Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

rulemylife -> Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 10:32:44 AM)

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Two-thirds of Americans favor investigating whether the George W. Bush administration overstepped legal boundaries in its "war on terror," according to a poll released Thursday by USA Today and Gallup.

A majority of respondents said a probe should be launched into allegations that the Bush team used torture to interrogate terror suspects.

Investigators also should look into the former president's program of wiretapping US citizens without first securing court-issued warrants, respondents said.

About four respondents in 10 polled by USA Today (38 percent) favored criminal investigations, while about a quarter (24 percent) said they want an investigation without criminal charges being filed.


• Poll: 38% want probe of 'war on terror' excesses under Bush



philosophy -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 11:30:22 AM)

...are there any sensible arguments against having such an enquiry, provided it is conducted even-handedly? Is Kenneth Starr looking for a job?



Vendaval -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 11:39:51 AM)

No surprise there, rule. 



kdsub -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 12:06:45 PM)

Isn't  it funny how politicians always seem to underestimate the moral fortitude of their citizenry. Bush was sure his base didn't care how he pursued the war on terror as long as he got results. He was wrong... just as many politicians of the past.

Politicians would be well served to remember America believes in its Constitution...even if they don't. We...meaning citizens...may seem like we are not paying attention...or are too stupid to understand complicated situations...but we will hold them accountable sooner or later.

Butch



MichiganHeadmast -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 12:21:35 PM)

I'm in favor of executing non-uniformed belligerents after extracting all useful information, but then I wasn't asked.



Truthiness -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 1:13:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Politicians would be well served to remember America believes in its Constitution...even if they don't....but we will hold them accountable sooner or later.



Keep in mind, Franklin Delenor Roosevelt put 120,000 Japanese Americans into Internment Camps, many of them native born Americans; and kept them there under extremely poor living conditions; and he certainly wasn't held accountable. (And is still considered by many Democrats to be one of the great Presidents heh).




FirmhandKY -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 2:21:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

...are there any sensible arguments against having such an enquiry, provided it is conducted even-handedly? Is Kenneth Starr looking for a job?


See Truthies post above.  Also ...

Such an event, or series of events as discussed in the OP's article would be perceived by many as the criminalization of political opposition and as show trials.

Including by moi.

If you wish to see the US actually torn asunder politically (rather than the rather tasteless histrionics of the "loony" left we have witnessed over the past few years), then, by all means ... lobby for show trials.

At the end of the day, the blood in the streets may be the best thing for the Republic in at least a century, even if bought at the cost of a tremendous amount of suffering.

Firm



corysub -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 2:32:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

...are there any sensible arguments against having such an enquiry, provided it is conducted even-handedly? Is Kenneth Starr looking for a job?


See Truthies post above.  Also ...

Such an event, or series of events as discussed in the OP's article would be perceived by many as the criminalization of political opposition and as show trials.

Including by moi.

If you wish to see the US actually torn asunder politically (rather than the rather tasteless histrionics of the "loony" left we have witnessed over the past few years), then, by all means ... lobby for show trials.

At the end of the day, the blood in the streets may be the best thing for the Republic in at least a century, even if bought at the cost of a tremendous amount of suffering.

Firm



I honestly believe that is exactly where we are heading.  As the American people start to learn more and more how they were betrayed with a slogan for "Change" that amounted to the same nonsensical liberal push to legislate social change by redistribution of the hours of work and the earnings we have achieved to those in our society who have not been as successful.  Over much of my lifetime our country was able to afford the corruption and idiots in Washington representing us as seen by the "peanut gallery" asking stupid questions of eight of the most important bankers in the country..like.."do you have ATM machines"?  These are penetrating questions? These are qustions and discourse that lead to possibly finding solutions to todays problems..no..that is not of any interest to Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, et al..there only interest in in their liberal agenda being achieved.

I'm ready for the coming battle but you can never have too many bullets.



corysub -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 2:39:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Politicians would be well served to remember America believes in its Constitution...even if they don't....but we will hold them accountable sooner or later.



Keep in mind, Franklin Delenor Roosevelt put 120,000 Japanese Americans into Internment Camps, many of them native born Americans; and kept them there under extremely poor living conditions; and he certainly wasn't held accountable. (And is still considered by many Democrats to be one of the great Presidents heh).




That's what leaders do in times of crisis.  It's easy to second guess what was done 60 years ago..but at the time it seemed not only right but necessary.  George Bush waterboarding less than a handful of Gitmo detainees should have done more..not less.  As far as violating the constitution...Abraham Lincoln, who Obama sees himself as a re-incarnation, suspended Habeus Corpus and had a democrat opponent in Ohio jailed because he felt the man spurting anti-union rhetoric. 



FirmhandKY -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 2:53:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

I'm ready for the coming battle but you can never have too many bullets.


I don't know if I'll ever be "ready", but I do know that I've put some thought into the process, procedures, methods, organization, equipment, and financing of such a thing.

Interestingly enough, while the Clinton years are often seen by the more left of center folks as 8 years of nirvana, it was also the years of Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elián González and OK City.

If the current Administration is as inept, or as devious as I fear (the jury is still out), then the Clinton years may later be seen as nothing more than a peaceful preface to the unrest to come.

I think an important distinction between the "left" and the "right" in the US is that the left tends towards theatrics, while the right tends toward action when things get really tight.

I don't think show trials would be the proximate cause of an upheaval, but I do think it would be more than enough to light the fuse, and convince many on the "right" and right leaning independents that the "left" had zero interests in a fair political process.

Once that hurdle of disbelief has been overcome, it becomes almost inevitable that a cycle of violence and distrust would eventually start.

Firm



philosophy -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 3:01:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


I think an important distinction between the "left" and the "right" in the US is that the left tends towards theatrics, while the right tends toward action when things get really tight.



...well, the impeachment of Clinton over a blow job and a fib to cover it were seen by many as theatrics too. Politically inspired and partisan theatrics at that.  So, what is the difference between the treatment of Clinton and a putative investigation into Bush/Cheney?



ArizonaSunSwitch -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 3:02:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MichiganHeadmast

I'm in favor of executing non-uniformed belligerents after extracting all useful information, but then I wasn't asked.


As is legal under the Geneva Convention.




ArizonaSunSwitch -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 3:14:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


I think an important distinction between the "left" and the "right" in the US is that the left tends towards theatrics, while the right tends toward action when things get really tight.



...well, the impeachment of Clinton over a blow job and a fib to cover it were seen by many as theatrics too. Politically inspired and partisan theatrics at that.  So, what is the difference between the treatment of Clinton and a putative investigation into Bush/Cheney?


Let's see. Impeachment over lying under oath during a trial while (or was it while he was governor, i honestly forget) President vs actions a prior President took in office imagined by a bunch of marxists ? hmmmm. Sorry, not the same thing. It's an attempt to criminalise the political opposition (something marxists always do) and if successful a sign that this country has gone down a path that may not be fixable via political process.

Congress could of impeached Bush or withdrawn War funding at any time during his Presidency. Any "war crimes" bullshit now is a warning to all national Republican politicians to keep their mouths shut during the devolution of this country to a single party system. And too many of those cowardly bastards will probably do just that.




slaveboyforyou -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 3:22:57 PM)

quote:

...well, the impeachment of Clinton over a blow job and a fib to cover it were seen by many as theatrics too. Politically inspired and partisan theatrics at that.  So, what is the difference between the treatment of Clinton and a putative investigation into Bush/Cheney?


He committed perjury in a sexual harrassment case.  Do you understand that is a crime?  It's a felony, and people have gone to prison for doing the same thing.  Lets not forget that Clinton championed himself a supporter of women's rights.  I remember him expressing support for Anita Hill in her allegations against Clarence Thomas.  The sleazebag turns around and commits acts far worse than anything Clarence Thomas did.  For those of us that live in Arkansas, rumors had been going around for years about his behavior.  He was guilty of everything he was accused of, and I suspect he was a rapist too. 

As far as a Bush trial, find the evidence.  Remember that the entire war and the Patriot Act were all supported by the majority of Democratic Senators and Congressman.  Do they get brought up on charges as well? 



philosophy -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 3:33:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou


He committed perjury in a sexual harrassment case.  Do you understand that is a crime?  It's a felony, and people have gone to prison for doing the same thing. 


.....fair enough then........so, we have sauce for the goose....... 


quote:

As far as a Bush trial, find the evidence. 


........also fair enough. Now, as i remember, the whole Clinton thing started as an attempt to find evidence to support charges, then Clinton lied......not the other way around. So, if it's ok to start a process on allegations against Clinton, why is it wrong to start a process based on allegations about Bush/Cheney? Shouldn't we give Bush/Cheney the same opportunity to lie under oath as we gave Clinton?



FirmhandKY -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 3:33:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


I think an important distinction between the "left" and the "right" in the US is that the left tends towards theatrics, while the right tends toward action when things get really tight.



...well, the impeachment of Clinton over a blow job and a fib to cover it were seen by many as theatrics too. Politically inspired and partisan theatrics at that.  So, what is the difference between the treatment of Clinton and a putative investigation into Bush/Cheney?


First, a minor correction.  Clinton's impeachment wasn't "over a blow job".  That is, however, how many on the left wish it to be perceived.

The difference between the Clinton impeachment and a show trial post-term of a President are major, although I will grant you that the Clinton impeachment was more theatrics and political motivated than it should have been.

The differences between a political impeachment and an attack on a "after his term has expired" President through the legal system are many.  However, to me the critical one is this: the Clinton impeachment was done in accordance with the Constitutional balance of power framework.  A post-term political attack on Bush would be extra-Constitutional, and destabilizing.  It would be an attempt to use the legal system to punish political disagreements.

If the Dem's had actually wanted to impeach Bush during his term of office, I would have laughed and railed, but would not be concerned about the "blood in the streets" scenario and long-term political instability.

Why did they not impeach him?  Even during the two years when they had a majority in Congress? 

The simple answer is that he committed no impeachable offense.

But, to wait until he is out of office, when he no longer has the political protections of many of the checks and balances that our system affords a sitting President is entirely another matter.

His political opposition couldn't (wouldn't?) attack him in the open, in the clearly laid out processes that our system gives them ... but waits until he no longer is in political power, and then attempts to "back door" him?

To me, this would appear as nothing more than an attempt to cow and intimidate all political opponents in the future, removing the basic formulation for freedom that we have in the US.

I'd fight that.  Literally.

Firm



philosophy -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 3:40:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


First, a minor correction.  Clinton's impeachment wasn't "over a blow job".  That is, however, how many on the left wish it to be perceived.


.....as i recall the impeachment was oer a lie given to cover the blow job, following an investigation based on allegations against Clinton. Clinton clearly lied....but after the investigation started, not before.

Now, no-one is going to commit political suicide by impeaching a sitting president during a war.  Arguably, even if it wasn't politically stupid it's ethically wrong. However, that doesn't mean that people ought to get a pass.

You'll note that, in my language here, i've tried to draw a distinction between a fair investigation and an unfair one. Doesn't matter so much if the impetus is partisan as long as the actual investigation is above board. i'd welcome an innocent verdict against Bush/Cheney almost as much as i'd welcome a guilty one. What ought not happen though is for there to be no investigation at all. There are questions regarding the whole process that have not been answered. Let's ask the questions, get the answers under oath, see if they're true or not and move on........otherwise we're leaving a question mark where none ought to be left.



MrRodgers -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 4:09:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Politicians would be well served to remember America believes in its Constitution...even if they don't....but we will hold them accountable sooner or later.

Keep in mind, Franklin Delenor Roosevelt put 120,000 Japanese Americans into Internment Camps, many of them native born Americans; and kept them there under extremely poor living conditions; and he certainly wasn't held accountable. (And is still considered by many Democrats to be one of the great Presidents heh).


That's what leaders do in times of crisis.  It's easy to second guess what was done 60 years ago..but at the time it seemed not only right but necessary.  George Bush waterboarding less than a handful of Gitmo detainees should have done more..not less.  As far as violating the constitution...Abraham Lincoln, who Obama sees himself as a re-incarnation, suspended Habeus Corpus and had a democrat opponent in Ohio jailed because he felt the man spurting anti-union rhetoric. 

Enough...comparing a concocted war on terror with a real and actual civil war is getting real tiresome from Bush sympathizers. There is NO comparison at all, in any way shape or form.

Gitmo and it was a whole lot more than a handful, is simply not in the American legal culture and an abberation. There is also supposed to be a presumption of innocence and we have no idea just who they are, what their crimes was supposed to have been while many were captured for a bounty.

This whole issue strikes me as amazing in that I have found many in this country that by their words...would have fallen right in line with Hitler or Stalin, you know, for security'n all.




TreasureKY -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 4:54:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

.....as i recall the impeachment was oer a lie given to cover the blow job, following an investigation based on allegations against Clinton.


Clinton's impeachment was brought on two charges... providing perjurious, false and misleading testimony and obstruction of justice.  The "fib" (as you previously referred to it) occurred during a formal investigation following a lawsuit filed by Paula Jones alleging that President Clinton sexually harassed her during his tenure as Governor of Arkansas. 

While Clinton and Jones settled the case before it could go to court, the information gleaned during that investigation was turned over to Kenneth Starr, who had aleady been appointed to investigate the President with regard to the Whitewater real estate venture.  The scope of Starr's investigation was expanded to cover the President's behavior during the pre-trial discovery portion of the Jones v. Clinton lawsuit, and it subsequently provided sufficient evidence to indict Clinton for lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky while under oath before a Federal Grand Jury and for his efforts to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

... Clinton clearly lied....but after the investigation started, not before.


Um... so let me get this straight... it's okay to lie during an investigation?  It's lying before an investigation that is bad?



philosophy -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 5:26:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY



Um... so let me get this straight... it's okay to lie during an investigation?  It's lying before an investigation that is bad?



...nope.....mind you, thanks for the more complete timeline......what i'm suggesting is that lying is always bad, however lying under oath is  bad and illegal. Nothing more.
i'm fairly sure we'd both agree on that.
Where i think we may disagree is on how relevant Clinton is to any future investigation into Bush/Cheney. i think that there was substantive questions for Clinton to answer. However, perhaps cleverly, what hindisght tends to see is the whole 'isablowjobactuallyetymologicallyspeakingsex' thing. Those other issues pretty much fell under the radar. However, there are now fair questions to ask Bush/Cheney....preferably under oath and without the ability to duck said questions. Now, the content and answers of some of those questions clearly fall under national security issues, so perhaps some of the process can't be in public. However, there are reasonable legal remedies for keeping some things secret. Doesn't mean they are accountable to no-one at all.........which not having an investigation suggests.....



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125