Dodd: We prosecuted the Nazis so let’s prosecute Bush

posted at 4:40 pm on May 4, 2009 by Allahpundit

Via Moe Lane. No, he’s not saying that waterboarding terrorists is as evil as genocide, but he does seem to be saying that both are sufficiently evil as to require prosecution. I’d be curious to know how and where he draws the line on prosecutorial discretion, then: When is something so “evil” that we must proceed to trial, damn the policy consequences? David Shribman wonders:

The pre-eminent point here is that in the United States, sitting presidents and winning political parties don’t sit in legal judgment of their predecessors. If they do not like their policies, and many times they do not, they change policies. They do not sue their predecessors nor seek to punish them legally. This custom has prevailed in times of severe crisis as much as in serene times.

There are myriad examples. Jimmy Carter did not seek to prosecute Henry A. Kissinger for complicity in the invasion of Cambodia and involvement in Chile, two actions that might be regarded as peculiarly subject to legal review. Richard M. Nixon did not seek to prosecute Lyndon B. Johnson for the illegal wiretapping of Martin Luther King’s bathroom and bedroom, which King did not know about until Thurgood Marshall informed him in 1964. Nor did Nixon take any action about the illegal taping of White House conversations in the Johnson years.

VDH adds some perspective:

I’ve raised this example twice now. But, really, how is waterboarding a known detained terrorist like Khalid Sheik Mohammed (who confessed to cutting off Daniel Pearl’s head [with two knives after the first went dull], and to planning the 9/11 mass murder) at Guantanamo considered a war crime, while blowing up with a Predator drone suspected terrorists (and all those, including women and children, in their general vicinity) not?

The latter victims were not given habeas corpus, and Miranda rights, and there is a greater doubt about their guilt from 10,000 feet than is the case with the much studied psychopath KSM in Guantanamo. Most suspects would prefer to be water-boarded than vaporized? Ditto the Somali pirates, whose heads were blown off during their apparent attempts at negotiating extortion, again a bit more drastic than waterboarding. Would a future President Sanford or Giuliani be right to bring charges against those in the Obama administration who green lighted assassinations of suspected terrorists—something akin to the Phoenix program in Vietnam?

It’s the Jon Stewart/Harry Truman dilemma again: When is it wrong to inflict suffering on captives in hopes of averting greater suffering later? Why do we need a Nuremberg for waterboarders but not one for drone operators who occasionally incinerate Pakistani families based on bad intel?

Below the Dodd clip, a little further perspective from Coulter on the left’s insufferable sanctimony on this subject.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Iraq is better today than it was under Saddam.

This is what always slays me about liberals. When it comes to a torturer like Saddam, they support him. They are absolutely outraged that his brutal regime is still not feeding old ladies to starving dogs. {Gee I bet that is against international law}.

But then they also supported Mao and his cultural revolution that tortured and killed tens of millions. They supported Stalin back in the day, even covered for him when he was starving millions of Ukrainians. They thought the Khmer Rouge was just wonderful, until the Killing Fields were made known.

In history, the left and liberals have openly supported some of the most vicious mass murderers and dictators in the world, but here they are pretending to care about water boarding. What demagoguery and hypocricy.

Terrye on May 4, 2009 at 7:47 PM

I’ll leave you with the below quote from Jefferson

i completely agree with him. and that’s why clinton should not have been impeached.

sesquipedalian on May 4, 2009 at 7:50 PM

sesquipedalian:

both of them were allegedly waterboarded and otherwise mistreated

Hold it: ALLEGEDLY waterboarded and otherwise mistreated?

Do you have any EVIDENCE to back up those ALLEGATIONS?

And you DO realize these swine are literally trained to bitch about mistreatment if captured? It is LITERALLY in their training manual.

- for example, jwl was captured with a bullet in his body but was not given medical care for two weeks. padilla spent years in solitary confinement before his trial for

Guess what? That is FAR better than we HAVE to be to them. If we were so inclined, we could feed them very slowly into a piranha tank and nobody could raise a stink about it legally.

our laws protect every person against torture and mistreatment. no excuse whatsoever.

NO they do NOT. The Constitutional precedent dates back to the Revolution that gave birth to this nation, and was affirmed during the Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, and now in this conflict with the Islamists.

Those captured on the field of battle and who are deemed to have crucial information may be interrogated to obtain it. Peacefully if possible, by force if need be.

if tried in front of an objective jury, bush, cheney, rice and others would be found to have broken US law.

But that “objective jury” would also realize that they did so to illegal combatants with no protection under ANY law and under dire circumstances. If that “Objective” Jury were to convict them, they would also need to convict Wilson, TR, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Clinton, Bush Sr, Lincoln, and pretty much every founding father who had a military comission in order to avoid being hypocritical fools.

there’s little argument over this, the question rather boils down to whether we should actually enforce our laws or not.

WE HAVE enforced our laws. It is just that those caught on the field of battle violating Geneva can EXPECT NO LEGAL PROTECTION. They are legally entitled to a bullet to the head or a razor to the neck. Nothing more. That we VOLUNTARILY give them more is our choice.

of course republicans only want to enforce laws when they can bring down democratic presidents for petty reasons.

Somehow, if Bush and Clinton’s positions on that issue were reversed, I think you would be baying for blood.

And rightfully so.

But only because you are a partisan hack with no ethics beyond the next election.

And mentality is destroying the Republic.

are you delusional?

The IRONY is just MURDER, I tell you!

in what world is iraq not a tragic fiasco?

Um, how about in this one? Have you ever BOTHERED CHECKING OUT what is going on in Iraq, or are you just content to take whatever line of bull is fed to you?

anyone captured on the battlefield is entitled to humane treatment

In what world do YOU live in?

hat is clearly the spirit and intent of geneva

Thou should not speaketh of what thou does not know or comprehend. Geneva is BITTERLY clear: anybody caught on the field of battle in violation of its terms is not protected, and is liable to be tortured, executed, or stripped naked to dance the Blue Danube. They have NO rights under Geneva, and the characters who drafted and signed it VERY MUCH intended for that to happen.

geneva is a product of an old system, just like many agencies of the UN itself. it’s a globalized world where non-state actors play a greater role, and we should interpret old conventions accordingly.

And believe me when I say we ARE.

You just don’t like the way we are.

on the other hand, the UNC against torture is the law of the land in the US since 1984, and it provides universal protection from any kind of inhumane treatment.

And than it is not worth the piece of paper it is written on.

Those who cannot adjust to defend their freedoms shall see them perish at the hands of those not as foolish or as discerning as they.

WWI, WWII, and the Cold War should have taught us that.

with a bullet in his thigh, he was stripped naked, bound to a stretcher with duct tape, and placed in a windowless shipping container for days. but that’s beside the point.

Yes, it is. We were perfectly able to simply shoot him right there and be done with him.

Come back when you actually know what the hell you are saying.

i completely agree with him. and that’s why clinton should not have been impeached.

Oh, so it is being true to the spirit of the law to let a perjurer walk free after abusing the highest office of the land?

What if it were a Republican?

Fool. You have not ethical compass beyond partisan tomfoolery.

Turtler on May 4, 2009 at 7:53 PM

with a bullet in his thigh, he was stripped naked, bound to a stretcher with duct tape, and placed in a windowless shipping container for days. but that’s beside the point.

sesquipedalian on May 4, 2009 at 7:46 PM

Better than I would have treated the turd.

thomasaur on May 4, 2009 at 7:58 PM

This is a no brainer.

“I have a scenario…let’s just suppose that terrorists somehow manage to kidnap our president and whisk him overseas to hold him in some cave. We actually capture the ringleader of this group, and send him to Guantanamo. The guy knows where he is,sure he does, the sign says gitmo,question is where is o,and who gives a S%*t, but he ain’t talking. What to do? Lollipop him into submission? Call in the unicorns?”
Hell no , tell the little MF kidnaping is Bad,bad,bad.Slap his wrist, release him to Yemen with the pledge he does not do this S%%t again or we will get mad,really mad at his behavior,not him peronally as we might damage his self esteme,.
Leave whats his name in the cave,free the oppressed terrorist/freedom fighter and save the Nation. Even a used car salesman can see this is a good deal.Lawyers will take forever to get the nuance,meanwhile Joltin Joey will tell us to uses condoms and ride the train.

Col.John Wm. Reed on May 4, 2009 at 8:04 PM

It’s the Jon Stewart/Harry Truman dilemma again: When is it wrong to inflict suffering on captives in hopes of averting greater suffering later?

It’s never wrong when you’re trying to protect the citizens of your country from harm. That’s my 2 cents.

4shoes on May 4, 2009 at 8:04 PM

Those captured on the field of battle and who are deemed to have crucial information may be interrogated to obtain it. Peacefully if possible, by force if need be.

under the guidance of the army field manual.

those caught on the field of battle violating Geneva can EXPECT NO LEGAL PROTECTION.

yes they can, as they should be.

If we were so inclined, we could feed them very slowly into a piranha tank and nobody could raise a stink about it legally… anybody caught on the field of battle in violation of its terms is not protected, and is liable to be tortured, executed, or stripped naked to dance the Blue Danube.

absolutely not. there’s no legal reasoning that would support that.

And than it is not worth the piece of paper it is written on.

so are they protected by law or not?

sesquipedalian on May 4, 2009 at 8:11 PM

One fact that liberals will not accept is that their methodology for dealing with terrorism also involves “collateral damage”. The calculus and victim identity of “collateral damage” are the only differences between the liberal methodology and preemptive war methodology.

In the liberal methodology, for which action is not taken until after an attack happens, the collateral damage victims are US citizens and allies in unknown locations and the number of victims before the event are unknown. In the preemptive war methodology, the collateral damage victims and their locations are known, and the number of victims can be calculated precisely because the location and demography of the enemy are known.

Dilophos on May 4, 2009 at 8:14 PM

And that will take the heat off of me… Blah..

reshas1 on May 4, 2009 at 8:15 PM

Have you ever BOTHERED CHECKING OUT what is going on in Iraq, or are you just content to take whatever line of bull is fed to you?

you mean iraq’s become the beacon of democracy as bush & co. promised? let me know when the “cakewalk” is over.

sesquipedalian on May 4, 2009 at 8:21 PM

If they go down this route why not charge the congressmen and women who agreed, oversaw and signed off on waterboarding? cough Nancy Pelosi cough

Not that I want this to happen it bull. I wonder what will happen if they know a DC attack is being planned and to save themselves they have waterboarding? WIll they do it or just leave DC and let the regular people burn?

Gracelynn on May 4, 2009 at 8:35 PM

you mean iraq’s become the beacon of democracy as bush & co. promised? let me know when the “cakewalk” is over.

sesquipedalian on May 4, 2009 at 8:21 PM

It is over, now that your messiah has his “eye-on-the-ball” in Pock-e-stahn. When do you report to bootcamp? I am sure you would not want to miss the overland invasion to get Bin Laden.

A Balrog of Morgoth on May 4, 2009 at 8:36 PM

sesquipedalian (here we go AGAIN…):

I notice you didn’t respond to three quarters of my post. How come?

under the guidance of the army field manual.

Preferably yes. But when push comes to shove, people WILL do what is necessary to get information that can save hundreds/thousands/millions and turn the tides of war. Those who don’t believe so are living in la-la land.

yes they can, as they should be.

No, they should not be. Perfidy of such sort in war can only warrent death, particularly to those who planned such things.

absolutely not. there’s no legal reasoning that would support that.

No legal reasoning? Have you actually STUDIED Geneva or wartime conduct?

so are they protected by law or not?

In theory, yes.

In practice, however, they are only protected by the goodwill of their captors.

Now, there have been attempts to organize or unify such treatment in the Geneva Conventions (which I do view as valid, but do NOT apply to Illegal combatants) by threatening any who violate their terms, but the laws themselves did not save the American prisoners at Malmady from the ruthless wrath of the SS.

And even the SS made pretensions of following it once in a while. The jihadists do not. At All.

Simply put, if the enemy is willing to abide by them, than do so. If not, do what must be done.

Anybody trying to change that or humanize it are forgetting a fundamental part of human nature, and will undoubtedly fail.

you mean iraq’s become the beacon of democracy as bush & co. promised?

For the Middle East?

Absolutely.

let me know when the “cakewalk” is over.

The “cakewalk” was over in 2003, when the surviving members of the Regular Army either disarmed or fled into the desert.

Since then, it has been a bloody slog to the top. But the rewards for those who endure are rich.

IF we endure.

Turtler on May 4, 2009 at 9:02 PM

with a bullet in his thigh, he was stripped naked, bound to a stretcher with duct tape, and placed in a windowless shipping container for days. but that’s beside the point.

sesquipedalian on May 4, 2009 at 7:46 PM

Duct tape? How barbaric.

Red Green could not be reached for comment.

Del Dolemonte on May 4, 2009 at 9:21 PM

clinton should not have been impeached.

sesquipedalian on May 4, 2009 at 7:50 PM

Tell us again why he was above the law. Especially considering that his own Justice Department had already successfully prosecuted a (female) Government employee for lying under oath about sex.

Our dear departed friend getalife actually made the mistake of citing law professor/Federal Judge Richard Posner.

But back in 2000 or so, Posner concluded that Clinton had in fact committed perjury not just once, but multiple times, and that any other US citizen who did the same thing would automatically be sentenced to at least 36 months in a Federal Prison.

Tell us again why your hero was above the law.

Del Dolemonte on May 4, 2009 at 9:26 PM

Book X of Plato’s Republic may help you understand your circumstances.

http://www.greektexts.com/library/Plato/republic_(books_6_-_10)/eng/411.html

Kralizec on May 4, 2009 at 9:35 PM

I’m sure this has already been suggested upthread, but when is Dodd going to be prosecuting for his role in the housing and banking meltdown?

Glass houses, Mr. Dodd.

NoLeftTurn on May 4, 2009 at 9:56 PM

you mean iraq’s become the beacon of democracy as bush & co. promised? let me know when the “cakewalk” is over.

sesquipedalian on May 4, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Why do you hate America, kid?

To answer your question, a family member of mine just returned from 6 months in Baghdad. He’s a JAG and his mission was to train Iraqi Judges.

They were greeted with open arms, and their mission was successfully completed.

Del Dolemonte on May 4, 2009 at 10:14 PM

Hey, We prosecuted Ken Lay….
So let’s prosecute Dodd.

LegendHasIt on May 4, 2009 at 4:46 PM

Absolutely right. This jerk getting on his moral high horse with no credibility whatsoever…gimme a break.

We prosecuted Al Capone for income tax evasion, why not Tim Geithner?

ddrintn on May 4, 2009 at 10:15 PM

How about instead of trying to prosecute Bush for his alleged crimes we instead prosecute Dodd for his actual crimes.

Dreadnought223 on May 5, 2009 at 1:52 AM

sesquipedalian on May 4, 2009 at 8:11 PM

Let me educuate your dumb ass on the Uniforn Code of Military Justice.
UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE; SUBCHAPTER 10,
SECTION 924, ARTICLE 124;
Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to injure, disfigure, or disable, inflicts upon the person of another an injury which–

(1) seriously disfigures his person by a mutilation thereof;

(2) destroys or disables any member or organ of his body; or

(3) seriously diminishes his physical vigor by the injury of any member or organ;

is guilty of maiming and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
under the UCMJ, waterboarding is NOT torture and is NOT illegal. If waterboarding WAS torture and WAS illegal, it COULD NOT be conducted in SERE under articles of the UCMJ.

Would you now want me to educate you in the Articles of the Geneva Conventions, which I can clearly tell you have NEVER read?

nelsonknows on May 5, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Notice that the Democrats follow the Nazi Party Platform written by Adolf Hitler yet claim everyone is a Nazi but them?
http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/mmarkowski/H113/AH/platform.html

nelsonknows on May 5, 2009 at 10:04 AM

If we prosecuted stupidity Dodd would be on death row right now.

Crusty on May 5, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Hey, we prosecuted Madoff so let’s prosecute Dodd.

drjohn on May 5, 2009 at 12:15 PM

How about instead of trying to prosecute Bush for his alleged crimes we instead prosecute Dodd for his actual crimes.

Dreadnought223 on May 5, 2009 at 1:52 AM

And Rockefeller, Murtha, Kennedy, etc all…

18-1 on May 5, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Who elects these morons? /rhetorical.

bluelightbrigade on May 5, 2009 at 12:43 PM

No Mr. Dodd. Who we REALLY need to prosecute is you and Barney Frank for your incomptetent, if not down right illegal dealings with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. How about that sweetheart realestate deal you got. Want to come clean on that one? No, I didn’t think so. You’re a worthless political hack and a scumbag to boot!

TrickyDick on May 5, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Yes Mr. Dodd. And there will one day be reprisals for incompetence and malfeasance in bringing about the Freddie and Fanny collapses. Not to mention the ethical lapses and illegal taking of special mortgage rates from Countrywide. I hope by then we can build remotely located re-education camps for people like Dodd. Hey… I hear GITMO will be vacant!

kens on May 5, 2009 at 2:16 PM

If this guy had half a brain, he’d be a half wit.

ladyingray on May 5, 2009 at 2:22 PM

If this guy had half a brain, he’d be a half wit.

ladyingray on May 5, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Heh, and a DIM half-wit at that!

Liberty or Death on May 5, 2009 at 2:36 PM

He is wrong on tis in so many ways – beginning with the fact that ‘we’ did not prosecute Nazis – tan international court did… and for actual crimes.

ElRonaldo on May 5, 2009 at 3:30 PM

I’m not sure if sesq is still monitoring this thread but I feel compelled to address the following:

our laws protect every person against torture and mistreatment. no excuse whatsoever. if tried in front of an objective jury, bush, cheney, rice and others would be found to have broken US law. there’s little argument over this, the question rather boils down to whether we should actually enforce our laws or not.

of course republicans only want to enforce laws when they can bring down democratic presidents for petty reasons.

sesquipedalian on May 4, 2009 at 7:21 PM

Yes, OUR LAWS (US Law) protects American citizens from being mistreated and provides them habeas corpus protections, right to a trial, legal representation, etc. however those are US laws for citizens of the US, they are not laws for foreign illegal enemy combatants…seriously, how difficult is this simple concept for you to comprehend?

As for petty reasons, Clintoon committed perjury and therefore was very fortunate he was only impeached and not sent to prison, if you and I perjured ourselves in a court of law we would go to jail!

While perjury may seem petty to you, it really isn’t a petty crime, allowing a pass when someone perjures themselves under oath undermines our entire legal system! However, when compared to such things as 9-11 and defeating an enemy (fascist Islam) that is hell bent on destroying the west then yes I consider perjury to be petty in comparison, a comparison you are obviously having a difficult time with in respect to enforcing the law of the land versus the survival of our republic and all that it stands for, if we lose our republic and freedom to fascist Islam our laws will be MOOT!

anyone captured on the battlefield is entitled to humane treatment. that is clearly the spirit and intent of geneva. as a practical matter, geneva is a product of an old system, just like many agencies of the UN itself. it’s a globalized world where non-state actors play a greater role, and we should interpret old conventions accordingly.

on the other hand, the UNC against torture is the law of the land in the US since 1984, and it provides universal protection from any kind of inhumane treatment.

sesquipedalian on May 4, 2009 at 7:37 PM

I don’t believe we should interpret anything, instead the entire GC should be reviewed and amended based on the current realities of our world, e.g., non-state enemies and their tactics of fighting among civilian populations, suicide bombings, and using innocent non-civilians as defacto human shields!

As I commented before sesq I’m really at a loss to understand why this concept is so difficult for you to understand so in a final attempt to help you see through those rose colored glasses of yours (you know, the ones that make you think the US is no better than our enemies and if we would treat them better they would in kind treat us better too) as you still do not get it.

You speak of the rule of law and how the US is guilty of torture and because of this we are no better than our enemies. First of all our enemies are ruthless animals that could care less about ANY rules, one only needs to honestly evaluate our enemies conduct in this war and compare and contrast it with how the US has conducted itself in this war, if you’re honest in your comparison you should come to the only logical conclusion there is, that there really is no comparison, the US has the moral high ground without a doubt!

Secondly, while abiding by the rules of law is always noble and important it is by no means the most important, it is not nor should it ever be a suicide pact! Survival needs are always the most important and the quote from Jefferson I posted yesterday expresses that logic perfectly, here’s the quote again:

“Strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”

-Thomas Jefferson

The concept of survival needs coming first is nothing new, first of all it’s innate in all living things, its called self-preservation. For further clarification on this concept you may want to become familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs principal, that may give you a better understanding that if survival needs are not met then all else is moot, and that includes the rule of law!

In a final attempt to help you understand this concept sesq I will move from the intellectual examples I have already provided and leave you with a pop culture example, something you may have an easier time relating to and understanding. It’s from the movie The Terminator, only in this case substitute the Terminator reference with fascist Islam:

Listen and understand. That terminator fascist Islam is out there. It can’t be bargained with, it can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and it absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until you are dead.

Bottom line is our laws, constitution, freedoms, and our republic will be moot points if we place survival needs second and allow fascist Islam to prevail!

Liberty or Death on May 5, 2009 at 3:36 PM

Dodd’s BDS distraction–Dodd needs to be prosecuted, for corruption.

BottomLine5 on May 5, 2009 at 4:32 PM

sesquipedalian on May 4, 2009 at 8:11 PM

Show me the text of the Federal Law that makes waterboarding torture or makes waterboarding illegal.
You CANNOT because that law doesn’t EXIST.

nelsonknows on May 5, 2009 at 6:13 PM

Somehow, if Bush and Clinton’s positions on that issue were reversed, I think you would be baying for blood.
And rightfully so.
But only because you are a partisan hack with no ethics beyond the next election.
And mentality is destroying the Republic.

Actually Clintons position was the SAME as Bush.
Only difference was rather than sending them to some other country for “interrogation” we interrogated them, with our rules.

In fact the “detainees” were most likely treated to REAL waterboarding as opposed to the simulated waterboaring done by the CIA.

DSchoen on May 5, 2009 at 9:56 PM

Dodd is the real criminal, we should start with him.

workingforpigs on May 5, 2009 at 10:36 PM

Didn’t Ted Kennedy water board a date using a car and a river? Hell, some of my best memories are of being waterboarded with beer at frat houses while in college.

MichiganMatt on May 6, 2009 at 8:06 AM

with a bullet in his thigh, he was stripped naked, bound to a stretcher with duct tape, and placed in a windowless shipping container for days. but that’s beside the point.

sesquipedalian on May 4, 2009 at 7:46 PM

Well Sesqui… That is a LOT better treatment than a our state Senator named Barack Hussein Obmaama was willing to give new born babies. It was OK, under your stuttering jug eared jackass hero to throw newborn babies into dark closets to die of dehydration, starvation and exposure. Just a clue for you since your are obviously intellectually and morally challenged – Those babies posed no threat to me or my family. They were totally innocent… Unlike the followers of a twisted ‘prophet’ who bayonetted a nine year old a Beslan for asking for a glass of water.. Who beheaded young schoolgirls for being christian.

Maybe the next time these dirtballs attack, it will one of YOUR loved ones who has to make the choice between being roasted alive or jumping 100 stories to their death.. Or perhaps it will be your infant child or grandchild on the plane while the followers of allah crash that plane into a building… Perhaps it could have been your relative that would have been shredded by William Bomber Ayer’s nail bomb just because they were a date of an officer at fort dix.

Gotta run….

bullseye on May 6, 2009 at 8:35 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3