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….

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.

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.

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!

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!

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…

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?

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?

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.

Glass houses, Mr. Dodd.

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

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.