens bomb the Hague.

Now why do you say such things? Is that a solution?
You should be waterboarded.:grr:

pr_capone
04-08-2008, 10:27 PM
My views on this topic are very simple.

When Mr. Joe Horn is charged with murder (see http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=176529&highlight=horn) as the thread starter, jAZ, so implicitly and ferverently stated he would... that will be the day I read a jAZ thread and even consider the information posted by him.

Until that day jAZ will remain, in my opinion, a keyboard law jockey and nothing more.

patteeu
04-09-2008, 07:59 AM
But a big part of our leaders rationale was that Iraq had violated UN resolutions drawn up as part of the cease fire for PGWI which was conducted as a pansy-azz UN police action using our forces. Those resolutions, even without the SC vote, had legal language authorizing force if he didn't disarm. US security was a secondary consideration and was written more like it was attached onto the resolution.

If we decide to invade a nation, which violates the Nuremburg standard that we created, on our own then NO mention of UN resolutions ever needed to be a part of it.

Like it or not, most of these things were still done under the resolutions of this body. Bush wants to create a League of Democracies now instead. I swear he's Wilson incarnate.

Those UN resolutions were passed originally because the US wanted them passed. The move to enforce them was instigated by the US. Again, we're talking about the difference between the US using the UN as a tool of US foreign policy versus the US being guided/controlled by globalists and foreign powers at the UN. The former is good sense, the latter is unacceptable.

We do not have a LONG history of such. That's post WWII.
By the way I have additional and new info regarding Jefferson on the Barbary pirates. The claims about this in the NC press like NR etc have left out important documentation and events but I'll catch ya' later on it when I have more time.

I'll look forward to hearing your new info because going back at least to Jefferson is a pretty long history.

So you'd support impeachment?

Absolutely not. I think the parts of the Yoo memo that I've heard about make a lot of sense.

patteeu
04-09-2008, 08:01 AM
The precedent set by this event would be devastating.

Amen. I'm happy to see that some who don't approve of Bush can see this.

BucEyedPea
04-09-2008, 08:38 AM
Those UN resolutions were passed originally because the US wanted them passed. The move to enforce them was instigated by the US. Again, we're talking about the difference between the US using the UN as a tool of US foreign policy versus the US being guided/controlled by globalists and foreign powers at the UN. The former is good sense, the latter is unacceptable.
I'm sorry but the Bush administration is just as globalist as the guys in the UN. It was just a disagreement as to how to proceed. It had all the markings of internationalism in it and that language predominated. I can't fathom for a minute how you can't read that thing and miss its flavor.

What does it say when Bush wants to form a new similar globalist group called his League of Democracies? It's the same kind of thinking only they will instigate globalist wars and nation building in order to remake the world. He said in his 2nd inaugural that he wanted to "make over the world." Just read that thing. Those guys just want a more expansionist aggressive body is all—using our military mainly.

I'll look forward to hearing your new info because going back at least to Jefferson is a pretty long history.
I didn't say I was going through a long history. I said I had more info on Jefferson and the Barbary pirates. The only other one NC publications have claimed as precedent for not declaring war the Quasi War with France. So there's only two prior to WWWII. Pretty much all others including Korea, Vietnam, PGWI have been done under the auspices of the UN or a subsidiary.
And NATO is being expanded even.

Absolutely not. I think the parts of the Yoo memo that I've heard about make a lot of sense.
Well I favor impeachment, more for Cheney and him first, I do not favor an international tribunal and agree it's a bad precedent.For all we know, it just may have been a set-up for such a precedent.

patteeu
04-09-2008, 08:58 AM
I'm sorry but the Bush administration is just as globalist as the guys in the UN. It was just a disagreement as to how to proceed. It had all the markings of internationalism in it and that language predominated. I can't fathom for a minute how you can't read that thing and miss its flavor.

What does it say when Bush wants to form a new similar globalist group called his League of Democracies? It's the same kind of thinking only they will instigate globalist wars and nation building in order to remake the world. He said in his 2nd inaugural that he wanted to "make over the world." Just read that thing. Those guys just want a more expansionist aggressive body is all—using our military mainly.

Since I'm not an isolationist, I don't have a problem with using all sorts of tools to advance US interests, including multilateral organizations, as long as there isn't a cost associated with using those tools that outweighs the benefits. I understand that an isolationist would have a phobia about meeting with diplomats from multiple countries in the same room though.

Well I favor impeachment, more for Cheney and him first, I do not favor an international tribunal and agree it's a bad precedent.For all we know, it just may have been a set-up for such a precedent.

You've got to be kidding. You think that Bush, Cheney and others in the administration intentionally set out (a) to bring war crimes indictments down on their own heads and (b) to provoke their domestic enemies into handing them over to an international tribunal in order to establish a precedent? I think Bush/Cheney put service to their country ahead of their own self interest to some degree, but that's simply ridiculous.

Taco John
04-09-2008, 09:16 AM
Patteeu's conversion to Hog Farmer is just about complete.

patteeu
04-09-2008, 09:28 AM
Patteeu's conversion to Hog Farmer is just about complete.

Why, because I don't think Bush would strive to make himself a war criminal in order to usher in a globalist new world order? Or because I haven't developed a pavlovian dog-like reaction to the mere mention of the UN?

Taco John
04-09-2008, 09:30 AM
Why, because I don't think Bush would strive to make himself a war criminal in order to usher in a globalist new world order? Or because I haven't developed a pavlovian dog-like reaction to the mere mention of the UN?


I was referring to the part where you call people names like "traitor" and "isolationist" and make yourself look like a farging idiot who only argues what makes himself feel good -- not any actual points.

Taco John
04-09-2008, 09:32 AM
Why, because I don't think Bush would strive to make himself a war criminal in order to usher in a globalist new world order? Or because I haven't developed a pavlovian dog-like reaction to the mere mention of the UN?

Also, to be clear -- she didn't accuse Bush of striving to make himself a war criminal in order to usher in a globalist new world order -- though, from my reading, she didn't rule out the idea that he was duped into it.

patteeu
04-09-2008, 09:41 AM
I was referring to the part where you call people names like "traitor" and "isolationist" and make yourself look like a farging idiot who only argues what makes himself feel good -- not any actual points.

When it comes to "mak[ing] himself feel good" instead of making actual points, I'd refer you to your own post where you admit you are unprincipled and that you are willing to let the ends justify the means when it makes you feel good. By contrast, my position *is* principled and would apply to anyone wanting to turn Bill Clinton over to an international tribunal for war crimes just as much as it applies to those who want to see this happen to the current administration.

P.S. If it makes you feel any better, I didn't have you specifically in mind when I said that people who want to see US officials tried by international tribunals for war crimes are traitors, but I can understand your defensiveness now that you've slipped your foot into the glass slipper.

BucEyedPea
04-09-2008, 09:47 AM
Since I'm not an isolationist, I don't have a problem with using all sorts of tools to advance US interests, including multilateral organizations, as long as there isn't a cost associated with using those tools that outweighs the benefits. I understand that an isolationist would have a phobia about meeting with diplomats from multiple countries in the same room though.
If I'm an isolationist then that would make you an imperialist. Oh yeah! I forgot, you've admitted that by pushing vague expansionist "interests" like having to kill human life for oil instead of buying it because like a leftist believes, markets don't really work. Iraq harmed our interests, taking oil off the market even longer, destroying our currency and making not oil more expensive but everything else. It put a Shi'a fundamentalist govt inpower that is allied with Iran and has sought it's help in removing us, made the region more unstable. How any of these things are in our interests I'll never see the logic on.

You've got to be kidding. You think that Bush, Cheney and others in the administration intentionally set out (a) to bring war crimes indictments down on their own heads and (b) to provoke their domestic enemies into handing them over to an international tribunal in order to establish a precedent? I think Bush/Cheney put service to their country ahead of their own self interest to some degree, but that's simply ridiculous.

I can't believe you got that reasoning out of what I posted.

You do know these guys have a set of advisors right? Ever think one or more of them might want to lead them astray for a their own version of a globalist agenda of supra-national courts getting established using Iraq? Remember a NeoCon is essentially a leftist and an globalist too. Just because their brand is different doesn't change that. I'm not saying there is a plot here but more speculating on possibilities of how such a thing could play out. Has nothing to do with TrickyDick and his side-kick deciding anything They'd be the pawns in the game. Just thinkin' out loud is all.

jAZ
04-09-2008, 10:05 AM
My views on this topic are very simple.

When Mr. Joe Horn is charged with murder (see http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=176529&highlight=horn) as the thread starter, jAZ, so implicitly and ferverently stated he would... that will be the day I read a jAZ thread and even consider the information posted by him.

Until that day jAZ will remain, in my opinion, a keyboard law jockey and nothing more.

Who was "the thread starter"? And no matter what, you should definately view me as a "keyboard law jockey". That's completely accurate WRT law.

Taco John
04-09-2008, 11:08 AM
When it comes to "mak[ing] himself feel good" instead of making actual points, I'd refer you to your own post where you admit you are unprincipled and that you are willing to let the ends justify the means when it makes you feel good.

ROFL

Your conversion to a drama queen is accellerating... You're about to hit light speed.

BucEyedPea
04-09-2008, 11:24 AM
Come on pat, I asked you once if the means justified the ends before and you said "yes."

patteeu
04-09-2008, 11:35 AM
ROFL

Your conversion to a drama queen is accellerating... You're about to hit light speed.

I see that you're all about making "actual points" now. :shrug:

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 11:35 AM
Come on pat, I asked you once if the means justified the ends before and you said "yes."

That's OK. I asked you several times if your statement about the amount of forest in 1800 was a statement of fact or opinion. :p

patteeu
04-09-2008, 11:37 AM
Come on pat, I asked you once if the means justified the ends before and you said "yes."

I'll stick with that answer as long as the means aren't completely the opposite of some of my most important principles.

patteeu
04-09-2008, 11:59 AM
I don't care what people think of it, but as long as there are Americans trying to smear the President and members of his administration by pushing the "war criminal" charge, I'll continue to point out that that's traitorous.

Taco John
04-09-2008, 12:21 PM
I would never want to see an American tried in an international court. But if it happened to Rumsfeld, I'd let other people get worked up about it for me. I'd be against it (I'd want them tried at home), but I'm not going to spend any time defending someone who I personally consider a criminal. Add to the fact that I don't believe he'd be fair and openly tried at home (indeed, it's my opinion that our justice system has been compromised) - and all I can do is throw up my arms.

At that point, my principle is single-minded: justice. I just want to see justice done. If the only means of achieving justice is through an international court system, then it's a sad day for America, indeed.

BucEyedPea
04-09-2008, 12:46 PM
That's OK. I asked you several times if your statement about the amount of forest in 1800 was a statement of fact or opinion. :p

And it was answered but you missed it, particularly when you asked again and I referred to back to the answer. Gotta take that blindfold off.

But comparing that to this is apples and oranges...maybe that's why you didn't see the answer given.

BucEyedPea
04-09-2008, 12:53 PM
I'll stick with that answer as long as the means aren't completely the opposite of some of my most important principles.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what the statement means.

Are you willing to commit a moral wrong as a means to what you feel is a better end. This is what Marxist-Leninists believed in and explains why they expropriated property by force and killed so many to create what they considered a better world. ( their utopia) It's the same thing when a social democract uses the vote and laws (force) to expropriate property in order to build a social democracy or for the greater public good (their utopia). There's no difference really. Stealing is stealing and if it's wrong when an individual does it, it's wrong for the group to vote for it. Or when a govt does it. If killing is wrong by an individual the exception to save one's life or anothers, then it's wrong when a gov't does it for any other reason.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 01:02 PM
And it was answered but you missed it, particularly when you asked again and I referred to back to the answer. Gotta take that blindfold off.

But comparing that to this is apples and oranges...maybe that's why you didn't see the answer given.

LMAO

As I have no wish to hijack, please carry on.

BucEyedPea
04-09-2008, 01:10 PM
Just answering you on what you said here. But I did give you a notification explaining what I am referring to here, so it doesn't result in a hijack.
You might want to look up the word "claim" before you read it. Not being sarcastic here...I just think that's where things hung up in that thread.

RINGLEADER
04-12-2008, 11:38 AM
This story has legs. As longs as they're not connected to femmes or fatties...