Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Nothing gained by leaving that one up, even as an exemplar. It's a shame GG has to play janitor and clean that type of stuff off the bathroom wall every now and then, but I'm glad he does it. I'll guess Chris S. is as well, at least in this instance.
Thanks for that link to my M$M hero and her interview with Glenn. She is still very active and prescient. See this story today on Gaza:
War Is Hell, by Helen Thomas (see sig)
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/08-6
it would certainly make matters much easier if the international community would start demanding as much as what Glenn is pointing out. I've been baffled since the Abu Ghraib abuses came to light in 2004, and then the torture program being executed directly from the White House (even boastfully by Cheney) was exposed, why the signatories to the Geneva Conventions (Great Britian, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, et al.) aren't demanding justice.
I've wondered this myself and can only think that these nations are waiting to see what Obama will do, if anything. Or perhaps they simply don't think it's worth the effort, what with "sole super-power, American exceptionalism," etc.
Someone mentioned up-thread/down-thread (or whatever direction we're headed in) that the US has consistently, over several decades, worked to weaken international law and binding agreements to punctuate this notion of America's special status.
This is probably true, but I hope not.
Time to stop. I think I'm starting to ramble.
[Glenn, from the post]: As Salon notes today, human rights groups have documented that close to 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody (.pdf) as part of the "war on terror," while "at least three dozen people believed to have been held in secret remain unaccounted for, their fate and whereabouts unknown." Yet "following orders" and "did-it-with-patriotism" are sufficient to render them immune.
The more refined 'argument' is that they lacked scienter; that they relied on legal advice that stated that what they were doing was legal.
The "legal advice" defence really doesn't exist (except in the very limited sense of malum prohibitum crimes, chiefly financial and/or regulatory, where an intent to knowingly violate the law is an element of the crime).
Nonetheless, there has been the argument made, by such as AG Mukasey (as I've pointed out on my blog), that OLC,/b> advice, no matter how misguided, has a precedential power and confers some 'immunity' from prosecution for reliance on such. Even such as Prof. Marty Lederman has suggested (I think) that OLC advice does hold a special place above that of ordinary legal advice. I think this is wrong, but I'm just a lone blogger. Others have said that it's difficult even to turn OLC opinions around going forward, much less to prosecute those that have relied on such.
But that's just in the U.S. judicial system and under U.S. law.
In international law, I doubt that OLC (and in particular, Dubya's OLC) will hold much persuasive weight. And I'd recommend that even such as Yoo, the author of the execrable CYA opinions, look a bit closed at Alstotter.
Cheers,
Tommy your courseness and incivility towards the host offended me and caused debilitating chronic eye and brain strain. I think you owe me a most sincere apology combined with a promise to never ever be so incredibly harsh and inhumane. That's it I'm done. I'm calling the AG of Oregon and lodging a strident complaint. I think I'll follow it up with a sternly worded letter because that's guaranteed to get results in America.
I think we'll have to be patient about the very real possibility that Bush admins will be prosecuted for war crimes. We are anxious for it to happen right now, and the panic manifested by the RW shills (especially bolstered recently by Ann Coulter's parroting the fallacious "Bush kept us safe for the past 8 years", which wasn't 8 years if you count 9/11) seems to reveal that they are nervous about it.
We really don't know what Obama will do until he does it. I wouldn't be so quick to assume anything yet.
I just wish someone would ask "HOW?" when the newest parrot defense is "He kept us safe." I wish someone would knock that strawman down. Nobody in MSM seems to have the guts, not even Maddow.
Congress offers staunch support to Israel (see sig)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090108/pl_afp/usmideastconflictisraelcongress_newsmlmmd
I'm working on a post right now about that -- to be honest, you've said the only thing I really want to say on the subject.
You make a good point. Iran would have a good case for attacking the U.S. based on the Bush Doctrine. However, ironically enough, it does not have the means or capability for doing so. When it comes to prosecuting war for crimes-yet-to-be-committed, it helps to have all the firepower on your side. The Bush Doctrine is quite literally an application of "might makes right".
I teach my kids not to treat others the way you treat your readers. You will not convince anyone to agree with you by berating them - only by reasoned argument. You are sorely lacking in this. Therefore my conclusion is this is not your goal, only to sell books? Scoop em up people, GG needs to pay off his Lexus.
As Charles [Krauthammer] said, the country was kept safe ever since 9/11. There has not been an attack.
This line is trotted out over and over and over and over again by every wingnut in the US of A.
Some years back I was on a roof of a building one day watching the 767's, 747's, 737's, DC-10's flying about a couple of hundred meters above my head on their take-off path. One every few minutes, fully-laden with people and fuel.
Now, think about every single airport in North America.
None of those dick-weeds has "kept America safe for the past 8 years," as the now-familiar bleating goes. Rather, it's more likely that the Islamic militants have no desire or need to return to America, at least at present.
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
