Okay, I clicked that link and laughed so loud someone called to me from her office, “I hope you’re not having fun over there.” (sigh) Why won’t you run away with me? I am still laughing, but am now doing a better job of stifling the noise.
:rolleyes:
The trial for those who bombed Pearl Harbor and tortured prisoners in the Philippines (as well as those who committed all manner of other crimes in various countries) was held in Tokyo.
Both tribunals were done, in general, because we had a bunch of guys who clearly merited punishment, but whom we felt that we couldn’t just take out back and shoot (which was Churchill’s preference). Jurisdiction was the least of their worries; all sorts of rules had to be concocted ad hoc. They violated all sorts of obvious rules of justice – ex post facto laws, double standards as to what evidence was permissable, and so on. In many ways, they were kangaroo courts. They were still preferable, IMO, to bringing Tojo back to Honolulu for a civilian murder trial.
So you agree that the problem is not, in fact, the trial, but what it will reveal about Bush-era interrogation methods. Good.
The precedent isn’t Nuremburg, it’s more like the trials of McVeigh and the bunch who attacked the World Trade Center in 1993.
One of several problems, yes.
McVeigh was a US citizen, acting wholly on US soil, and not part of any large organization. Not analogous. W/r/t WTC '93, I strongly suspect that if we knew then what we knew now, that would have been handled differently.
Sure it is. Under the law, what difference does any of that make?
Why? We caught the guys who were responsible for that crime, tried, convicted, and incarcerated them, and there were no more terrorist attacks on US soil under that Administration. What should have been done differently? :dubious:
You’re probably past the edit window, so an edit won’t help you now. I’d suggest a retraction of the bolded part, and a restatement that does not ignore the Timothy McVeigh incident in 1995.
Please do not try to parse nitpicks like conviction dates; that’s weasel behavior that we (being the GOOD guys) can safely leave in the arsenal of the Pubbies.
Cheney is talking to Fox and Palin people. They are buying every bit of it. Cheney is the most well spoken and intelligent of the neocons. That is why I fear him. You would have to retarded to be a Palin fan. She brings more stupidity every time she opens her pie hole.
The idea that our justice department is incapable of holding a reasonably fair trial is insulting. It is also insulting to think what is said in a trial will result in Americans converting to Islam and become terrorists. He lives in a scary world.
Sitting behind me, at this very moment, is my rabidly republican sister, who believes Obama IS a traitor and that Cheney should be running the country. She actually truly believes this, I swear to God. If I weren’t surviving on her charity, I would say something bad about her.
Deciding which is more evil may be tough, but IMO deciding which one did more damage to America is a no-brainer.
I wouldn’t say he was tarred with the same brush. Yes, he was called a traitor. By losers in a “free speech zone” a mile away. Al Gore never called him a traitor. Democratic members of congress never called him a traitor. Nationally syndicated left-wing talk show hosts didn’t call him a traitor. This is the difference, and I think it’s a big enough one to invalidate a comparison of the two situations.
McVeigh was part of the Christian ,right wing, Michigan Militia. They are in several states by the way.
Are you completely serious here? You really believe the Dick Cheney is just as bad as Osama Bin Laden?
Gore said Cheney’s boss “betrayed our country.”
Just a few weeks ago, one compared him to a vampire. Is that supposed to be better?
Nationally syndicated left-wing talk show hosts called Cheney’s boss a fascist. Again, is that not as bad?
Yeah, when Gore said, and I quote, that Bush gave “aid and comfort” to our enemy, that was the last straw! That makes the comparison completely like this thread! On the other hand, if Gore had used words that had not been in our consitutional definition of treason, then that may have been bad, but would not have been as out and out stating that he was a traitor.
There are militias in several states, but the Michigan Militia operated only in Michigan and is now defunct anyway.
McVeigh briefly flirted with the MM, but decided it wasn’t for him, mostly because they did too much talking and not enough blowing things up.
Ah, yes. The old “our guy used different wording, so it’s totally different” argument. Saying someone is a “traitor” is wrong, but calling them a “betrayer” is totally OK!
Fuck all mindless partisans. Fuck Cheney, fuck Gore, and fuck you.
Isn’t that a little masturbatory?
No, they should receive trials even if it makes the US look bad. Exposing the Bush Administration’s perfidy is a good, not a bad, thing.
McVeigh was accused of a crime, so the analogy holds. Just because you’d handle it differently now doesn’t mean you’d be doing it right.
Well, you know what they say about truth being the ultimate defense.
The Bush administration regarded Carter as ‘Increasingly irrelevant’ when he came out against them. At least it took him 20 years for a presidency to regard him in such a way. I think Cheney has managed that status in less then a year he should be congratulated for this new record.