Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Jelperman
Published Letters: 92
I brought this up last week and I'm glad to see Glenn Greenwald agrees. The reason the establishment media at first pooh-poohed and are now wetting their pants at the very idea of war crimes trials is because THEY would find themselves in the dock, just as Julius Streicher was at Nuremberg.
It's my understanding that if a person confesses freely to a crime, then they cannot plead not guilty in court. Bush, Cheney and the other have confessed in public that they ordered and/or condoned torture.
Does this mean a trial would be a open and shut case?
It's either Deadeye Dick or one of his fanboys.
Assuming I agree with Greenwald's entire article, which I don't entirely, I think there is a position that should be considered. The word "torture" for most brings scenes of the Inqusition, and there is evidence that information gained is not always accurate.
And thus, the bullshit begins. One, the Inquisition (as well as the witch hunts) used water torture to get people to "confess" to things that not only weren't true, not only things that did not happen, but to things that were physically impossible, like flying on broomsticks and turning people into toads.
One of the people Bush had tortured "confessed" that Iraq and Al-Qaeda were allied against the US and that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks. That "confession" is in part responsible for the deaths of over 4000 Americans and a million Iraqis.
Assume that 100 terrorists were subjected to waterboarding and one out of the hundred made possible an intervention that caught an otherwise viable plan to nuke New York City, thus preventing the deaths of several million people. Would you still want to prosecute the one who waterboarded that terrorist?
I don't assume anything is possible when it only happens on moronic TV shows. Why not base government policy on I Dream of Jeannie while you're at it? [click my name below]
http://daltonator.net/durandal/blog/?p=102
Besides Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay has more basis in reality and is more entertaining.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONMoVMMnR_U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G9ta7AHsIU
We are in a new world of possibilities and need new world solutions, as well as new thinking about permissible interrogation procedures. It is a slippery slope, but many lives may well depend on our solution.
There's nothing new about torture. It was stupid, perverted and evil thousands of years ago and still is today -just like those who condone it. You know, YOU!
They might as well bring back animal and human sacrifice, too.
The niceties of civiliazed behavior are sorely tested in any war. We must balance the true possibilities against our moral conscience.
Hitler couldn't have said it any better:
Struggle is the father of all things. It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle.--Adolf Hitler
Looks like you're not the only one who thinks morality can be ignored during a struggle.
Bravo Glen - the fierce urgency of yesterday still dominates your 1960's culture war brain. We all would like to see 43 rot in hell, or at least in prison. The difference between you and the rest of us is that for the rest of us, it is way, way down on the "to do" list.
I'm glad people with your smarmy, craven attitude weren't in charge at Nuremberg. Goering & Co. would have been allowed to retire to their estates, sign book deals, rake in speaking fees and pensions, etc rather than being tried and punished.
It would have been a lot easier for the Allies to rebuild Germany and Japan if they had let the war criminals off instead of "looking to the past".
Getting healthcare reform and an economic stimulus package is way more important, and to do that, smart people know that you need to not aggravate the opposition party - whether you like it or not, their votes count too.
Republitards are going to try to block anything Obama wants to do anyway. Prosecuting war crimes won't change that. If anything, failure to prosecute will be construed (rightly) as weakness and cowardice, and they will pounce as all bullies do when they smell fear.
Maybe someday, when the economy is strong and I can get health insurance on my own (as a self-employed cancer survivor, my wife's employer is my only option), I will be able to afford myself all of the self-righteous indignation that you seem to be so full of.
General George S. Patton summed it up better than I ever could:
Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.
Case in point:
You're like a progressive Bill O'Reilly. Unlike Bill, your anger may be justified and based on facts, but your tone is identical to his.
If anyone doubted that you are a smarmy concern troll, this little jab should set them straight. Someone who calls for war criminals to be prosecuted is the equivalent of someone who supports war crimes. Only in the diseased mind of the Concern Troll.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
