Nation of Laws, Not of Men - Not Even of Good Men

Extraordinary Rendition and Waterboarding (0.00 / 0)

The idea that the Bush administration invented extraordinary rendition or water boarding is absurd. Water boarding and the tear gas chamber were both being used by our special forces in all branches as a training excercise at least as far back as the early sixties. The following is a excerpt from the Wall Street  Journal 1/23/2009 in regard to extraordinary rendition .

The "special task force" may well grant the CIA more legal freedom to squeeze information out of terrorists when it could keep the country safe. An anecdote former Clinton counterterror czar Richard Clarke recounts in his memoir "Against All Enemies" is instructive. In 1993, White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler was horrified by Mr. Clarke's proposal for "extraordinary rendition," where our spooks turn over prisoners to foreign countries like Egypt so they can do the interrogating.

While Mr. Clinton was still chewing his fingernails and seemed to side with Mr. Cutler, Al Gore arrived late to the meeting. "Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides," Mr. Clarke writes. "Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"

---

by: Kitster @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:35:34 AM CST

No one said this: (4.00 / 1)

The idea that the Bush administration invented extraordinary rendition or water boarding is absurd.

Waterboarding was evident in US practice from as early as our involvement in the Phillipines.

It took Teddy Reoosevelt, iirc, to blot it out as an official practice.

The "everybody does it" defense doesn't make the Obama admin's decision here right.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 04:23:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Your title doesn't match your comment. (0.00 / 0)

But it's true, the Bush administration didn't invent waterboarding either. That particular form of torture and war crime goes back centuries.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 07:44:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

OK (0.00 / 0)

So what is your point?

---

by: JimC @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 08:27:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me it would set a poor (4.00 / 1)

precedent for the President to interfere in the middle of the prosecution of a case.  The abhorrent behaviors sanctioned by Bush/Cheney have been systematically ruled un-constitutional on a case-by-case basis.  In future it won't be possible to make a coherent legal argument that alien persons aren't covered by the Constitution because of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.  Our legal principles are tested in cases that are argued before judges, not by off-the-cuff political determinations.

The appropriateness of covert action needs to be called into question.  Perhaps "action" needs to be defined and/or limited to the collection of information by watching and listening alone, putting "extraction" beyond bounds.

Also, we might also consider penalties for violations of Constitutional prohibitions.  Removal from office hardly seems sufficient when people are killed.

---

by: hannah @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 05:07:14 AM CST

BTW, "nation of laws" is a bit of a cop-out. It supports the (0.00 / 0)

pretense that men are not involved when, in fact, men make the laws and, indeed, remake them over and over again.
As we saw during Bush/Cheney, it's important to remember the men, how many there are, and who's actually drafting the laws.  During Bush/Cheney, the laws were being drafted by their hand-picked minions in the Department of Justice and the Pentagon.  And our representatives in Congress apparently liked it that way because it left them free to go golfing and globe trotting with their buddies in the military industries.

---

by: hannah @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 05:14:50 AM CST

Disagree (0.00 / 0)

Dishonest people never want to put their intentions in writing. Rulebooks make the game fair.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 08:29:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The critical view (4.00 / 1)

of rulebooks is that they institutionalize a system which primarily benefits the ruling elite.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:28:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sure (0.00 / 0)

But can you point to a lawless (in the literal, nonjudgmental sense) civilization that thrived? Absent written laws, we get force majeure.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:50:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If the laws have to be written (4.00 / 1)

then, I guess the Inca empire, which wasn't lawless but only arguably had a writing system.

The international system is often thought of as lawless, but has some written law.

I don't know, it's a difficult question because you have to make distinctions between strong societal norms and laws in a lot of cases. There are plenty of societies that did not necessarily have laws as we consider them, but with such significant cultural pressures that you can't call them lawless exactly.

I was just commenting on the notion of rules being fair. :-)

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:58:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I was thinking narrowly (0.00 / 0)

Line drive over the white line -- fair ball?

It's written down.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:11:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The question (0.00 / 0)

whether final authority rests with the rule or with the umpire, I guess, is opening up a whole other can of worms.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:13:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes and no (0.00 / 0)

The umpire has to consult with his crew.

Sort of like the Supreme Court.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:15:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually not totally narrowly (0.00 / 0)

My main point was in reply to Hannah's.

There's no question in my mind that a society as sprawling as ours needs the rule of law.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:12:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Cynical view (0.00 / 0)

The "rules" are exploited by the elites that have the power and representation to operate in the loopholes, but also the outlaws that ignore them.

"We the sheeple" mill about in the stockyard in a Pavlovian stupor.

The shepherds and the wolves laugh at us.

A SHEEP IN THE DEEP
A 1962 classic by Chuck Jones

Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog punch into work, with Sam guarding a flock of sheep against Ralph's attempts to snatch some mutton for dinner...

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:58:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Mostly agree (0.00 / 0)

We're more cats than sheep, I'd say. Laws dictate the placement of our beds, furniture we're allowed on (or not), and our boxes.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:16:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Leahy shows up for work (4.00 / 1)

Leahy Proposes Panel To Investigate Bush Era
U.S. Attorney Firings Among Issues

By Philip Rucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 10, 2009; Page A04

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday called for a "truth commission" to investigate controversial actions of the Bush administration, including the politically inspired firings of U.S. attorneys, the treatment and torture of terrorism suspects and the authorization of warrantless wiretapping.

A truth commission? No minced words there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Also showing up: Ted Kennedy, rather heroically, to vote for the stimulus.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:30:05 AM CST