Originally Posted by Adder (Post 491856)

I don't think there is U.S. legislation that provides for a special prosecutor and I'm even more certain that the U.S. is not a party to the treaty that would be required to give the ICJ jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 491846)

The fact that Republicans somehow are only capable of feeling empathy for anyone because they or a close family member has experienced something identical, is.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 491845)

A pardon can say pretty much what the President wants it to say, other than a pardon for acts not yet committed. Ford's pardon of Nixon basically pardoned him for everything he did in the White House or while running in the 1972 campaign. It swept in Cambodia, Laos (you know, other states the US has unlawfully bombed in my lifetime), the IRS audit program he set up, the other illegal surveillance he did against his "enemies."

If rendered on a timely enough basis, it can keep certain facts from coming to light at trial, whether the person being pardoned is convicted or not.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 491854)

I don't know what that means. A pardon is entirely within the discretion of the executive. I would prefer prosecution, but I think its an interesting question as to whether a pardon is better than continuing to decline to prosecute. The two things have exactly that same effect on the offenders.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 491859)

A pardon can say what the President wants it to say. But it cannot mean what the President wants it to mean.

If Obama pardons torturers, that will be another reason why Muslims can hate the US. Torture a Muslim, get a pardon? It will be a shameful act. It will be an affirmative statement that the US forgives Americans of war crimes.

It will not, however, mean that any future President will, or will be required to, see torture as a crime. Seriously, if Jimmy Carter had pardoned -- or, hell, even prosecuted -- American torturers, would that have changed what Bush and Cheney said about torture? (Come to think of it -- remember that one argument against Bush et al was to show that Americans had prosecuted Japanese for water-boarding? Yeah, that precedent meant a lot to W....)

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 491852)

I guess I am just obtuse. I do think less of McCain since 2008 and his generally unremitting hostility to anything Obama says or does, and that is one of the reasons that I think his speech on the senate floor almost immediately after the report was issued was important. I get your point, and I don't think it makes up for Sarah Palin, but that doesn't mean it wasn't also a principled and brave (for DC and GOP politics) thing for him to do.

I think that people can become more and less empathetic based upon their own experiences. Dick Cheney becomes pro-gay marriage because of his daughter while my formerly liberal cousin leads the push to ban food donations downtown because a homeless person took a dump in the parking garage of the building he works at. I think that is responsive to what you and Ty are saying - it isn't just about conservatives changing to become nice because their kid got cancer. Liberals become less empathetic because their kid didn't get accepted at Princeton.

Does it seem like a disproportionate number of the "compassionate" on a single issue Republicans have a personal connection to the issue they are "compassionate" about? Sure.

But not all. Before 9/11, W's signature social policy agenda item was No Child Left Behind, a well-intentioned (if misguided) sweeping reform of education he worked on with Ted Kennedy that was supposed to benefit poor students of color. His own white kids were hardly poor and were busy partying at UT and (I think) Yale at the time, and I don't think there was any relative or family member of his that he was helping. He may have been an unthinking lazy frat bro of a president (and governor - recall his mocking of Karla Faye Tucker after her execution), but I think his concern for poor students of color was real and not motivated in the same way Cheney's concern for gay rights is.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 491858)

The member of our household that holds a poli sci grad degree tells me there is research that backs up this observation about conservatives and empathy (also that may suggests a genetic component, I'm told).

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 491862)

I had hoped my Nixon example might have made what I was trying to say. I guess I was still unclear. At the time Nixon resigned, the House was set to vote to impeach him. He had not yet been charged with any crimes. Ford basically wrote a get out of jail free card for any existing or future prosecutions of anything he did in office, as well as his activities w/CREEP. When I said a pardon can say what it wants to say, I meant the President can pardon a person for crimes which have been tried and they were found guilty, crimes for which they have been charged but are not yet ready for trial, and for acts that may or may not have come to light and may or may not be crimes.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 491852)

I guess I am just obtuse. I do think less of McCain since 2008 and his generally unremitting hostility to anything Obama says or does, and that is one of the reasons that I think his speech on the senate floor almost immediately after the report was issued was important. I get your point, and I don't think it makes up for Sarah Palin, but that doesn't mean it wasn't also a principled and brave (for DC and GOP politics) thing for him to do.

I think that people can become more and less empathetic based upon their own experiences. Dick Cheney becomes pro-gay marriage because of his daughter while my formerly liberal cousin leads the push to ban food donations downtown because a homeless person took a dump in the parking garage of the building he works at. I think that is responsive to what you and Ty are saying - it isn't just about conservatives changing to become nice because their kid got cancer. Liberals become less empathetic because their kid didn't get accepted at Princeton.

Does it seem like a disproportionate number of the "compassionate" on a single issue Republicans have a personal connection to the issue they are "compassionate" about? Sure.

But not all. Before 9/11, W's signature social policy agenda item was No Child Left Behind, a well-intentioned (if misguided) sweeping reform of education he worked on with Ted Kennedy that was supposed to benefit poor students of color. His own white kids were hardly poor and were busy partying at UT and (I think) Yale at the time, and I don't think there was any relative or family member of his that he was helping. He may have been an unthinking lazy frat bro of a president (and governor - recall his mocking of Karla Faye Tucker after her execution), but I think his concern for poor students of color was real and not motivated in the same way Cheney's concern for gay rights is.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 491835)

Righteous anger over potential pardons or lack of prosecution

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 491853)

More perfectly understandable anger over potential pardons or lack of prosecution

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 491868)

Although I think this has already moved past pointless, let me try to respond to your points in this post.

1. You keep saying McCain is principled and brave for coming out against torture. I think this is absolutely insane. You're telling me that in the current political atmosphere created by assholes like McCain, he should be given credit for taking a principled stance against fucking torture--that somehow he's brave for doing so? It's torture, dude. Being against torture should be the bare minimum requirement we have for our politicians. And the fact that he probably wouldn't be against it but for the fact that he actually experienced it is the point I and Ty are making about the callous, small minds of those in the GOP.

2. You keep referring to how one can lose empathy (liberals become less empathetic when they get mugged or whatever). I do not know why you think this is relevant. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not conservatives are only empathetic when it comes to experiences they share with whoever deserves empathy.

3. Your third paragraph seems like an agreement with the criticism, so I'm wondering why we're still having the conversation.

4. The fourth paragraph is an example of Bush having empathy for poor black kids--the same guy who seemed to lack any empathy with the black people dying during Katrina. Maybe he did. But you're not really arguing that Ty and I shouldn't speak in absolutes, are you? Because that's simply never, ever (forevah evah?), ever going to happen.

TM

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 491863)

W was good in AIDS in Africa too.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 491876)

Didn't he tie aid to abstinence programs, which basically ended up doing tremendous amounts of harm?

TM

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 491879)

Until it starts impacting conservatives. See: Conservatives flipping out at the IRS scandal.