|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 05/16/2006 : 05:23:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Even if they had never carried out the plan to invade Iraq, they still would have been wrong for planning it in the manner they did.
But god told George that invading Iraq would be a good idea. I wonder what would happen if the god voice in George's head disagreed with George. I'm sure that the ensuing confusion would lead to cranial chaos and quite possibly brain implosion. 
I'm hoping that God tells George to ride his bicycle over a cliff.
"People say I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one..."
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 07:20:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Even if they had never carried out the plan to invade Iraq, they still would have been wrong for planning it in the manner they did.
But god told George that invading Iraq would be a good idea. I wonder what would happen if the god voice in George's head disagreed with George. I'm sure that the ensuing confusion would lead to cranial chaos and quite possibly brain implosion.
Voices in the head telling him to do stuff.
Isn't there a medication to help with that? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Stargirl
Skeptic Friend
USA
94 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 13:51:04 [Permalink]
|
I remembered this quote and I think it fits here.
“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” Susan B. Anthony
|
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him - Voltaire |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 19:34:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
I don't entirely agree that the pre-planning of the Iraq invasion was an overt beligerent act, but I am willing to be persuaded. In any case I suppose it's a minor difference.
Because it diverted them from any other possible course of action?
Yeah, that does demonstrate foolish and obstinate behaviour at least to some degree. Maybe the odd phrasing threw me. I wouldn't call someone who is 6'8" overtly tall or a kind act an overt nice act even though it would be nominally correct.
quote:
It may be hair splitting, but the invasion of Iraq wasn't a national defense contingency, it was a political objective.
There is a significant difference between planning for a contingency, and planning the deliberate invasion of a country and planning to create a premise for that invasion.
I agree. I only disagree with the implication that pre-planning an invasion for political reasons is nessessarily a criminal act. (I know that you are not implying that it is, I'm just clarifying my position.)
quote:
Even if they had never carried out the plan to invade Iraq, they still would have been wrong for planning it in the manner they did.
I suppose so, in the sense that they were arrogant, closeminded and foolish, and their plans were a direct result of this hubris. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 09:21:15 [Permalink]
|
OK dv, here's a recap. Things tend to get lost when posts are answered in succession without keeping track of the entire exchange.
The first issue was your statement not enough evidence was available to convince you Bush was a criminal.
dv: "Of course we've yet to hear the whole story on Bush so the two situations may not really be comparable"
&
"I'd like to see impeachment proceedings against the president. This would force him to answer specific questions under oath. I think that this would help clarify things and hopefully allow a fair determination to be made."
&
"I think there is some ambiguity in discerning which is which in some cases."[lies vs misjudgements]
&
"some of it may merely be evidence of stupidity or hypocrisy or spin and not nessessarily criminal behaviour."
There is information available which is sufficient to conclude:
1) Bush and company intended to invade Iraq, prior to 9-11-01. -- Plans revealed by both Woodward and Clark, plans were not merely contingency, nor routine. (Criminal issues of the planning aside)
2) Bush and company knowingly made very specific false statements to Congress and the public to obtain the authority and support to invade Iraq. -- Joe Wilson, yellow cake, Niger incident; Downing St. memo; claims of clear evidence of WMDs which they knew the CIA did not have clear evidence of; purposefully making false links of 9-11 to Iraq in such a way as to create an association in the mind of the public via planned propaganda techniques
3) Bush and company succeeded in taking the country to war under false pretenses, a clear violation of Constitutional separation of powers and the War Powers Act.
So where is this do you find:
A) Not enough evidence, &
B) possible incompetence instead of evidence of willful breaking of Constitutional law?
Your second issue was planning to, "violate the sovreignty of a foreign nation on invalid premises", as Valiant D. put it, didn't constitute a crime in itself.
dv: "having a plan to invade doesn't nessessarily imply intent"
&
"wishful thinking" isn't a crime in itself."
&
"If it were executed but not planned it would be all kosher then? Sorry, but I guess I'm not seeing your point"
&
"don't tell me I'm not listening...I cannot agree or disagree until I am clear on your meaning. You seem to be implying, but not stating explicitly, that the plan or the intent to invade Iraq was itself a crime of some sort."
&
"Exactly what crimes are you describing here? This sounds political not criminal to me."
&
"I only disagree with the implication that pre-planning an invasion for political reasons is nessessarily a criminal act."
&
"I'd say that this shows they intended to invade Iraq period....consider, if they could have come up with a legitimate, persuasive reason to invade Iraq (suppose hypothetically that Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11 for example) would the pre-planning of the Iraq invasion still be criminal in that case?"
I do believe, though I am not a lawyer, that this type of planning did constitute a conspiracy to commit a crime and is illegal under US law. It may be one of those crimes that is hard to prove. However, if we take the Woodward and Clark descriptions of the planning at face value, the intent was to find an excuse to execute the plan. The intent was not to have the plan ready in case Saddam gave them a reason to invade. The fact Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and Bush and company used 9-11 as a false pretense to carry out their invasion plan is pretty convincing evidence the conspiracy to commit this crime was true. In other words, they conspired, and they carried it out. To my knowledge, both of these acts are crimes under US law.
If it were executed and not planned is irrelevant to the question but both acts were illegal on their own merit. If they planned it then Saddam had given reason to invade the conspiracy to invade would have still been illegal but no one would have any reason to prosecute. Had they planned and intended to invade but not carried it out, it would have still been a crime, but again, proving intent is not easy in such a case.
My original thesis was both Presidents Nixon and Bush have put and are putting (respectively) our whole democracy at grave risk. It only makes sense to defend the country by disclosing such democratic and constitutional abuses. You seem to treat the actions as business as usual.
dv: "The things you mention here don't stand out as particularily grevious to me. Certainly they are hypocritical, but not moreso than many other politicians."
&
"My point was that making hay over every little act of hypocrisy or stupidity or spin when arguing the case that Bush is a criminal is counterproductive"
&
"If all you mean by similar is that the Bush and Nixon administrations were both corrupt then I agree they are similar in that regard."
This so reminds me of my Dad's claim at the time of Nixon's abuse of power when he said, "All Presidents commit crimes." While there may be a continuum of corruption and abuse of power rather than an all or none, Bush and Nixon both have not just acted in a corrupt business as usual manner. Nixon essentially used the FBI to attack political enemies. He used his political power to gain an aggregious advantage over his political opponents. There was more than just Watergate. Nixon and Kissinger actually prolonged the Vietnam war by dealing with the parties in power there outside of the US's authority (Nixon wasn't yet elected) to gain an advantage in getting elected. (Reagan did the same with a deal with Iran on the hostages but that's another story.)
The kind of corruption and abuse of power exercised by both Nixon and Bush rise well above the level anyone should accept. To hear you say these Bush actions weren't particularly grievous is mind boggling. It's bad enough the cronyism and corruption in this administration which is also beyond compare in my lifetime, but to think you can take the country to war for personal political gains or personal beliefs is hardly "not very grievous". It is a direct violation of the Constitution and truly threatens our whole democracy.
I'll have to continue this later to include the Delay-Rove-Bush connections and the rest of the issues. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2006 : 00:59:22 [Permalink]
|
| I must make a correction. It was Paul O'Neil who reported the early Iraq invasion plans and Clarke and Woodward who both reported immediately after 9-11 the plans were put in motion. WMDs and links to 9-11 or Al Qaeda were of no consequence other than they had to invade Afghanistan first because of the actual threat. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2006 : 06:15:29 [Permalink]
|
Sorry to take so long replying.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
OK dv, here's a recap. Things tend to get lost when posts are answered in succession without keeping track of the entire exchange.
The first issue was your statement not enough evidence was available to convince you Bush was a criminal.
Just to clarify, my first issue was actually whether Bush and Nixon were comparable, ie similar, not whether Bush is a criminal. I do in fact believe that Bush violated the law (I wouldn't be in favor of impeachment otherwise) but perhaps for somewhat different reasons than you.
quote:
There is information available which is sufficient to conclude:
1) Bush and company intended to invade Iraq, prior to 9-11-01. -- Plans revealed by both Woodward and Clark, plans were not merely contingency, nor routine. (Criminal issues of the planning aside)
2) Bush and company knowingly made very specific false statements to Congress and the public to obtain the authority and support to invade Iraq. -- Joe Wilson, yellow cake, Niger incident; Downing St. memo; claims of clear evidence of WMDs which they knew the CIA did not have clear evidence of; purposefully making false links of 9-11 to Iraq in such a way as to create an association in the mind of the public via planned propaganda techniques
3) Bush and company succeeded in taking the country to war under false pretenses, a clear violation of Constitutional separation of powers and the War Powers Act.
So where is this do you find:
A) Not enough evidence, &
B) possible incompetence instead of evidence of willful breaking of Constitutional law?
I agree with you. To me point 2) is particularly salient. There is ample evidence that Bush and co led America to war under false pretenses.
The thing is you misunderstood what my first issue was. It is that I don't think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the Nixon and Bush administrations are essentially similar. In fact I think that there is sufficient evidence to show that there are many more differences than similarities. I do agree that there are some similarities however.
quote:
Your second issue was planning to, "violate the sovreignty of a foreign nation on invalid premises", as Valiant D. put it, didn't constitute a crime in itself.
...
I do believe, though I am not a lawyer, that this type of planning did constitute a conspiracy to commit a crime and is illegal under US law. It may be one of those crimes that is hard to prove. However, if we take the Woodward and Clark descriptions of the planning at face value, the intent was to find an excuse to execute the plan. The intent was not to have the plan ready in case Saddam gave them a reason to invade. The fact Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and Bush and company used 9-11 as a false pretense to carry out their invasion plan is pretty convincing evidence the conspiracy to commit this crime was true. In other words, they conspired, and they carried it out. To my knowledge, both of these acts are crimes under US law.
If it were executed and not planned is irrelevant to the question but both acts were illegal on their own merit. If they planned it then Saddam had given reason to invade the conspiracy to invade would have still been illegal but no one would have any reason to prosecute. Had they planned and intended to invade but not carried it out, it would have still been a crime, but again, proving intent is not easy in such a case.
You have correctly represented my second issue, and I agree that the situation is not crystal clear. However, in order to show that the pre-planning was a crime in itself I think you would need to show not merely that Bush intended to invade Iraq, but that he specifically intended to invade Iraq under false pretenses. I'm not a lawyer either however.
quote:
My original thesis was both Presidents Nixon and Bush have put and are putting (respectively) our whole democracy at grave risk. It only makes sense to defend the country by disclosing such democratic and constitutional abuses.
Indeed, I agree that their actions must not be allowed to stand. Personally I would say Bush is/was the greater threat to democracy for a couple reasons. One, it seems likely that he may avoid public disgrace for his actions unlike Nixon (though Nixon did escape a criminal trial). Two, Nixon's actions were mostly covert whereas Bush's were more overt.
quote:
You seem to treat the actions as business as usual.
I suppose I am comparatively laid back about the whole mess. As a Canadian I think I can afford a less immediate perspective. However I do realize that it's a major issue and I certainly hope that getting rid of Bush and co will represent a turning point in US foreign policy. (Not only foreign policy either. His domestic priorities seem pretty screwed up as well.)
quote:
dv: "The things you mention here don't stand out as particularily grevious to me. Certainly they are hypocritical, but not moreso than many other politicians."
&
"My point was that making hay over every little act of hypocrisy or stupidity or spin when arguing the case that Bush is a criminal is counterproductive"
&
"If all you mean by similar is that the Bush and Nixon administrations were both corrupt then I agree they are similar in that regard."
This so reminds me of my Dad's claim at the time of Nixon's abuse of power when he said, "All Presidents commit crimes." While there may be a continuum of corruption and abuse of power rather than an all or none, Bush and Nixon both have not just acted in a corrupt business as usual manner. Nixon essentially used the FBI to attack political enemies. He used his political power to gain an aggregious advantage over his political opponents. There was more than just Watergate. Nixon and Kissinger actually prolonged the Vietnam war by dealing with the parties in power there outside of the US's authority (Nixon wasn't yet elected) to gain an advantage in getting elected. (Reagan did the same with a deal with Iran on the hostages but that's another story.)
I don't think you've understood me. In the statements you've quoted I am not trying to excuse Bush, I'm merely trying to assess relevance to two things a) criminal behaviour and b) similarity to Nixon. For example, breaking a campaign promise is not criminal behaviour nor does it establish similarity to Nixon so I dismiss it as irrelevant to the discussion. That is not to say that I think Bush should be let off the hook for breaking campaign promises but it's just not relevant to the current discussion.
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2006 : 13:24:49 [Permalink]
|
Bush has admittedly broken literally hundreds of laws that he thinks is just fine because in his opinion those laws were inconsistent with the Constitution. But the Constitution makes it damn clear that it is the President's job to uphold the law, not to interpret it. He's not a judge. So even beyond what is being discussed about the war in Iraq, the guy has clearly broken enough laws to be called criminal. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
quote:
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
I have no idea if this makes him "comparable" to Nixon. Hell, I'm not even sure what is meant by that word. Matt is saying they might not be comparable, but then he's comparing them. I thought being comparable simply meant that it was useful to compare two things, not that they were basically the same in nature. But maybe my understanding of "comparable" is all screwed up. Anyway, who the crap cares? There's plenty of reasons backed by hard evidence right now to impeach Bush, and the only reason he's not being impeached is because 1.) the Dems are in the minority, 2.) the Dems are chicken shits, and 2.) the American people mostly don't know shit from shinola.
I don't see why this has to become another conversation about splitting hairs and semantics. It seems to me that the point of the original post was that there's now enough evidence that Bush has behaved in a criminal manner. I am somehow reminded of how my post about Christians protesting gay rights with their "Day of Truth" got turned into a nit-picking debate over the definition of "bigotry". |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2006 : 14:45:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Marfknox:
I am somehow reminded of how my post about Christians protesting gay rights with their "Day of Truth" got turned into a nit-picking debate over the definition of "bigotry".
And, as everyone knows, skeptics never nit-pick…
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2006 : 17:04:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Bush has admittedly broken literally hundreds of laws that he thinks is just fine because in his opinion those laws were inconsistent with the Constitution. But the Constitution makes it damn clear that it is the President's job to uphold the law, not to interpret it. He's not a judge. So even beyond what is being discussed about the war in Iraq, the guy has clearly broken enough laws to be called criminal. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
Very interesting stuff marf. Not exactly at the same level of lawbreaking as leading the country to war under false pretenses, but indicative of a general attitude of entitlement and hubris nontheless.
quote:
I have no idea if this makes him "comparable" to Nixon. Hell, I'm not even sure what is meant by that word. Matt is saying they might not be comparable, but then he's comparing them. I thought being comparable simply meant that it was useful to compare two things, not that they were basically the same in nature. But maybe my understanding of "comparable" is all screwed up. Anyway, who the crap cares?
Er... considering you brought it up I assume you do. I admit I have an extremely difficult time refraining from explaining what I meant when it seems someone has misunderstood me, sometimes that leads to nitpicking. Anyway given your comments further down I will refrain from taking the 'nitpick' bait.
quote:
There's plenty of reasons backed by hard evidence right now to impeach Bush, and the only reason he's not being impeached is because 1.) the Dems are in the minority, 2.) the Dems are chicken shits, and 2.) the American people mostly don't know shit from shinola.
Very succinctly put.
quote:
I don't see why this has to become another conversation about splitting hairs and semantics. It seems to me that the point of the original post was that there's now enough evidence that Bush has behaved in a criminal manner. I am somehow reminded of how my post about Christians protesting gay rights with their "Day of Truth" got turned into a nit-picking debate over the definition of "bigotry".
I too find it frustrating when a point gets lost over a semantic issue. I think it is often avoidable if we focus on the intended meaning (when it's reasonably clear) rather than on the specific (perhaps less than ideal) word choices someone makes. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2006 : 00:02:47 [Permalink]
|
One of the semantics issues was merely having different interpretations of how Bush and Nixon were or were not similar. You can pick out any number of things and say these are alike and any number of things and say these are different. So that whole discussion is just off on a side track. My concern right now and in this thread is Bush is taking away the rights we have under the constitution.
A German citizen with a name that was similar to someone else was mistakenly arrested by the police in Macedonia who then turned him over to the CIA, who then took him to Afghanistan for 5 months of torture. quote:
The director of the al Qaeda unit ... insisted he was probably a terrorist, and should be imprisoned and interrogated immediately.
Others were doubtful. They wanted to wait to see whether the passport was proved fraudulent. Beyond that, there was no evidence Masri was not who he claimed to be -- a German citizen of Arab descent traveling after a disagreement with his wife....The unit's director won the argument. She ordered Masri captured and flown to a CIA prison in Afghanistan.
After the US figured out they had an innocent man, they took another 2 months before releasing him figuring out how they were going to tell the German government they had kidnapped a German citizen by mistake. quote:
The CIA, working with other intelligence agencies, has captured an estimated 3,000 people, ... in its campaign to dismantle terrorist networks. It is impossible to know, however, how many mistakes the CIA and its foreign partners have made....there is no tribunal or judge to check the evidence against those picked up by the CIA. The same bureaucracy that decides to capture and transfer a suspect for interrogation-- a process called "rendition" -- is also responsible for policing itself for errors.....The list includes several people whose identities were offered by al Qaeda figures during CIA interrogations, officials said. One turned out to be an innocent college professor who had given the al Qaeda member a bad grade, one official said...."They picked up the wrong people, who had no information. In many, many cases there was only some vague association" with terrorism, one CIA officer said.
While the CIA admitted to Germany's then-Interior Minister Otto Schily that it had made a mistake, it has labored to keep the specifics of Masri's case from becoming public...It authorized an unprecedented range of covert action, including lethal measures and renditions,...Among those released from Guantanamo is Mamdouh Habib, an Egyptian-born Australian citizen, apprehended by a CIA team in Pakistan in October 2001, then sent to Egypt for interrogation, according to court papers. He has alleged that he was burned by cigarettes, given electric shocks and beaten by Egyptian captors. After six months, he was flown to Guantanamo Bay and let go earlier this year without being charged....
Between this stuff and the Guantanamo imprisonments, no trial, no accounting of even who is being held, secret prisons all over the place, thousands being secretly held with many innocent people caught up in the net, no accountability, no consequences for the CIA operatives for their negligence, no trials, no lawyers, not to mention torturing these people....this whole thing is absolutely wrong!
To top the above affair off, a US district court judge dismissed the guy's lawsuit against the US government under the claim, going to trial would reveal national secrets.
It's absolutely frightening. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2006 : 03:41:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
One of the semantics issues was merely having different interpretations of how Bush and Nixon were or were not similar. You can pick out any number of things and say these are alike and any number of things and say these are different. So that whole discussion is just off on a side track. My concern right now and in this thread is Bush is taking away the rights we have under the constitution.
All right yeah let's start fresh. I guess I had an adverse reaction to the Nixon comparison thing. Leaving aside minor details we do essentially agree.
quote:
A German citizen with a name that was similar to someone else was mistakenly arrested by the police in Macedonia who then turned him over to the CIA, who then took him to Afghanistan for 5 months of torture.
...
After the US figured out they had an innocent man, they took another 2 months before releasing him figuring out how they were going to tell the German government they had kidnapped a German citizen by mistake.
...
Between this stuff and the Guantanamo imprisonments, no trial, no accounting of even who is being held, secret prisons all over the place, thousands being secretly held with many innocent people caught up in the net, no accountability, no consequences for the CIA operatives for their negligence, no trials, no lawyers, not to mention torturing these people....this whole thing is absolutely wrong!
To top the above affair off, a US district court judge dismissed the guy's lawsuit against the US government under the claim, going to trial would reveal national secrets.
It's absolutely frightening.
Yeah, it is frightening. The US is really alienating itself in the international community. It's kinda crazy how while countries like China are moving forwards the US is moving backwards in this regard. I'm hopeful that the current administration represents a bout of temprary insanity rather than something more fundamental to the American psychee. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2006 : 07:32:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Between this stuff and the Guantanamo imprisonments, no trial, no accounting of even who is being held, secret prisons all over the place, thousands being secretly held with many innocent people caught up in the net, no accountability, no consequences for the CIA operatives for their negligence, no trials, no lawyers, not to mention torturing these people....this whole thing is absolutely wrong!
What is effectively happening is CIA creating thousands, if not hundred of thousands of new potential terrorists.
quote:
To top the above affair off, a US district court judge dismissed the guy's lawsuit against the US government under the claim, going to trial would reveal national secrets.
It's absolutely frightening.
Indeed. People treated like that, then denied restitution, what do they do? I would probably seek retaliation. You can count on at least a few of those innocent captives to seriously consider payback, by whatever means available to their disposal.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2006 : 14:55:16 [Permalink]
|
| The unrest at Guantanamo seems to be increasing considerably. I don't know what else anyone could expect. Those detainees must have no hope right now. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
