Disturbing law proposed in Afghanastan

[Bill Glasheen]

I am perfectly happy to indict any offense to our freedoms by any President of any party

Be careful what you ask for. In this brief period of one party rule, you very well may get your wish.

And then our enemies get to learn intimate details about our defenses against their own internationally unlawful actions, and respond accordingly. And they could give a rip what the world thinks. We allegedly live by a higher standard; they do not.

And then when the next party gets in power, well... Payback is a bitch you know. And believe you me, there will be payback. This has been going on now ever since Slick Willie was engaged in covert actions in the oral office.

Gerald Ford got it right. At some point, judicial discretion is in order. The liberal guilt thing needs to be put to bed, and we need to move on. Last I heard, our economy was in the tank and people need jobs. I don't think the Average Joe has an appetite now for show trials. Come to think of it, the rest of the world is hurting economically as well.

Leadership is in order here. And leadership cannot be found in public displays of self loathing. Obama has a chance to reign in the partisanship and get something constructive done. If he screws it up, everyone will suffer.

- Bill

[cxt]

IJ

"yawn"

Really?

Sorry to bore you with facts, details and appeals for accuracy in ones expressed postions.

"......people don't care about something unless they specifically post it here. I guess I don't care about my anniversaries."

Actually that is a misperception on what I'm saying.....it would be more accurate to say that I think utter silence anywhere on certain issues while creating a neverending drumbeat about other issue........to slightly alter and paraphase [/b][/i] Christopher Hitchens, such behavior....or lack of mention........"permits one to be skeptical" of somebodies motivation and real feelings.

Besides its your fellow travler Val that insists that one does not need "comment" to indicate caring. Not me.
My argument is that generally if you care you "comment".......as you suggest you do about those you care about.

"attacked the rights of citizens"

I disagree with that.......we can agree to disagree...or not....either way. Opinions vary.

"Why am I talking about Bush........his administration invented all that crap."

See, that is kinda my point.....almost every executive power you are so upset about...many of those claimed by Bush were first asserted and used by Bill Clinton---whom did many (certainly not all--but many) of the same things your now ranting about Bush doing.

I was upset about it then your upset about now.

The main difference is that when it was "your" guy doing it I couldn't get much of anyone on your side of the isle to care....they, as you put earlier, just went "yawn" and went about their business.......but when Bush did it your side of the political isle went into mass spasm.

In short, I'm worried about abuse of powers and presidential misconduct, you seem much more concerned about weither its a Republican or a Democrat that is doing the abusing.

I understand your upset....I even get why, I disagree with much of it...but I do understand it.......but Bush is gone.

[cxt]

Bill

Interesting post above!

Esp the "payback" part.

I was involved in poltical round table recently that touched on similer issues.

1-The notion that the government has the right to take back your bonus.

It was discussed that might be a really good platform for some folks----run on the current Senator not doing a good job--and that if your elected your going to make them give back a big hunk of their salary. Hey...its taxpayer money so why not?

2-These so-called "truth commisions"........whomever is power now.....sooner or later the balance always shifts, and those in power need to ask themselves if they are ready to have those very "commisions" used against them when it does.

[IJ]

Bill, I was saying I would indict, that is, critique, and hold responsible, anyone from any political stripe for their errors (as I want to be held accountable for mine). I did not mean I wanted Bush criminally indicted.

CXT, you're NOT boring me with facts; you never cite anything. We've been over the "you don't care if you don't post" thing a dozen times; it's a stupid argument. I've said till I'm blue in the face that I don't care if its dems or repubs and you're still living in a fabricated world where I only care about repub misdeeds. You appear unteachable on these points; you may have them.

As for attacking the rights of citizens, and what the Bush admin developed the bulk of these questionable strategies, and how well they work--it's in the book. I can't help you if you won't read it. And yeah... Bush is gone. Guess we should stop caring around rights and interrogations and covert prisons? Huh? What is your point? People lost tons of $ in the last year and they still care about THAT too, for some odd reason.

[Valkenar]

Really? Try telling that to your significant other and see how far you get.

I don't tell *you* about my girlfriend's qualities, but I do tell her. It's a pretty simple concept.

just to clarify ... you care about the victems of terrorist attacks ... you just never talk about them ... because you think that it would not do any real good ... but post frequently about waterboarding because you think you will help people understand that its "torture?"

Yup, you got it.

You did ask.

Yes, and thank you for trying, but you didn't actually answer the question. You answered the question "What does CXT think Valkenar is doing when he posts" or something along those lines. The actual question was "what does Valkenar think he is accomplishing with his posts?"

[IJ]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/ ... newssearch

I especially like the aside about the 8 year old wife with the 47 year old husband. As sexually repressed and tyrannical as these countries are, they certainly do find ways to appeal to humanity's worst sexual instincts... oh and in Iran, you can't have sex outside of marriage, but you can get a mullah sanctioned few-hours-long marriage that overlaps nicely with a stay at a brothel.

[cxt]

IJ

Sorry I was overseas.

Its not...... "you don't care if you don't post".....its more like more like "its hard to take anyone seriously when they ONLY rant about how guys that thow acid into a womens face and hang gays are treated...and seldom if ever, spare as much as a line for concern for their victims" and the harm they cause.

To rephrase Christopher Hitchens "It permits one to be skeptical of their sincerity."

And rightly so..........when someone has all the time in the world to rant and rave and show endless concern for only one group...while esentially ignoring those whom they behead and murder and hang and disfigure....it calls into serious question how much they really care and how much is just ideological demonizing.
Seriously...look at the vast difference in actions.......beheading vs cold rooms....acid in the face vs being yelled at......hanging gays vs waterboarding those that hang gays.......huge amount of e-ink getting spilled over acts......which in comparision are extremly minor....highlighted by the fact that the really bad stuff never gets so much as a mention.

Since you fasely accuse me of never presenting facts.....lets test both your information on the topic and its history and arguments.

Whom testified before the Senate Intelligence Committe that: (emp mine.)

"The Department of Justice believes and the case law supports that the president has the inherent authority to conduct warrentless physical searchs for foreign intellegence purposes"

and further:

"that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsitant with the collection of foreign intellegence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intellegence responsibilities."

Sounds pretty much like a Bush assertion doesn't it?

I'll save you the trouble of a frantic "google search" .....it was actually Clintons Dept Attorney General and later 9/11 Commsion member Jamie Gorelick back in 1994.

Laying what was is clearly not just the groundwork for the Bush arguments but actually going much further in "OK'ing" warrentless physical searchs of citizens homes.

Again, one of "your" guys developed arguments and tactics later used by Bush....but only Bush is subjected to your attacks.

And odd oversite don't you think?

Clinton also subjected more than 70 people to renditions...that we know of......including seizing people in Albania and shipping them off to Egypt for what Joanne Mariner, counter-terrorism director for Human Rights Watch reffered to "The Clinton policy in practice meant torture..........(we haven't been able to interview the people themselevs) we have evidence that they were tortured."

(The Washington Times did a whole piece on it back in Jan)

You and I disagree profoundly as to what constitutes "torture" and its overall implications.......but I think it it speaks volumes that only one accused "torturer" is singled out for your scorn.

Again, we profoundly disagree over warrentless wiretaps.....but it speaks volumes when only one accused "abuser" is singled out for your scorn over when clearly Clinton has done the same and resonably worse.

Riddle me this....if I singled you out for scorn and ridicule...and indeed criminal proscution in this case.....for things I also did....what would you call it?

2 wrongs certainly don't make a right........but it seems that if you really hate torture and abuse of civil rights.....you should be angry when anyone does it....not just angry when Bush is accused of it.

And I don't see much ire and venom directed at anyone else.

BTW if I missed your taking Clinton and the first Bush equally to task for what they did then I owe you a sincere "I'm sorry".......which I would be happy to post at your direction.

[IJ]

CXT. You again present your assertion that I care more about terrorists than their victims, including gays (a point you mention presumably knowing that it has personal meaning for me, which only makes your assertion more fantastic). Then you go on about how the Clinton years were not spotless, after I've said till I was blue in the face I don't care which party we're talking about.

You appear to know more about what I care about than I do! Amazing. You seem to just.... not get it. Enjoy the ignorant bliss, I guess. But I will answer your question:

"Riddle me this....if I singled you out for scorn and ridicule...and indeed criminal proscution in this case..... for things I also did ....what would you call it?"

A non sequitor. Because 1) *I* am not guilty of the things I am complaining about (as is the complainer in your hypothetical; 2) I have not mentioned "ridicule" in the slightest, although scorn fits ok; 3) it addresses a fantasy situation of yours. If we can address the actual case here, or pretend your example had been properly thought through and worded, then it would be stupid to complain about something when one party does something and not another. However, I didn't do that. When posting a complaint, one is not required to review all of history and condemn everyone guilty of a similar action. That's... just dumb. If asked if they would apply the same test to others, they ought to agree and that's what I've done.

To recap:

1) I complained about actions of Bush administration members (who generally provided slanted and faulty advice to the President, who wasn't given a fair set of options to chose from).
2) You whined loudly that they're not the only guilty parties
3) I stated my complete agreement that I would be troubled by similar actions by others
4) You continue to use up bandwidth complaining about nonissues.

This is your M.O.; repeated, unedited, multitangential posts with logical mistakes about settled issues. Instead of posting another, please think things through. For example, if wondering why I didn't have concerns about that testimony,* instead of jumping to the mistaken assumption that I would excuse any Clinton official of any misdeeds, consider some other possibilities:

1) I might be unaware of their statements (as I was).
2) I might NEVER HAVE BEEN ASKED what I thought of them
3) I might have found their application not to have caused the serious PR and civil rights issues that the Bush Administration plans have caused
4) I might have already repeatedly stated I wouldn't excuse a Clinton appointee in this very thread.

*As for the statement, it is worth pointing out that the context of your quote is absent. For example, warrantless searches are conducted ALL THE TIME. Police search your car when they pull you over and find out you're high on drugs, for example. The quote, by itself, is quite insufficient to indict the Clinton administration for misdeeds--although I'm not saying they didn't or couldn't have, just that you have yet to present sufficient evidence, or, you know, something basic, like a link to said evidence.

[cxt]

IJ

Not sure I actually accused you of caring more for terrorists than for their victims--not in my last post anyhow---you know the post responded too.....did suggest to Val that none of us are mind readers and that if people get the wrong impression about what one cares about then it's not unreasonable that we got that impression from what they choose to post/talk/discuse about.

In context......if anybody spends all their time ranting about the harsh treatment terrorists endure yet seldom mention their victimes then its not unresonable to question their real concerns.

"I don't care which party we are talking about"

If that were actually true than you would be just as angry at Bill Clinton as you are at George Bush the younger----judge for yourself.......compare the amount of e-ink you have spilled on both.

BTW from my perspective nobody had much of anything to about Clinton at the time---the Right because they didn't really have a problem with it and the Left because Clinton was their guy...........for me its less a matter of whom is doing what and more or the slippery slope you always get with the G.........the next person always seems to want to push it furthar then the last person and so on..........

"its a non-sequitor"

Not really......its simply an illustration of what could charatibly called "bias".......attack after attack on a someone that is a essentially a poltical rival while you don't so much as mention a guy from your party whom did the same things----and arguebly worse in some areas.

"all of history"

Not asking to review "all of history"--just the previous administration. Events which occured during our own lifetime while many people were actually old enough to vote. (perhaps not you and I--but many)

"your MO"

Nope very little of that---save the "unedited" part is in any fashion--correct.

"instead of jumping to the mistaken conclusion that I would excuse Clinton offical misdeeds"

Again, taking you face value does not lead to me belive that you would "excuse" any of Clintons misdeeds.
Just pointing out exactly where and why people might resonably get that impression----mainly because of what you don't say and don't include a resonable person migh get they impression....due to your overwhleming focus....that you only care about Bushs misdeeds.......of which you have many to chooose from.

"You have yet to present suffienct evidence"

This from a guy in whom in this discussion alone frames telling me to "go read the book" as proper evidence presention.

More to the point...I was addressing your statement/perception that such ideas were developed by Bush.....just giving you an easily found alternative POV.

If you doubt me its easy enough to check.......Gorlicks comments are fairly easy to track down with plenty of "spin" and nuance by both Lefties and Righties.

(in my circles his comments were pretty much commen info for most folks--but then again we have to---normal people with normal lives probably have much less reason to keep track of such)

I don't do "argument by link".....for reasons I have established prior.

Look I do owe you one "I'm sorry" however.....I am on the road and will be for some weeks so I never should have re-started a discussion in which I was not prepared to keep current with and take an active role in daily exchange.

So I'm going to have to respectfully end my end of this discusson at this time.....might be able to pick it up later but until then----I'll consider this a "win" for you.

Which I'm sure that you do anyway....just thought it might be less annoying if I went ahead and conceeded the point personally.

[IJ]

Ok! But, the thing is, we ought to be discussing what we should do with all the gitmo people (some of whom we know we rounded up because we were paying for prisoners and they didn't have anything to do with AQ) rather than worrying who "won" an argument here. I'm personally comfortable with locking up the high priority ones forever. In many other conflicts they just woulda been shot. It turns out the Geneva conventions permit summary execution for spies and other nonconventional combatants anyway, so this is something of a favor. How to sort out guilt and innocence and make amends with the regular guys we rounded up and, um, sorta mistreated (?) for years, to the point where they wrote loved ones telling them to move on with their lives as if they were already dead--no idea...