Boards > Current Events > NEWS: Whos Our Best War Criminal?

vincenzo

Ventura, CA

January 2005

APR 16, 2008 12:17 AM

sadly both are true,
our poor country - it coulda been so good.

it still can be though, correct?

Bastardo said:
I don't think they're stupid, I think they're incredibly delusional. Like real sick person crazy.
Either that or our administration is being run by sociopaths with no regard for human life.

emotedcreations

Germany

July 2006

APR 16, 2008 12:27 AM

AmbientLight said:
\ have heard recently that some anthro and social theorists assert that war can be erraticated, if there is no competion for resources amongst the world's populace.

It's not really a whole lot more complicated than that, but that is a huge, HUGE, fucking IF. I personally don't think it's possible. I think the better alternative is to learn to distribute the injury of resource absence equally (and yes, that's different than and equal distribution of resources, but I'm not getting into that right now).

And yeah, the leaders of nations could do a lot of good if they didn't let their ego and powertrips influence decisions that will affect billions of people aside from them. Unfortunately that's a paradoxical problem. Those who seek power will be the least likely to view the global power structure (global forces) in ways that don't relate to them personally.

vincenzo

Ventura, CA

January 2005

APR 16, 2008 12:36 AM

good lord - talk about preacher and quire.

it's like living in sourthern california.

which is great

but it won't change minds. people on the fence. for whatever reason, won't shift left because of what was written here,
"If you don't think they are war criminals, then you are a fucking idiot." is right about where anyone who doesn't 100% agree might punch out.
i know most of the people swing left, and many of us may swing, but if one doesn't write something like this with the hopes of changing minds and then by, changing policy, aren't we just singing a folk song with a bunch of hippies.

no offense - i'm just sayin.
cheers

v

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

APR 16, 2008 12:41 AM

vincenzo said:
good lord - talk about preacher and quire.

it's like living in sourthern california.

which is great

but it won't change minds. people on the fence. for whatever reason, won't shift left because of what was written here,
"If you don't think they are war criminals, then you are a fucking idiot." is right about where anyone who doesn't 100% agree might punch out.
i know most of the people swing left, and many of us may swing, but if one doesn't write something like this with the hopes of changing minds and then by, changing policy, aren't we just singing a folk song with a bunch of hippies.

no offense - i'm just sayin.
cheers

v

Not looking to change minds. Just telling it like I see it.

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

APR 16, 2008 12:44 AM

strndniowa said:
Just a special note- or request- to clear up confusion throughout the threads...
Department of Human Services is what probably comes to mind for a lot of people when they hear DHS
as opposed to Department of Homeland Security...

Those people would be the ones who don't know that it's the Department of Health and Human Services, and goes by the abbreviation HHC.

emotedcreations

Germany

July 2006

APR 16, 2008 12:56 AM

vincenzo said:
good lord - talk about preacher and quire.

I believe it's preacher and choir.

OhSoOrdinary

New York, NY

July 2006

APR 16, 2008 02:04 AM

emotedcreations said:

vincenzo said:
good lord - talk about preacher and quire.

I believe it's preacher and choir.

I've never seen a misspelling that bothered me so much.

coyotemike said:

bean said:
I thought this was extremely relevant, so it's worth quoting...

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Philadelphia Daily News asks Obama about ABC Report:

Here's his answer, in its entirety:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.

The bottom line is that: Obama sent a clear signal that -- unlike impeachment, which he's ruled out and which now seems a practical impossibility -- he is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House. To many, the information that waterboarding -- which the United States has considered torture and a violation of law in the past -- was openly planned out in the seat of American government is evidence enough to at least start asking some tough questions in January 2009.

Worth quoting, but are there extradition treaties with Paraguay?

In fact we do.

SockPuppet

I'm lost

July 2006

APR 16, 2008 05:04 AM

AmbientLight said:

rudeboy71 said:
Why do you think the CIA had them sign off on every torture technique? So it won't bite them on the ass later and the president and his cronies could just say they don't know what the CIA is talkking about. Just glad they (CIA) finally got smart and covered their asses.John Ashcroft was the only one uncomfortable with signing off on torture. He said that history will judge them harshly for this. No Shit!

This does help the CIA avoid being made the scapegoats for this. But one of Bush's last acts as prez, will probably to provide blanket executive pardons for his cadre... and he and Chaney are protected by executive priviledge. The only way to make them accountable, is through charges of treason.

But I don't think that's going to happen...

Could the following president remove those pardons?

Coyotemike

USA

May 2006

APR 16, 2008 06:13 AM

OhSoOrdinary said:

coyotemike said:

bean said:
I thought this was extremely relevant, so it's worth quoting...

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Philadelphia Daily News asks Obama about ABC Report:

Here's his answer, in its entirety:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.

The bottom line is that: Obama sent a clear signal that -- unlike impeachment, which he's ruled out and which now seems a practical impossibility -- he is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House. To many, the information that waterboarding -- which the United States has considered torture and a violation of law in the past -- was openly planned out in the seat of American government is evidence enough to at least start asking some tough questions in January 2009.

Worth quoting, but are there extradition treaties with Paraguay?

In fact we do.

Well, there's some hope.

AmbientLight

I'm lost

March 2005

APR 16, 2008 07:41 AM

SockPuppet said:

AmbientLight said:

rudeboy71 said:
Why do you think the CIA had them sign off on every torture technique? So it won't bite them on the ass later and the president and his cronies could just say they don't know what the CIA is talkking about. Just glad they (CIA) finally got smart and covered their asses.John Ashcroft was the only one uncomfortable with signing off on torture. He said that history will judge them harshly for this. No Shit!

This does help the CIA avoid being made the scapegoats for this. But one of Bush's last acts as prez, will probably to provide blanket executive pardons for his cadre... and he and Chaney are protected by executive priviledge. The only way to make them accountable, is through charges of treason.

But I don't think that's going to happen...

Could the following president remove those pardons?

Actually I don't know.
To my knowledge it's never been done.

AmbientLight

I'm lost

March 2005

APR 16, 2008 08:06 AM

FearTheReaper said:

vincenzo said:
good lord - talk about preacher and quire.

it's like living in sourthern california.

which is great

but it won't change minds. people on the fence. for whatever reason, won't shift left because of what was written here,
"If you don't think they are war criminals, then you are a fucking idiot." is right about where anyone who doesn't 100% agree might punch out.
i know most of the people swing left, and many of us may swing, but if one doesn't write something like this with the hopes of changing minds and then by, changing policy, aren't we just singing a folk song with a bunch of hippies.

no offense - i'm just sayin.
cheers

v

Not looking to change minds. Just telling it like I see it.

And I don't thnk we can change minds. Many of the comments on these threads are evidence of that.

I personally don't think the subject of torture is a political question... but an ethical one. Odd how this can be considered simply a political difference of opinion.

livertarian

Fairfax, VA

February 2008

APR 16, 2008 11:49 AM

FearTheReaper said:

SergeantPsycho said:
Oh Sarge, you're such a glutton for punishment.

I remember some one... maybe it was FTR, putting a heap of blame on the failures of our goverment (Dr. Rice in particular) to prevent 9/11. I ask simply this: In lieu of "torture" (let's face it, as far as water boarding goes, there are far less benign means of getting information out of some one) how do you propose we go about getting the nessecary information to prevent the next 9/11?

Um..we had the necessary information. Hence my blaming of the government. Are you real?

Torture doesn't work. It is an unreliable way to get information. Torture a lackey and they will say anything. Torture a high level pro, and they will misdirect or lie. Even a war hawk like McLame gets this, because he was tortured, and did not spill anything useful. As a military policy, it only accomplishes making us look like monsters. We used to have some credibility in the world as a champion of human rights. It will take years to rebuild that trust, if we can rebuild it at all.

I wonder if the idea of WMDs in Iraq was helped along by some torture at Guantanemo. "Yes! Yes! The WMDs! Saddam has them! Yes!" Tenet calls GWB, "It's a slam dunk babies!"

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

APR 16, 2008 11:53 AM

coyotemike said:

OhSoOrdinary said:

coyotemike said:

bean said:
I thought this was extremely relevant, so it's worth quoting...

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Philadelphia Daily News asks Obama about ABC Report:

Here's his answer, in its entirety:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.

The bottom line is that: Obama sent a clear signal that -- unlike impeachment, which he's ruled out and which now seems a practical impossibility -- he is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House. To many, the information that waterboarding -- which the United States has considered torture and a violation of law in the past -- was openly planned out in the seat of American government is evidence enough to at least start asking some tough questions in January 2009.

Worth quoting, but are there extradition treaties with Paraguay?

In fact we do.

Well, there's some hope.

Not really. It's not clear that war crimes or treaty violations would fall under the article of that agreement that specifies which crimes can be cited to extradite someone, and if it's not clear, you can bet that it's going to be tough to arrange extradition of any high-ranking government official.

Coyotemike

USA

May 2006

APR 16, 2008 11:57 AM

bean said:

coyotemike said:

OhSoOrdinary said:

coyotemike said:
Worth quoting, but are there extradition treaties with Paraguay?

In fact we do.

Well, there's some hope.

Not really. It's not clear that war crimes or treaty violations would fall under the article of that agreement that specifies which crimes can be cited to extradite someone, and if it's not clear, you can bet that it's going to be tough to arrange extradition of any high-ranking government official.

Fuck.

SockPuppet

I'm lost

July 2006

APR 16, 2008 04:11 PM

bean said:

coyotemike said:

OhSoOrdinary said:

coyotemike said:

Worth quoting, but are there extradition treaties with Paraguay?

In fact we do.

Well, there's some hope.

Not really. It's not clear that war crimes or treaty violations would fall under the article of that agreement that specifies which crimes can be cited to extradite someone, and if it's not clear, you can bet that it's going to be tough to arrange extradition of any high-ranking government official.

Um, do I understand you correctly, that war crimes are not extraditable?
I mean, I've read it, and I think I agree with your interpretation, but WTF??

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

SergeantPsycho

USA

January 2007

APR 16, 2008 06:54 PM

FearTheReaper said:

SergeantPsycho said:
Oh Sarge, you're such a glutton for punishment.

I remember some one... maybe it was FTR, putting a heap of blame on the failures of our goverment (Dr. Rice in particular) to prevent 9/11. I ask simply this: In lieu of "torture" (let's face it, as far as water boarding goes, there are far less benign means of getting information out of some one) how do you propose we go about getting the nessecary information to prevent the next 9/11?

Um..we had the necessary information. Hence my blaming of the government. Are you real?

No, I'm a hallicunation created by your pre-frontal cortex to encourage you not to let it atrophy, as you seem intent on doing.*

*Yeah, I know picking on people is unlike me, but he gave me an opening, ok?

strndniowa

Grimes, IA

May 2007

APR 16, 2008 08:41 PM

bean said:

strndniowa said:
Just a special note- or request- to clear up confusion throughout the threads...
Department of Human Services is what probably comes to mind for a lot of people when they hear DHS
as opposed to Department of Homeland Security...

Those people would be the ones who don't know that it's the Department of Health and Human Services, and goes by the abbreviation HHC.

Sorry friend, it is DHS here in Iowa...if I have to I will take a picture of a letterhead...

strndniowa

Grimes, IA

May 2007

APR 16, 2008 08:45 PM

I guess part of that depends on what state, or whether you are referring to it at the state or federal level...

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

APR 16, 2008 08:53 PM

strndniowa said:
I guess part of that depends on what state, or whether you are referring to it at the state or federal level...

I guess, because, well...

SockPuppet

I'm lost

July 2006

APR 17, 2008 01:36 AM

SockPuppet said:

bean said:

coyotemike said:

OhSoOrdinary said:

coyotemike said:

Worth quoting, but are there extradition treaties with Paraguay?

In fact we do.

Well, there's some hope.

Not really. It's not clear that war crimes or treaty violations would fall under the article of that agreement that specifies which crimes can be cited to extradite someone, and if it's not clear, you can bet that it's going to be tough to arrange extradition of any high-ranking government official.

Um, do I understand you correctly, that war crimes are not extraditable?
I mean, I've read it, and I think I agree with your interpretation, but WTF??

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

On reflection, that's 1973, around the time of the CIA's anti-Allende coup; and Stroessner's Paraguay. So maybe I'm not surprised.

kiwirst1

United Kingdom

June 2007

APR 17, 2008 08:47 AM

Viva La Revolution! Anything has got to be better than the current lot or next hopefuls. Great democracy when the last four presidents could be from the same 2 familys.

strndniowa

Grimes, IA

May 2007

APR 17, 2008 06:23 PM

bean said:

strndniowa said:
I guess part of that depends on what state, or whether you are referring to it at the state or federal level...

I guess, because, well...

Well I think this may be a sign the our government is truly a mess- they can't even keep their acronyms straight between state and federal...and who knows about state to state....not so well

xo_b_mac

Markham, ON

June 2007

APR 19, 2008 11:23 AM

I love how war must have rules...

otaku

USA

January 2004

APR 20, 2008 08:44 AM

But we're Americans, we don't HAVE to follow the rules!
'Geneva Convention? Fuck that quaint shit.'

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

Ventura, CA

January 2005

APR 16, 2008 12:17 AM

Germany

July 2006

APR 16, 2008 12:27 AM

Ventura, CA

January 2005

APR 16, 2008 12:36 AM

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

APR 16, 2008 12:41 AM

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

APR 16, 2008 12:44 AM

Germany

July 2006

APR 16, 2008 12:56 AM

New York, NY

July 2006

APR 16, 2008 02:04 AM

I'm lost

July 2006

APR 16, 2008 05:04 AM

USA

May 2006

APR 16, 2008 06:13 AM

I'm lost

March 2005

APR 16, 2008 07:41 AM

I'm lost

March 2005

APR 16, 2008 08:06 AM

livertarian

Fairfax, VA

February 2008

APR 16, 2008 11:49 AM

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

APR 16, 2008 11:53 AM

USA

May 2006

APR 16, 2008 11:57 AM

I'm lost

July 2006

APR 16, 2008 04:11 PM

USA

January 2007

APR 16, 2008 06:54 PM

Grimes, IA

May 2007

APR 16, 2008 08:41 PM

Grimes, IA

May 2007

APR 16, 2008 08:45 PM

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

APR 16, 2008 08:53 PM

I'm lost

July 2006

APR 17, 2008 01:36 AM

United Kingdom

June 2007

APR 17, 2008 08:47 AM

Grimes, IA

May 2007

APR 17, 2008 06:23 PM

Markham, ON

June 2007

APR 19, 2008 11:23 AM

USA

January 2004

APR 20, 2008 08:44 AM