Posted by a, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 8, 2008 at 12:21 am
Dear George Bush,
Torture is a dollar at historic lows, the national debt at record highs and going higher, falling home prices, a declining stock market, lost jobs, oil at a record high and going higher, food prices at record highs and going higher, 3,000+ dead in Iraq, no-bid contracts from Halliburton, secret wire-tapping of Americans, Guantanamo Bay, your denial of global warming, your botched Katrina response, your desire to keep America fighting in Iraq for 100 years, and your advice to Americans to keep spending and shopping and not saving so that Americans now are more in debt than they ever have been in the past, Blackwater, nominating Harriet Myers for the Supreme Court, Albert Gonzalez, Dick Cheney shooting his friend in the face, and the list goes on and on.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 8, 2008 at 5:55 am
Thank you, a, for proving the case for a veto. Once you define torture as anything unpleasant, then a ban on torture becomes a ban on anything that annoys, and incarceration cerrtainly annoys the detainee.
Posted by Lisa Cohen, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 8, 2008 at 7:17 am
Walter, I assume you would have no objection if captured US soldiers were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques including water boarding? How low we have sunk as a moral society! Torture is repulsive and a blot on our humanity. It can never be justified. Bush’s claim of extracting useful information from such techniques is hogwash!!!!!!!
Posted by perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 8, 2008 at 11:11 am
Lisa, you haven't a clue, have you? Our military undergoes waterboarding as part of its training...
We could only pray every day that this was the worst torture our soldiers underwent when captured by our enemies. Do you have any recollection of what happened to Jessica Lynch? Of photos of burned soldiers' bodies, of heads being sawn off..live?
Our enemies are delighted to know that this is the worst they can expect from us.
Yes, I completely and unequivocally support the use of waterboarding to get information to save many other people from real torture and death. NO GUILT whatsoever. I know which side my moral bread is buttered, and it is on the side of liberty and justice for all.
But then, I have lived long enough to understand what happens when liberty and justice lose to tyranny.
Lisa, if you define moral in the way that you do, what would you to to someone to encourage him to say where he had hidden a ...say...abducted child?
Me, I would do a lot more than waterboarding. It is a good thing we live in a civilized nation to protect vicious animals from civilized people.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 8, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Although I generally support Bush's approach to the war on the current jihadists, including in Iraq, I am especially happy with his veto of this defeatist bill. Makes me wish he could run for a third term.
Waterboarding is very effective, when used by the CIA on selected hard asses. It provides reliable intel. Such methods need to be in the quivver of the CIA.
George W. Bush, you just did a great deed for the USA, and the world. This is an example of real leadership.
Lisa Cohen: If ONLY our soldiers were just subjected to waterboarding! FDR, during WWII, would have laughed over his dry martini at your naive remarks. He did a deal with Einstein, as you may recall, to develp a bomb that would incinerate hundereds of thousands of civilians. He (and Truman) slept well at night. GWB is practically a peacenick, compared to those two war leaders. Should FDR and Einstein and Truman be brought up on war crimes, Lisa? This could turn into an interesting discussion!
Posted by ., a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 8, 2008 at 6:12 pm
We're not fighting World War II. Saying that we are is a red herring.
But, while your analogy is faulty, it provides insight into your character. Just because FDR may have done something doesn't make it right. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. That doesn't mean that it's OK to suspend habeas corpus -- rather, it's a black mark on Lincoln, and anyone else who wins by compromising 800 years of legal precedent.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 8, 2008 at 8:15 pm
"...rather, it's a black mark on Lincoln, and anyone else who wins by compromising 800 years of legal precedent."
How nice, resident. Lincoln could have chosen to observe habeas corpus, and lose the war. He was a much greater leader, because he decided to win the war, and preserve the union, and eliminate slavery. There is no legal history, without a nation that is viable to argue about it.
resident, I must say that your arguement is rather pathetic. If FDR had followed your basic argument, Hitler would have been left in a position of power in Europe. Instead, FDR broke the law and violated the Neutrality Act, by providing war goods to Britain. FDR was a decent war president. So is Bush.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 8, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Miss Lisa, we also blow people up, burn them alive, bayonet them, and when we capture them we use razor wire and the threat of deadly force to keep them captive. Lectures from ignorant Feather Merchants don't make the job easier. How many prisoners have you taken, Lisa? How many times have you gone willingly into peril for your country's sake? I would be overjoyed to know our soldiers were subjected to waterboarding instead of the executioner's blade.
Posted by Peter, a resident of another community, on Mar 8, 2008 at 8:32 pm
So Gary, from sum of your writings, you appear to be an "end-justifies-the-means" kind of person; a person who feels that might makes right; in short, a person with no ethically justifiable moral code.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 8, 2008 at 9:19 pm
"Living in a civilized society, living a moral and ethical existence -- these are not the ends, they are the means."
That's nice, I suppose, UNTIL a a civilized society needs to face the opposite. Then the gloves need to come off. The alternative is to be subjugated. I don't want my granddaughters to be forced to wear the burka.
Posted by a, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 9, 2008 at 10:19 am
Force is necessary for civilization because humans are not naturally civilized is how I understand your statement.
George Bush did say he preferred dictatorship because it was easier. Sounds a little like North Korean Kim Jong-il, the so-called "our beloved leader." Interesting how one could say "our beloved leader" and it conjures up the faces of those who seem to worship the ground Bush walks on.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Instigate fear in those you rule and whala, you get what looks like dictatorship.
Because hey, "civiized societies are not the natural state of human existence."
Posted by ., a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 9, 2008 at 12:38 pm
"What is just for a terrorist bomber?"
Really not a difficult question. If the person in question is tried and convicted in a court of law, then he should get a sentence commensurate with the crime, just like any other criminal.
We have rules (i.e. criminal justice system) for these kinds of situations. If we don't follow the rules in these cases, we might just as easily not have them at all. That's why it's got to be "equal".
Posted by R Wray, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Mar 9, 2008 at 1:45 pm
The context is NOT our criminal justice system. We have plenty of rules and safeguards for these cases.
The relevant cases being considered are those involving enemy combatants. Typically these are non-US citizens captured by our military. By initiating force against others, they give up their right to be free of force being used against themselves--that's just, i.e., what they deserve.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 9, 2008 at 2:09 pm
The Clinton administration took a legalistic approach to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. It was recognized, internally, that this was an act of war, but Clinton was not a war president. The government intel agenices cannot afford to bring forth sources and methods in an open court of law, so they presented a weak case. This failed approach led, directly, to 9-11. The jihadists were laughing all the way to the USS Cole, American embassies, 9-11...and more.
George W Bush, unlike Clinton, took that smile away. "a resident" would like to give them a new reason to smile.
Posted by a, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 9, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Diane Feinstein would agree with you and R Wray, so she and all of Bushie's friends can make some Kanchingoos!
Fact is dictatorships bankrupt and morally corrupt nations. North Korea has a dictatorship and look at its economy - bankrupt, people starving, people have no work, and its a morally depraved.
Compare North Korea to U.S. since Bush took office - unemployment is up, Fed chair saying banks could go bankrupt, hedge funds are getting margin calls and can no longer continue as a going concern, there are one in hundred people in jail which is more than ever before, we have leaders who are losing their morality such that Congress has to have a hearing on CEOs who get overpaid, and you have Feinstein making lots of money from the war off of your tax money.
North Korea, a dictatorship, also has gulags to instill fear in those who revolt against their dear leader. This is so Kim Jong-il can control those uncivilized starving people. In comparison, the U.S. since George Bush has Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretapping, and now a more lax definition of torture and rhetoric about "the enemy." Oh, George Bush's all omnipresent enemy that instill so much fear in Americans.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 9, 2008 at 6:36 pm
I hope you keep posting. I had given up on California as a possibility for realists. However, your posts are now providing some hope.
Given that Hillary and Barack are now forming a circular firing squad, with the gender identities killing off the race identities (and vice versa), PLUS your own wallowings in the pit of so-called "justice", I now think that McCain has an outside chance in this state.
Posted by Uphold the Geneva Convention, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Mar 9, 2008 at 6:46 pm
The Geneva Convention spelled out the RIGHTS of unlawful combatants (those who do not abide by the lawful rules of warfare, including the use of terrorism, the targeting of civilians, and hiding amongst the populace wearing no uniforms). Unlawful combatants have the RIGHT to be summarily shot or hung. That's it.
Even a military tribunal is not required. Since terrorists violate the rules of war they have no entitlements. If the terrorists (unlawful combatants) do not like the excessively lenient treatment given to them by our military, then lets go back to shooting or hanging them.
Posted by Patriot, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Mar 10, 2008 at 12:20 am
Gary, How very unclever of you to take the occasional diversion from honest behavior that all persons, be they persons of great talent, or not, and try to paint those diversions as the rule, rather than the exception in their behaviors.
Might I suggest undergoing a waterboarding session, and then attaching yourself to a lie detector to determine if you really believe that it isn't torture.
I have yet to see any person in this forum with more disingenuous posts, so full of lies and transparency.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 10, 2008 at 7:12 am
a, what action would you deny yourself even if your mother or lover was in danger? I have very rigid standards of behavior, and they do not run contrary to nor supercede my survival or the survival of my loved ones. As we say in poker, I play the cards dealt as long as the dealer calls the game.
Posted by perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2008 at 6:52 am
In politics, the loftier the speech, with no facts or reality to give it weight, the more like a hot air balloon it is.
I note this because of "patriot" and "a resident" posts.
Watch the far left/Obama balloon get popped. I can't wait. Patriot and A Resident and their way of thinking are going to fall flat at the hands of the democrat leadership. If by some amazing feat Obama is still the dem nominee, not a chance he will be elected because he is a fool on foreign policy and domestic economics.
I speak this as one who fell for similar BS by Carter..even worked for his campaign, much to my shame. Barack will bring the country to its belly, not just its knees like Carter did.
The racism that has treated Obama with kid gloves will finally STOP, and actual real issues, and discussions about real solutions, will now finally be brought out by Hillary. She is no friend of mine, never thought she would scare me less than another candidate, but given the choice, I prefer Hill over Barack because Hill has some grounding in reality.
Barack is the candidate of youthful idealism, which is fine...but remember the old saying
If you are young and conservative, you have no heart, but if you are old and liberal, you have no brain.
Conservative is the choice of those who understand the world and how it works, and what, in the end, brings the most happiness and least poverty to the most people.
Luckily there are still more brains left in the US than not.
Posted by a, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 11, 2008 at 10:49 am
I'm all in favor of happiness and least poverty to the most people.
But when I wake up in the morning and see the stock market going down everyday, unemployment up, the national debt rising, the dollar falling, and housing prices falling, I have to say that whatever Bush's ideal of "conservative" is, this isn't it.