Checkmate. Checkmate = Civil War.

[originalpckelly]

We're seriously fucked here.

Let me explain it in the form of two questions:
1. Do you think the right will allow their former President to be prosecuted for war crimes?
2. If we do not prosecute the former President for war crimes, are we not implicitly accepting torture?

These two things are mutually exclusive yet equally true. The first question demands the absolution of Bush of war crimes, yet the second demands the prosecution of Bush for war crimes. You cannot have one with the other.

The right will not allow their former President to be prosecuted, yet the left will not allow the new President to simply ignore torture (we can only hope the rest of the world agrees with us.)

One side must acquiesce to the other, but the likelihood of that is nil. I think it's a forgone conclusion the right is simply not going to let Bush be prosecuted, yet he must be or we accept torture.

I think that perhaps describes why Obama is willing to accept torture, which he is.

He is basically shutting the investigation down by giving CIA agents immunity before they've actually agreed to testify.

This conclusion is based upon the current evidence, there may be a secret agreement we do not know about between the prosecutors and the CIA agents, but it doesn't appear to exist. If it does, then it will cause a civil war.

Why is he shutting down the investigation? He's doing it because he's trying to prevent a civil war.

The problem is, I don't think he's going to be successful with that endeavor.

A house divided against itself cannot long stand, and disagreement about torture is debate about a basic human right like slavery was. We are divided against ourselves, either we think torture can be used, or we do not. There is no middle ground. Either people are slaves, or not. There is no half slave, just like there is no specific group of people to whom torture can be applied. If it is true for one person, then it is true for all people.

I do not know about you, but I do not intend to live in a country where torture is acceptable. I think that, because I know that if just one person can be tortured by the government without punishment, then it's possible I can be too.

[Mari333]

1. I hear people saying he is playing some sort of chess game

but I dont buy it. he is allowing wiretapping of US citizens. he is playing the middle and it wont work. his advisors are doing a piss poor job by playing the middle. they are going to lose their base if this continues. loss of credibility if no one is held accountable.
he will be one term if he keeps this up. and god help us when the next GOP admin comes in and sees what the last one got away with.

[CanonRay]

2. Well put. I've been thinking along these lines myself.

The outcry from the Right will be tremendous if we prosecute. Yet we cannot NOT prosecute. I don't see a way out. Maybe Spain prosecuting IS a way out. The right will be mad at Spain, not Obama, and he can throw up his hands and point to treaty obligations, and let the prosecution go forward.

[originalpckelly]

4. And how do you think Spain is going to get Bush?

Here too, we are fucked.

If Obama allows the extradition of Bush, then the right will go bonkers over that.
If he doesn't, then again Obama would be putting himself in the way of an investigation/trial over torture. It would be a toothless prosecution, and Spain doesn't have all the evidence to prosecute.

And IIRC, Spain just said no to this whole idea. Now these people have moved on to Germany. If Germany does it, then all I said applies there too.

Toothless prosecution in absentia means nothing when it comes to torture. It's not like Bush is hiding out, people know where he lives.

It's also not just Bush, but any sufficiently prominent figure. The right appears absolutely convinced that torture was right, and I don't see them budging.

[Renew Deal]

3. I don't see how you can elevate torture to the level of slavery.

Leaving the rest of the argument aside... Torture and Slavery are very different and have very different affects on most American lives. Slavery was widespread in the south and parts of the north before the civil war. There were people that "owned" slaves. Slaves were part of the "economic system" to some degree. They had a real effect on peoples lives on a daily basis.

Torture is very distant. It's committed by few and was sanctioned by the government. Most American citizens didn't torture or even know somebody that did. Most American citizens oppose torture when they consider that it could be used against American soldiers. http://pewforum.org/news/rss.php?NewsID=16465

So torture is not widely supported.

Back to the first half. I think right wingers would be upset if Bush was prosecuted, but not because they support torture. They would see it as criminalizing conservatism. And I think they'd be extremely resentful if Obama did it. I think Obama can go after the middle people including Rummy and Gonzales, but I don't think Obama can or will prosecute Bush.

[originalpckelly]

5. Yes, but we're not talking about that, we're talking about the torture of bad guys.

The problem is that rights are not necessary for good guys, only the bad guys.

If we think that we can torture bad guys of one type, what about bad guys of all types? At what level of bad guyishness does it become inappropriate?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Do you feel that Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents that ever lived?

Well, then, what do you think about Lincoln's failure to prosecute slave owners for slavery? Or confederate generals for treason?

Or for that matter, Lincolns own crimes against the Constitution? Like suspension of Habeus Corpus.

[originalpckelly]

10. I think Abraham Lincoln was a man.

You're implying widespread criminality, is that what this is? Did the entire country torture people, did a sizable portion of it do that?

No, in both cases.

However, the people who did torture are supported blindly by a sizable portion of the country, and they can make life pretty terrible.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. You've completely dodged the questions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. The answer to the first question is yes. Therefore the second question is moot.

The rank and file right wingers fear authority. When their heroes break the law, you ignore that crime at your peril, it simply emboldens them.

Punish criminals preferably before they become heroes.

I don't minimize the risk and distress this might cause, but enforcing the law is the least worst outcome.

[originalpckelly]

8. On other hand, it could start a civil war in which millions of Americans could die.

If Obama has good intentions, this man must be shitting his pants.

[MadHound]

13. I think that you're grossly overestimating the power and influence that the right has

Especially the rank and file, ordinary citizen right wing.

First off, the best estimates put the turn out for the tea bag parties at 250,000. That's a small number of people who are pissed off enough about something to actually get off their ass and do something about it. That's like 7/100's of one percent of the population. Even armed, that force is minuscule, certainly not enough to pull off any sort of armed rebellion.

Furthermore, most of the folks on the right hate Bush anyway, hell, just listen to the whackjob talk shows like Limbaugh and Beck. They're not going to put their ass out on the line for Bush.

Finally, giving in to somebody and failing to do the right thing because of the fear of armed retaliation is a recipe for disaster and getting pushed around. If you give in now because you fear violence, then you'll have to give in on countless other issues because your opposition will know that you have no spine.

Lincoln was faced with the same sort of dilemma, southern states were threatening secession if he stepped foot in Washington to accept the presidency. Well, he traveled by circuitous routes, and in secret, but Lincoln came to Washington and sure enough, we had the Civil War. However just think if Lincoln had backed down, how long would slavery have reigned in this country?

Do the right thing, no matter what your opponent threatens to do. Otherwise the right thing will never get done.

[originalpckelly]

17. Just think about what you're saying here.

You're saying that 250,000 well armed people can't cause absolute havoc. Just take a look at what some of the fringiest elements of the right have already done. Three Detroit police officers are dead because of a RW nutjob.

That was police officers. What if that nut had gone out into a "liberal" mall and opened fire? Huh? Or some other "liberal" place?

Are you saying these people couldn't cause us harm? We work our asses off to protect even just one guy who was kidnapped by pirates. Thankfully, we cherish human life as a nation.

There is an element in this nation which was deluded enough to think God chose Bush to be President. Don't underestimate the power of religious beliefs to motivate someone to violence.

[MadHound]

19. 250,000 people armed with, at best, AK-47's

Sure, they can do attacks like the dude in Pittsburg. But as far as starting a "civil war" and matching up against the US military, dude, put the pipe down. Hell, the goddamn Air Force could take them out with a few missions.

Again, caving in and not doing the right thing due to the fear of violence simply means that they win. Grow a backbone, stand up and do the right thing no matter what. Stop being such a goddamn wimp quivering at the slightest sign of violence.

[originalpckelly]

22. Yeah, as we know, that really works in guerrilla situations.

Worked in Vietnam, works for Israel, works for us in Iraq, and is really doing wonders in Afghanistan.

That's because violent actions only inflame violence, they do not end it. It is not possible to target what someone is thinking with a bomb/missile from an F-16. To address terrorism with violence is like addressing hunger with starvation.

I am, however, not afraid enough of these terrorists to stop opposing torture or wanting it to be prosecuted.

What this means is that we must work our asses off to get these people to understand why we must not torture. That must happen before any prosecution, if we are to avoid violence.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. No. Never happen.

No one is gonna enlist in Governor Goodhair's militia. At least not if we (the government) make clear that treason isn't tolerated.

[originalpckelly]

18. You're basically disuputing that there will be right-wing terrorism en masse.

To think it will be armies is not to acknowledge the fact that these days when people disagree and are outnumbered, they don't form up into armies, they conduct acts of terrorism. I'm very worried about the threat of right-wing terrorism.

The government has already issued a warning about it, and we have already had three police officers die at the hand of a right-wing terrorist.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. That's right. No en masse terror.

The fringiest crazies will try it. They will be made an example of, and Glenn Beck will be told to tone it down or get off the air.

I'm worried about the crazies too, but I don't think embracing a lawless and unprincipled society is a good solution.

[cali]

9. more du hysterics and drama queen shit. ho hum.

you're leaping to wild conclusions. Furthermore, it's delusional to think this is the first time the U.S. has tortured. You've always lived in a country where torture, if not accepted, was perpetrated.

[originalpckelly]

24. Call it hysterical, but the threat of RW terrorism is very real.

I am a queen, and I'm dramatic, so I guess you're right about that.

"you're leaping to wild conclusions."

About 6 years ago, accusing the government of torturing people was a wild thing to say. Today, we know it happened, and we have documents to prove it. We're operating in a world where a wild conclusion is now the truth.

"Furthermore, it's delusional to think this is the first time the U.S. has tortured. You've always lived in a country where torture, if not accepted, was perpetrated."

Should I passively accept that (if true), or work to change it? Do you support torture?

[hfojvt]

12. Do you think the "prosecution side" is really that large and powerful?

And you are what - gonna move or gonna start a war and kill a whole bunch of your fellow Americans just to show how morally pure you are? What do the polls say? Is there more than 15% of the country that wants the former President to be prosecuted?

[originalpckelly]

16. I am committed to non-violence, but that doesn't mean passiveness.

You are implying that I should passively accept living in a country where torture has occurred, and the people who tortured will practically have immunity.

I am trying to analyze the possible reasons for seeing torture prosecution as a debatable thing. My analysis is what I said, that however, doesn't mean that prosecution is impossible.

One side must acquiesce, and the only right side should not do that. Prosecution is the only right side, that means a non-violent persuasion of the right-wingers who support Bush blindly must occur.

Violence is just a method of persuasion, but I'd argue a less productive version of it. If you're non-violent someone will be more apt to even consider the other option. I know that if someone was to talk to me about a new idea, I'd be more willing to consider it, than if they assaulted me until I finally agreed to it, simply to protect myself. I think most people will agree with that.

You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

[scheming daemons]

14. Hyperbolic nonsense

The "right" that you speak of in question one is less than 20% of the country.

The "left" that you speak of in question two is less than 20% of the country.


60% to 70% of the country doesn't give a shit either way about this issue. They simply don't. Oh, I'm sure to some torture of "muslins" is ok and to others it is a bit uncomfortable.


But there's not going to be a civil war because the fringe of either side doesn't like what happens here.


The "left" didn't take up arms when Bush was actually in office and doing these things, they certainly aren't going to take up arms now. You are WAY over-estimating what the "left" would do if Obama doesn't prosecute. There'll be sit-ins, protests, and talk of third parties and "sitting out 2012". Maybe even a large demonstration at the '12 Dem convention.

But that's it. You say the "left will not allow the new President to ignore torture". That's laughable. Just watch 'em.



As for the "right"... a few nutballs will take up "arms" and maybe have more teabagging-type events. A lone wolf or two might blow something up. But there won't be a "civil war" in that case either.

Impeachment of Clinton didn't cause a "civil war". Bush and Cheney actually COMMITTING the crimes didn't cause one.


This won't either.

[originalpckelly]

20. Impeaching Clinton didn't cause a civil war because we're not violent.

Whether we admit or not, being progressive is often being anti-violence. I know I am, that's why I'm worried about this. It's not that people on our side would commit acts of violence, it's that the right-wing would.

I'd say there are more non-violent progressives than violent progressives. There are many LW ideologies that espouse non-violence as the only answer to our problems.

Name one RW ideology that says violence is bad. I can't think of any, there may be some, but none of them are well known enough to cite.

[leftstreet]

21. Do the Republican leaders speak for the Republican voters?

Obviously not, or their party wouldn't be dead.

[SlingBlade]

23. Avoiding a civil war ?

These cowards, And that is what they are, Have no guts to fire on something that could
actually fire back. Fact is, We Need a Civil War to rid our nation of this cancer.

Stamp out neo-cons wherever found !

[originalpckelly]

26. You presume that a war is only an action between two+ armies.

You're partying like it's 1860.

This is 2009, and the human race has apparently/unfortunately mastered guerrilla warfare/terrorism.

We have already seen one act of that kind of terrorism, perpetrated by a RW nutjob, and the government has issued a safety warning stating more will come, even in the absence of a torture prosecution.

What exactly do you think happened in Detroit with those police officers who died? Stormfront is an extremist RW board, not an extremist LW board. It is the logical conclusion/absurdity of the RW ideology, not a LW one. The man who killed those officers posted on that board.

And I agree, they are cowards, people who resort to violence or terrorism are the real cowards. To continue in the face of danger peacefully takes more courage than blowing unarmed people away with guns/bombs.

[SlingBlade]

28. "To continue in the face of danger peacefully....

takes more courage than blowing unarmed people away"

I agree, However, These Right Wing Nut Jobs are anything but unarmed.
They are armed to the teeth, Hoping for some excuse to go out and kill
them Libruls.
Preparing ourselves for this type of violence is not only prudent but
I dare say,....Patriotic.

I like big butts
:kick: :bounce: :bounce: :evilgrin:

[rucky]

25. Middle ground being the prosecution of some well-placed fall guys.

Gonzo and Rummy spring to mind.