tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post115913117298338306..comments2024-03-26T12:23:29.784-04:00Comments on Philosoraptor: Winston Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1160495039585256452006-10-10T11:43:00.000-04:002006-10-10T11:43:00.000-04:00Yes, the nub of it all indeed:http://andersonblog....Yes, the nub of it all indeed:<BR/><BR/>http://andersonblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/japanese-war-crime-american.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1160160839002330022006-10-06T14:53:00.000-04:002006-10-06T14:53:00.000-04:00Ah, we arrive at the nub of it all.Ah, we arrive at the <A HREF="http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~pa34/hokehm2006.htm" REL="nofollow">nub of it all.</A>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1160154574079521362006-10-06T13:09:00.000-04:002006-10-06T13:09:00.000-04:00The idea that there's no other way to protect ours...The idea that there's no other way to protect ourselves other than stripping these guys of all their rights and locking them away forever is laughable; however, given the constitution of the National Security Council the past six years, I could understand how one might be worried.<BR/><BR/>I'm in at least as much danger as you are. My office was across the street from Ground Zero. But I'm not Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1160103957636552572006-10-05T23:05:00.000-04:002006-10-05T23:05:00.000-04:00Well, I'm trying to back out gracefully, but as I ...Well, I'm trying to back out gracefully, but as I would never want to be thought evasive, I will address (forthrightly, I hope), your new business:<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"If you can't move French public opinion, you can't expect their political leaders to sign on the bottom line. We have an international constituency, and that's what we've lost."</I>---Wesley Clark<BR/><BR/>If Gen. Clark is to make Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159992715396716472006-10-04T16:11:00.000-04:002006-10-04T16:11:00.000-04:00Not to mention the dead give-away of your appeal t...Not to mention the dead give-away of your appeal to "what was OK in the administration before". It isn't supposed to be up to the administration to decide. Get it? The Supreme Court interprets the law, the Executive Branch executes it. More Cheneyistic violation of the separation of powers. <BR/><BR/>May Jimmy Carter rot in hell for being the kind of President who would actually follow his Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159991047255373302006-10-04T15:44:00.000-04:002006-10-04T15:44:00.000-04:00That's the whole point. It shouldn't have been OK...That's the whole point. It shouldn't have been OK in any administration.<BR/><BR/>And I'll take this guy's opinion on it over those others:<BR/><BR/>http://securingamerica.com/node/1610<BR/><BR/>http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=54426<BR/><BR/>Not to mention the outcome of the handling of the Ressam case. And I DID follow your links, which provides evidence of the Bush Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159988379405732222006-10-04T14:59:00.000-04:002006-10-04T14:59:00.000-04:00Because I don't want some twit like Jimmy Carter c...Because I don't want some twit like Jimmy Carter coming in and prosecuting guys for what was OK in the administration before.<BR/><BR/>And the new legislation's done, so this is moot.<BR/><BR/>Shame you didn't follow the URLs I posted. One had <I>both</I> sides of the debate, the other had a first hand account of the people we're holding at Gitmo. Chilling.<BR/><BR/>And you refuse to hold open Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159941107156167962006-10-04T01:51:00.000-04:002006-10-04T01:51:00.000-04:00Oy. Even more absurd questions.Let's see, IF I had...Oy. Even more absurd questions.<BR/><BR/>Let's see, IF I had Bin Laden and IF I couldn't meet the legal standards of proof of his guilt, yeah, I'd probably figure out a way to hold him. And IF the queen had balls she'd be the king.<BR/><BR/>No, I wasn't OK with waterboarding that guy. Already said I wouldn't do it unless I was 100% sure it would prevent the deaths of innocents, and there was noAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159911437940558832006-10-03T17:37:00.000-04:002006-10-03T17:37:00.000-04:00And if you do intend to answer, please take a peek...And if you do intend to answer, please take a peek <A HREF="http://patterico.com/2006/10/03/5225/pattericos-exclusive-interview-with-a-man-who-has-spoken-to-the-terrorists-at-guantanamo-part-two-stashiu-arrives-at-gtmo-and-describes-the-terrorists/#more-5225" REL="nofollow">at this first.</A><BR/><BR/>(Patterico is an acquiantance of mine, a trial lawyer.)<BR/><BR/>http://patterico.com/2006/10/03Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159909143066417742006-10-03T16:59:00.000-04:002006-10-03T16:59:00.000-04:00http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2006/...http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2006/0328hamdan-debate.htmlTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159906095712778572006-10-03T16:08:00.000-04:002006-10-03T16:08:00.000-04:00OK. They always end this way. I'm dishonest, I h...OK. They always end this way. I'm dishonest, I have presented no arguments.<BR/><BR/>But we can clear the muddle and start over.<BR/><BR/>---Would you hold bin Laden even if you could not meet the legal standards of proof for his guilt?<BR/><BR/>---Were you OK with waterboarding KSM?<BR/><BR/>---Has the issue of the effectiveness of "torture" been reopened, or are we still on "it doesn't work"?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159902080051510042006-10-03T15:01:00.000-04:002006-10-03T15:01:00.000-04:00I did answer. Twice, as any sentient being who ca...I did answer. Twice, as any sentient being who can read would know. Perhaps you should re-read my posts.<BR/><BR/>My alternative is the status quo prior to the legislation. Sorry, but the burden is on those who advocate for changes to present evidence that the changes are necessary. And furthermore to implement those changes in a legal way. Neither of those burdens have been met.<BR/><BR/>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159901250707668162006-10-03T14:47:00.000-04:002006-10-03T14:47:00.000-04:00You didn't answer. This is like thumbwrestling in...You didn't answer. This is like thumbwrestling in Jello. I'm OK with the status quo and the new legislation.<BR/><BR/>If you are not, please state your alternative as clearly as you are able.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159901052328541452006-10-03T14:44:00.000-04:002006-10-03T14:44:00.000-04:00You asked me one question. I answered it. Then y...You asked me one question. I answered it. Then you came back and asked again, without my qualification. I answered that too. If nobody else answers your questions, that I can do nothing about. <BR/><BR/>Now, why are you afraid to answer mine?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159850006865947092006-10-03T00:33:00.000-04:002006-10-03T00:33:00.000-04:00The beauty of a Socratic dialogue is that everyone...The beauty of a Socratic dialogue is that everyone's a good sport and answers the questions posed as honestly as possible.<BR/><BR/>I asked several questions in my last post. You can tell because they have question marks on them, or more delicately, stuff about >crickets<.<BR/><BR/>I'll take the time to answer yours, but at this point, you first. Parliamentary procedure, point of order. <BR/><Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159845680851551002006-10-02T23:21:00.000-04:002006-10-02T23:21:00.000-04:00I did answer your question, although apparently yo...I did answer your question, although apparently you just didn't like my answer. And now you refuse to answer mine or nfs'. <BR/> <BR/>As far as your analysis of the 'legal thing', you couldn't be more wrong. Yes, in a sense the legislation was required due to Supreme Court ruling, but the new legislation is patently unconstitutional on at least three grounds. One, it allows the suspension ofAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159841158886642772006-10-02T22:05:00.000-04:002006-10-02T22:05:00.000-04:00Why do I have to answer? Perhaps you don't realiz...Why do I have to answer? Perhaps you don't realize you haven't answered mine.<BR/><BR/>For the record, most of my questions don't get answered, perhaps a half-dozen pertinent ones on this very thread. Do you think I should persist when they don't? It seems impolite. I usually feel it's because the person doesn't have an answer they feel satisfactory to themselves, so they gloss over it.<BR/><Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159837221862290612006-10-02T21:00:00.000-04:002006-10-02T21:00:00.000-04:00Then the answer is no. If you want a more complet...Then the answer is no. If you want a more complete answer, mac's last comment in the Mark Kleiman thread pretty well encapsulates my thinking.<BR/><BR/>Now, you not only have to answer my question, but nfs' about how you plan to determine that someone has information and is torturable before making any determinations by hearing/trial whatever, rather than just torturing first and asking Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159824002536225762006-10-02T17:20:00.000-04:002006-10-02T17:20:00.000-04:00And Mr. Prunes, your address of me as Mr. VD is sc...And Mr. Prunes, your address of me as Mr. VD is scummy.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159823942403221912006-10-02T17:19:00.000-04:002006-10-02T17:19:00.000-04:00Yes, I would hope I'd have the courage to do so.Bu...Yes, I would hope I'd have the courage to do so.<BR/><BR/>But you didn't answer my question, since 100% certainty is nearly 100% impossible in human events.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159754060308606742006-10-01T21:54:00.000-04:002006-10-01T21:54:00.000-04:00Morality needn't enter into it. You and those who...Morality needn't enter into it. You and those who seek to codify the right to torture are the ones claiming some trenchant moral need to torture without sanction. Have we just been lost in the wilderness the past 60 years that right now we really needed to "establish a legal baseline", as you put it? <BR/><BR/>Yeah, if I were 100% sure torturing that guy would save a lot of lives, I'd probablyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159753854391133792006-10-01T21:50:00.000-04:002006-10-01T21:50:00.000-04:00Mr VD: a) Bush made mistakes, foremost the Garner/...Mr VD:<BR/><BR/><I> a) Bush made mistakes, foremost the Garner/Bremer drift of the first few years in Iraq.</I><BR/><BR/>Bush's foremost mistake was waging an illegal preventive war on Iraq.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>d) I must object to your frequent use of derisive nicknames as I feel it erodes whatever dignity we accord each other in any attempt at discussion. I shall attempt to resist similar Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159746278827622672006-10-01T19:44:00.000-04:002006-10-01T19:44:00.000-04:00I'm sorry, anonymous, but no intelligent response ...I'm sorry, anonymous, but no intelligent response is possible to your latest, as it veers back and forth from the moral to the legal. They are not synonymous.<BR/><BR/>The recently-passed legislation was an attempt to establish the legal baseline you require. The legislation seems OK, altho it's my opinion that waterboarding became a political football.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I asked a question awhile Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159745114281297792006-10-01T19:25:00.000-04:002006-10-01T19:25:00.000-04:00a) Bush made mistakes, foremost the Garner/Bremer ...a) Bush made mistakes, foremost the Garner/Bremer drift of the first few years in Iraq.<BR/><BR/>b) I think Gore would have screwed up. I think he's wack, and this latest "cigarette smoking is a significant contributor to global warming" proves it once again.<BR/><BR/>c) I note for the record that despite his protestations at Chris Wallace, Clinton did fail to act, because of a legalistic view Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1159744878557755102006-10-01T19:21:00.000-04:002006-10-01T19:21:00.000-04:00Tom,The problem with your argument about torture i...Tom,<BR/><BR/>The problem with your argument about torture isn't that it doesn't present a cogent argument in favor of some baseline principle. The problem is that the baseline principle (or principles) aren't American. They're quite un-American.<BR/><BR/>These are the principles of America:<BR/><BR/>http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/<BR/><BR/>http://www.archives.gov/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com