Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (21188)	6/20/2004 6:58:49 AM
From: mcg404	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 80936

Searle, re: the 'Our First Victory Was Zapatero' <"illegal combatant," "evil-doer," or "bad guy" > i'm afraid the term 'evil-doer' is a little dated at this point. Whereas at one point in time Bush could hardly speak a sentence without it, it appears his handlers have demanded he drop it. on the other hand, the 'bad guy' label is enjoying wide popularity. not just from the bush team but throughout the US society (so it seems to me). I see it used casually by cops, the military, local news people. i'm kind of fascinated by it. In the past, we always needed a more descriptive term to demonize those we chose as our enemies so we could understand why we were depriving them of their humanity (communist - we hate you because of how you structure your economy, terrorist - we hate you because you circumvent our military advantage using asymetrical methods, pagan/aethiest - wrong or no god, socialist/leftist - wrong political beliefs). But now it seems we no longer need that fig leaf. Just say 'bad guy' and we know you deserve to be hated. <The Geneva Conventions of 1949 covering the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians in wartime are treaties the U.S. government promoted, signed, and ratified. They are therefore the supreme law of the land. Neither the President nor the Secretary of Defense has the authority to alter them or to choose whether or not to abide by them. > Seems the bush team believes, or want to believe, otherwise: Thugs With Lawyers "The most breathtaking aspect of the memo, however, is its endorsement of presidential power almost completely unrestrained by any notion of law, let alone common decency. "In light of the President's [note the upper case, as if discussing a royal personage at least] complete authority over the conduct of war, without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the President's ultimate authority in these areas." It goes on, more specifically: "In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign, 18 U.S.C. 2340A (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority. Congress lacks authority under Article I to set the terms and conditions under which the President may exercise his authority as Commander-in-Chief to control the conduct of operations during a war ... Congress may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield." So if the president wants to do it and wants to order somebody else to do it, U.S. laws and international treaties don't matter a whit. This is a formula for unrestrained, arbitrary dictatorial unaccountable power to act on a whim. That's the very obverse of the idea of the rule of law, whose cardinal principle is that it binds the ruler as well as the ruled. And note that the memo doesn't even consider whether such power requires a Declaration of War (pardon me for invoking such a quaint concept) to be triggered. Apparently the president's arbitrary power is complete and unrestrained if he simply declares that it's a matter of national security." antiwar.com great article (i recommend reading the whole piece). also contains this: 'Torture is more likely to bring out whatever sadism lurks deep in the interrogator than the information that will save thousands of lives...What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that various upper-level bureaucrats virtually lusted after the idea of condoning or justifying torture almost from the moment the planes hit the World Trade Center towers. This is not only a profound betrayal of the best in American ideals, it suggests a certain barbarity that is profoundly sick.' Which reminds me of your observation from some time ago that the religous are more prone to supporting the death penalty cause the control of life and death makes them god-like, in a sense (i hope this is a moderately accurate characterization of your idea). Well, i wonder if this concept extends to torture as well. we have the most openly religous adminstration (in my lifetime) together with the most apparent willingness to utilize torture. Is the total control of another person via torture just another form of the total control of whether they live or die via the death penalty? and the desire to be god-like? on an unrelated subject, here is a great paragraph by an SI poster that, imo, is worth repeating: "What I think bothers me Haim is when the virtues of a free-market economy and society are used to justify actions that have as their ultimate motivation greed and power, and the infliction of suffering on other peoples. Capital seems to be such a powerful form of social organization, that there is a corresponding need to have checks and balances that moderate its affect. And too often, when powerful interests fight for virtues such as "freedom", "democracy", and "our way of life", what they really are fighting for is "power", "profits", "cheap access to labor or raw materials", or "enforced access to foreign markets". And particularly when I here a conflict portrayed as a battle between good and evil, or good guys and bad guys, I suspect propaganda, disinformation, and an absence of proper historical context ... from ALL sides." Message 20236590 john