Good morning.
- Mr Roubini.
- One man’s torture, another man’s mere discomfort.
- Parliament.
- Termites? in Church?
- Liberalism and Conservatism … and abandoning ideology.
- Fiction with an agenda defined.
- A book noted.
- Considering the flu.
- Unwarranted conclusions noted.
- A danger on not riding quite enough.
- Silliness in surgery.
- In other words, no free lunch.
- Actually centrism might be correct.
One man’s torture, another man’s mere discomfort.
Thank God for the moral clarity only religion can provide.
Actually centrism might be correct.
Wait, how does that jibe with your “Obama out for personal power” theory?
More importantly, how is it “centrism” when a majority of American are on the opposite side of the issue? (Oh yeah, “cricket races.” The people believe what Mark says they believe.
)
JA,
Uhm, I’m on the fence on Obama’s out for power question … and it wasn’t my theory. It was a question posed elsewhere that I felt unable to answer.
I thought it might be “centrism” because it is my view that a majority of Americans are actually not on the opposite side of this issue. While pundits find the torture or not issue highly interesting it is my perception that this is not a hot topic outside the pundit class, i.e., most American’s are “ok” with what was done and which Obama is continuing.
. God’s way is the way of the cross. His victory is that of defeating death by undergoing it. His plan is for us to defeat evil by enduring evil. For the horrible truth is that the problem of evil is “the problem of us” – we bear it in our bodies, we breathe it in the air, we live off of the death of those around us. The destruction of evil is not a matter of power (whose victories are always ambigious and bitter-sweet), but rather a matter of love.
Holy conflation, Batman! Obama is not continuing the torture. The “issue” at hand, then, is not the torture, but whether to investigate what happened. Polls consistently show a majority of Americans support some kind of serious investigation, even as the establishment (including Obama and the “liberal” — yeah right — media) opposes it.
JA,
You haven’t been reading Greenwald, who has pointed out on numerous occasions that Mr Obama has used careful waffle words leaving the option for torture available to his Administration.
I’m not sure what you’re quoting there, I think that’s another discussion.
Let me ask you something. Suppose that after Obama leaves the Presidency the economy is doing very poorly and that the next Administration (and perhaps a “majority of the press and people”) think that moves made during his tenure toward the economy overstepped Constitutional bounds, yet during his Presidency no move was made to impeach and try him in the Senate. Would you support “investigations” and witch-hunts assigning blame and trying to assign charges to Obama and his cabinet?
So the unless you are willing to assert there is enough evidence to impeach a President RIGHT NOW you must forever shut the f*** up about any indication he did wrong?
You haven’t been reading Greenwald, who has pointed out on numerous occasions that Mr Obama has used careful waffle words leaving the option for torture available to his Administration.
I have been reading Greenwald. I don’t think we’re torturing under Obama.
Let me ask you something. Suppose that after Obama leaves the Presidency the economy is doing very poorly and that the next Administration (and perhaps a “majority of the press and people”) think that moves made during his tenure toward the economy overstepped Constitutional bounds, yet during his Presidency no move was made to impeach and try him in the Senate. Would you support “investigations” and witch-hunts assigning blame and trying to assign charges to Obama and his cabinet?
Ordering torture isn’t “overstepping Constitutional bounds,” it’s blatantly breaking the law. If Obama did that, absolutely I’d support investigations and criminal charges, if applicable. Why wouldn’t I?
Boonton,
I said before, and I’ll repeat it again, I’m unclear on the wisdom of prosecution of an ex-President on the basis of what he did during his Presidency as President, i.e. Executive/state decisions. Unclear is the operative word here. I think that a case can be made that legal actions from Presidential acts made as President (as opposed to actions made on his personal behalf during his tenure) might need to be treated in a different way.
Are you saying prosecution of Obama would be warranted in the case noted above?
JA,
I didn’t say “we’re torturing” under Obama, but that he left the option open, i.e., he has not excluded it.
You might not support investigations and criminal charges because there are mechanisms in place (called impeachment) for treating with Executive law breaking. Charging with crime after the President has stepped down is not that method.
Mark:
Impeachment is a process to forcibly remove someone from office. It does not take the place of a criminal trial.
Why do you think Ford had to pardon Nixon AFTER Nixon resigned?