Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I would like to see the law changed in a more durable way than executive order.

Or perhaps more accurately, not undermined as much as if an executive order were the only outcome of clearly illegal conduct.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

So what do people think about issuing pardons as the only way to establish that torture is, in fact, illegal?

Bullshit. Hang 'em, Obama included. (You don't really believe he didn't continue it on a smaller scale or through proxies, do you?)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

Hm. Not so sure there is any difference between pardoning and not prosecuting. What do you have in mind?

To be clear: I would greatly prefer he prosecute people.

Failing to prosecute is bad, but is a recognition of the reality of how messy that would be. Pardoning is an affirmative act of forgiveness, which I would truly hate to see for many reasons.

A minor reason is that I don't want anyone (e.g., Rand Paul) to claim that "well, I really would want to prosecute, and I'm sure my party would support me, but Mr. Drone-Killer President went out and pardoned everyone."

A far greater reason is that the President of the United States should not pardon torturers. Ever.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

To be clear: I wish Obama had (a) cooperated with Feinstein's effort, and (b) prosecuted some people at the CIA, pour encourager les autres, as Voltaire put it. Failing the latter, pardoning people is a way to establish some sort of precedent that what they did was illegal. I would like to see the law changed in a more durable way than executive order.

I don't understand your "precedent" point. Pardons do not have to go through an approval process from the courts or anyone else. A Presidential pardon, before any charges have been issued, can mean as little as merely that this particular President thinks what you did might have been illegal and wants to protect you from being prosecuted for it.

Should the President of the US forgive people who tortured prisoners? I keep coming back to that question, and think that it compels the answer of "NO."


eta: To be clear, you did not need to say the first part to be clear. It was already clear. To be clear, I agree with you entirely.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Question -- If you put "Acted on poor legal advice" into a translation program, and have it translated into German and back into English, does it come out "Just following orders"?

Well-played, sir -- I say well-played.

*Today's re line is from "Buzzer" by Dar Williams, a song she based on the famous Milgram experiment. I'd like to think that I wouldn't press the buzzer, but who knows? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

[Not Bob]

I love it when John McCain speaks about torture. A shame he's been the only GOP leader who does.

I think that we should all be reminded that the only prosecutions in the US related to torture in the War on Terror have been pushed by the administration of a former constitutional law professor - unfortunately, it was a prosecution in 2012 of a CIA whistleblower named John Kiriakou who is sitting in a federal prison. Oh, and not really torture related, but also potentially James Risen of the New York Times regarding a leak from the CIA. Thanks, Barry!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I love it when John McCain speaks about torture. A shame he's been the only GOP leader who does.

Someone pithier than me said that conservatives only show empathy on an issue when they themselves have been affected by it.

Whether that means that other GOP leaders should be tortured, I leave to the imagination.

[Icky Thump]

Instead of being tortured enemies of the state should have been given:

A. Flowers and candy;
B. US Citizenship
C. A NYC taxi medallion
D. All of the above?

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Someone pithier than me said that conservatives only show empathy on an issue when they themselves have been affected by it.

Whether that means that other GOP leaders should be tortured, I leave to the imagination.

I think that's true of all people, actually. Recall the old line about a neoconservative (original 1960s/1970s version) being a liberal who's been mugged.

And I think that you do McCain a great disservice by saying that - I'm too lazy to research this, but I'm mainly sure that I am mostly correct when I say that many people who have suffered from torture have no problem with torture as a principle, just in who is doing it. I disagree with the Arizona senator on many grounds, and I think he's flipped on many issues (as many politicians do), but the fact that he put aside his visceral dislike for Obama to make a public stand on this says a lot to me. He could have not said anything, but he went on the floor of the Senate immediately to make his views clear.

At any rate, this is our political era's version of the Church Report. It will be interesting to see if any structural reforms result. I am Not Optimistic.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Someone pithier than me said that conservatives only show empathy on an issue when they themselves have been affected by it.

Whether that means that other GOP leaders should be tortured, I leave to the imagination.

If conservatives stick with these "tough on crime" and "permanent war on terror" angles they've been running for so long, I think a lot of them are going to learn in coming years what it feels like to be a Black man dealing with the cops.

The racist police state we're creating, and the chilling effect on speech caused by the witch hunts against leakers/whistleblowers, aren't going to abate. They are going to grow, and they will need fuel for such expansion. They're going to start encroaching on the rights of targets beyond minorities and extreme leakers.

It's in no manner alarmist to argue we will have something akin to Minority Report crime and dissent prevention in about a decade. This will be largely automated, and it will punish based more on strict liability than intent-based crimes. This sort of unthinking zero tolerance state will sweep up conservatives for all sorts of infractions which can be determined by computer analysis (tax matters, business regulation violations, inside trades, whisteblowing via internet communication, etc.) in much the same way stop and frisk policies fish net poor minorities.

It'll be interesting to see how "tough on crime" or supportive of a govt that must "punish leakers" these conservatives who see nothing wrong with the Garner murder, or call for Snowden's head, are when they're in the cross hairs. And they will be.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I think that's true of all people, actually. Recall the old line about a neoconservative (original 1960s/1970s version) being a liberal who's been mugged.

And I think that you do McCain a great disservice by saying that - I'm too lazy to research this, but I'm mainly sure that I am mostly correct when I say that many people who have suffered from torture have no problem with torture as a principle, just in who is doing it. I disagree with the Arizona senator on many grounds, and I think he's flipped on many issues (as many politicians do), but the fact that he put aside his visceral dislike for Obama to make a public stand on this says a lot to me. He could have not said anything, but he went on the floor of the Senate immediately to make his views clear.

At any rate, this is our political era's version of the Church Report. It will be interesting to see if any structural reforms result. I am Not Optimistic.

I agree with this. Unfortunately, including the last few words.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I think that's true of all people, actually. Recall the old line about a neoconservative (original 1960s/1970s version) being a liberal who's been mugged.

And I think that you do McCain a great disservice by saying that - I'm too lazy to research this, but I'm mainly sure that I am mostly correct when I say that many people who have suffered from torture have no problem with torture as a principle, just in who is doing it. I disagree with the Arizona senator on many grounds, and I think he's flipped on many issues (as many politicians do), but the fact that he put aside his visceral dislike for Obama to make a public stand on this says a lot to me. He could have not said anything, but he went on the floor of the Senate immediately to make his views clear.

At any rate, this is our political era's version of the Church Report. It will be interesting to see if any structural reforms result. I am Not Optimistic.

3.

One of the more tragic victims of the tea party was McCain's honor, which he pandered away to the loonies as fast as he could during the Presidential race. It's nice to see him recovering some of it.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Bullshit. Hang 'em, Obama included. (You don't really believe he didn't continue it on a smaller scale or through proxies, do you?)

Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. Given that?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I don't understand your "precedent" point. Pardons do not have to go through an approval process from the courts or anyone else. A Presidential pardon, before any charges have been issued, can mean as little as merely that this particular President thinks what you did might have been illegal and wants to protect you from being prosecuted for it.

Courts have recognized that torture violates customary international law. The US not prosecuting admitted torture undermines the argument that torture is recognized universally as illegal.

A pardon says this president thought what you did was illegal. Doing nothing says perhaps this president does not, which is affirmatively what the prior president and his advisers asserted.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Instead of being tortured enemies of the state should have been given:

A. Flowers and candy;
B. US Citizenship
C. A NYC taxi medallion
D. All of the above?

Or, you know, just interrogated without the torture, which is where they gave up all of the useful information they provided anyway.

Or is torture just punishment for being "enemies? If so, how do you justify all the completely innocent people who were tortured?