Obama: "I'm ready to negotiate with you, Iran." Iran: "Fuck you."
 

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...php/boot/53612

Oooh, get her!
Chip, shoulder, anyone?

A hope of change and resolution of this conflict with peaceful means. But this looks like the start of WWIII or VI.

Meanwhile who is talking and what are they saying in private channels - where actual discussions are conducted without the hyperbole for public consumption.

OK, this Commentary place...are they mostly conservative or something? Because just isnt really true, at least depending on who is looking at and writing the history.

Meanwhile, because the US is not talking with belligerence, the Iranian Reformers are attempting to regain power. Khatami, the former reform President announced a bid for reelection.

The entire reform movement in Iran was devastated when George Jr all but declared war on Iran with his 'axis of evil' threats. For the Iranian reform movement, it has been downhill since. American threats have encouraged all Iranians to support wacko extremists and more military weapons. Iranians did exactly what any people would do when overtly threatened. Remove those threats and Iran may again embrace reformists.

Current Iranian comments come from those extremists who have the same attitude as Cheney. Can Khatami get reelected?

I agree and hope that they (reformists) can regain momentum. The Iranian people really do want a secular government. At least, most of them do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/wo...11iran.html?hp

Someone refresh my memory, why is the neutron bomb frowned upon?

It killed people but not property. It was deemed inhumane. WTF?

Personally I thought it was a great idea.

Without a wacko extremists for a counterparty, even Iran's Ahmadinejad has conceded to what a responsible leader does. Without threats from Cheney, his position as an elected leader is further threatened by another moderate - Khatami. From the Washington Post of 11 Feb 2009: George Jr did Cheney's bidding. Amadinejad answers to his supreme council of neocon clerics. But simply remove a neocon extremist and suddenly something, always necessary for peace, is possible. Talking.

Me too. Especially since the half life of Tritium is about 12 years. Pretty clean environment in a couple of decades. After reading a wiki article on it there was this ominous quote:
"One significant drawback of the weapon is that not all targeted troops will die or be incapacitated immediately. After a brief bout of nausea, many of those hit with about 5-50 Sv of radiation will experience a temporary recovery (the latent or "walking ghost phase"[12]) lasting days to weeks. Moreover, these victims would likely be aware of their inevitable fate and react accordingly."

Walking ghost phase?
So...they turn into zombies and start killing indescrimnately?
OMG, my worst nightmare. *shudders* I hate zombies.

I agree with that. In fact, I think Bush should be investigated and tried for war crimes, among other things.

I just love the irony of our free society. M.A. calls America The Great Satan (and Israel, The Little Stan) and calls for the destruction of both. Yet, we spend our taxpayer dollars to protect his scrawny, Member's Only wearing ass when he's here to attend U.N. functions. The funny thing is that most Iranians don't know about that. Let some nut take a shot at him or kill him while he's here though......

And, as for trying Bush for war crimes? Sure...right after you remove the sitting Treasury Secretary for not paying taxes and charging Tom Daschle. Oh wait...they're Dems, so that's OK.

You are comparing not paying taxes to WAR CRIMES? WOW. Glad to see you have some perspective.

No, I am not comparing the two. And, that would be WAR CRIMES (in your skewed opinion). I just thought I would use the most recent examples of Dems getting a pass on their own wrong-doing. It just so happens that no matter what a Democrat seems to do...fellow Dems in power (and the Dem voters) give them a pass. Didn't pay your taxes? Well, you said you're sorry...it was an oversight, so all is well. It's disgusting. Marion Barry ring a bell?

Let us compare actual, prosecutable crimes to Bush-hater's fantasy crimes and see what comes of it. Sug, which *particular* war crime would you start with, and in which court?

Bush and Cheney have both admitted in interviews that they authorized waterboarding, which is defined as torture in the Geneva Conventions, which we helped put into place, and we have always agreed to until bush was in office. WE have tried and prosecuted people for waterboarding. Plus, we used other forms of torture as well.

So, I believe they should be tried in an International Court, by International Standards. If the international community decides to let them go, then so be it. But I do not believe we can just turn our backs on standards that we helped put in place, and that the international community has agreed to, for years, simply because we want to or because we all of a sudden decide, on our own, that what we do isn't torture, or that we are somehow above the law.

OK. I do not know much about TGs case, so I can't really comment on that with any honesty, but in the case of TD, I do believe he made an honest mistake, and once he realized it, he corrected that mistake. Hell, I didn't pay my taxes once for several years. I knew I owed th money but I just didn't have it. I talked to the IRS periodically about it. I did eventually pay it, along with the interest and penalties. Does that make me a cheat?

screw that. The leaders of the US would be foolish to ever allow International Courts the power to rule over the people who are elected to lead our nation.

When they break International Law, they should be held accountable in an International Court.

When the international community can survive without the US they can start dictating what we can and cannot do. Our leaders are only accountable to us. The constitution is the rule book, the courts are the place to handle it, and the people are ultimately responsible for the leadership we have.

The people that were waterboarded were not prisoners of war in any of the numerous ways defined by Geneva, and so, Geneva doesn't apply.

Those laws are there for a reason. They are to protect OUR SOLDIERS as much as to protect people in our custody. If the shoe were on the other foot, you guys would be screaming bloody murder. You are using a double standard. If we are going condone torture by our government, regardless of whether the prisoners are POWs as defined by the Geneva Conventions or not, then we can't expect anyone to take us seriously when our guys are tortured, and we want justice for them.

you don't honestly believe our POW's have been handled according to the Geneva Conventions do you?

If you want to prosecute someone, you go by the law, not what you hope might be the law.

Do you want to try again?

We cannot have a double standard simply because it's convenient.

If we refuse to abide by laws that we helped write, then we can't expect anyone else to treat us with any kind of respect.

Torture is NOT an acceptable way to treat people, I don't give a shit who they are or bad they are. It doesn't work anyway. It never has.

Did we help write the part that designates who a prisoner of war is?

You can't have a double standard - ignore the section of the law you don't want to apply - simply because it's convenient.

This isn't about torture, it's about law.

Torture is unacceptable, no matter who the prisoners are.

And ftr, I believe the Supreme Court has ruled that the prisoners at GITMO ARE entitled to the rules and laws of Justice under the Constitution, regardless of whether they are actual "prisoners of war" or not.

The waterboardings didn't happen at Gitmo. They happened elsewhere.

You wanted to prosecute Bush for war crimes. You have failed. Would you like to try again?

I may be wrong but I believe Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) apply to both POWs and civilians held in detention. The Bush interpretation was that prisoners held at Gitmo (and other black holes) were neither and he created his own new designation to circumvent treaty obligations.

I doubt that Bush could be tried for war crimes, however I do think there was compelling evidence that he may have committed impeachable offenses, including authorizing harsh interrogation techniques that met the standards of torture in the above treaties that the US signed.

One question for an impeachment trial might have been if Bush had the unilateral legal and constitutional authority to interpret Geneva and CAT simply based on a DoJ "finding" and w/o congressional or judicial review. I think there is a Supreme Court case that ruled that it is the legislative branch that is responsible for implementing legislation when there are questions of interpretation of treaty obligations...not the executive branch.

Water under the bridge...but all the more reason why I think we need an independent commission to review practices like the above and, IMO, the equally serious issues and questionable practices associated with Bush's interpretation of a Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) giving himself broader "war powers" than those designated in an AUMF.

So what. We have still been in charge of prisons where torture occurred. Can you say Abu Ghraib (sp)? Bush and Cheney have both admitted in interviews that we used waterboarding. That is from the horses mouth. How can you argue with that? It doesn't matter WHERE it occurred, it matters that WE DID IT.

And are you sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure that's not what has been reported.

There should be an independent investigation(s) into the bush administration and things they did over the course of their 8 years in power. I think they have seriously abused their power and should be held accountable.

The Senate Armed Services Committee (Carl Levin/John McCain) issued a pretty scathing bi-partisan report last year.
The brunt of the report's criticism is leveled against Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Addington, Woo, et al. (plausible deniabilityfor Bush/Cheney?)

But the question that needs to be asked and answered is if the president/Executive Branch can act unilaterally, w/o consultation with Congress and/or Judiciary, and "redefine the law" creating their own justification to circumvent US treaty obligations.

Well that is really unconstitutional. I mean, we have different branches of government to balance the power and keep abuse of power at bay, right? If the executive branch can just do whatever it feels like, why do we even need the other ones?

Yes, I did extensive reading. There has been much confusion due to Bush Derangement Syndrome. But all of the three waterboardings happened elsewhere. They did not transport KSM to Gitmo for example.

The torture that happened at Gitmo was "B" level stuff: sleep deprivation, holding people in awkward positions, controlling the temperature of their cells, that sort of thing. We know this because of FOIA'd memos from the FBI. None of those memos reference waterboarding.

This thread is about that now, and has been for some time. A partisan fishing expedition would seriously hurt Obama's ability to get things done.

You think they have seriously abused their power because you have paid attention to people who have been fishing all along. They have allowed the facts to get flimsy, because they're not critical thinkers and because it's more fun that way. I know you're a victim of this, because my attempts to get you to think in a straight line have failed. When we examine just the verifiable facts, which is no fun at all, things generally fall apart.

Don't worry. We've tried to assassinate foreign leaders before and we'll do it again. But if we use very expensive bombs and missiles fired by guys wearing uniforms, it doesn't count as an assassination attempt.

We bombed the presidential palace in Libya in response to what we thought was Libyan involvement in a disco bombing. Since our air force can pretty much send a plane or a cruise missile with impunity against any country in the Middle East, we can take them out at will on their home territory and call it an 'act of undeclared war'.

Undertoad...I'm curious....do you include Bruce Fein as part of that "partisan fishing expedition" or "someone who allowed facts to get flimsy" because he is not a critical thinker?
Fein was a deputy AG under Reagan and later wrote one of the articles of impeachment against Clinton.

He is one of numerous Constitutional lawyers from across the legal spectrum who have "examined the verifiable facts" as least as much as you or I have and believe there are serious questions of law and possible abuse of power by Bush/Cheney.

The issue of whether or not it would get in the way of "Obama's ability to get things done" is a separate question unrelated to the rule of law.

This is an Appeal to Authority, a classic fallacy of logic. It doesn't really prove anything and Mr. Fein's column gave us no new information.

Obama continued the Bush policies on FISA immunity and rendition secrets. Creeping fascism? Disregard of rule of law? Or an attempt to keep the country safe by using all available tools to do so? I don't know, let's just prosecute and figure that out during trials. Is that what you want? That's what Fein wants:

"I don't have any evidence. But if the court finds something..."

Or if somebody perjures themselves during trial... we're back to prosecuting blowjobs.

Undertoad...what I want to know and, IMO, what every American should want to know, is if a president can unilaterally and legally justify a Congressional Authorization of Military Force (AUMF)to use "any tools available" to keep American safe.

Many constitutional scholars believe that an AUMF does not authorize unlimited "war powers" or "any tool" that a president wants.

Yet this AUMF is what Bush used as a legal foundation for all of his actions....to have the NSA (since when is the NSA part of the US Armed Forces?) bypass the FISA courts...to have the DOJ determine that US treaty obligations may be circumvented.....

That is a different question than "should we prosecute all the administration officials we can think of?"

Straw Man fallacy.

BTW....Bush used the AUMF to authorize the NSA to bypass the FISA courts or perhaps you forgot that little fact.

Obama has put in an multi-agency oversight panel for rendition....providing at least some level of accountable to the law.

What I want is not to allow Obama or any future president to use the ihghly questionable Bush policies and practices to put "protecting" America over the rule of law.

I dont know who suggested that.

Another straw man?

Bush used the AUMF to authorize the NSA to bypass the FISA courts or perhaps you forgot that little fact.

Does the AUMF give him that ability, or doesn't it? Imagine that I don't know and am just asking.

I dont know who suggested that. Another straw man?

You can drop the snark any time, BTW.

Ashcroft (DoJ)/Gonzales (WH) provided the memo or "finding" to justify (or provide cover for)using the AUMF to give the president the unilateral power to authorize the NSA to bypass FISA.

Rumsfeld (DoD)/Woo(DoJ)/Addington (WH) provided the memo or "finding" to justifying (or provide cover for) using the AUMF to give the president the unilateral power to authorize the circumvention of Geneva Conventions and US Convention on Torture, both of which the US is a signator.

Bush and/or Cheney signed off on both of the above.

No one has suggested going after "all the administration officials." IMO, the decision makers are the ones that should be held accountable and those, for the most part, are limited to the above individuals....not the hundreds of government officials who carried out the activities.

I dont know if those actions are legal...many constitutional scholars believe the actions represented an abuse of power.

IMO, that is why we need an investigation... so that the limits of executive power are clear to Obama and all future presidents.

Snark for snark.

I was snarky to sugarpop, and I apologize for that. Any snark you read in my comments to you is strictly your reading of it.

My question is on the table: does the AUMF authorize the bypassing of FISA? I don't know; my guess is that it does, based on some of the Wiki entry on the controversy. But the length of the entry, and its 156 citations, tell us it's a very complex question, at least. The signing of memos taking a position on it (or cover for it) does not alter the question.

My instinctive take on it is from a letter in that article:

That sounds reasonable.

As far as the "circumvention" of Geneva and the USCoT, my position is that Geneva doesn't apply, and the USCoT seems to lack the specific language needed to make a legal case. It doesn't mention waterboarding and doesn't give concrete examples in its definition of torture. It's weak, as is the entire notion of international law in the first place.

We obviously disagree but the bottom line is neither of our opinions on the AUMF and the extent of presidential powers it authorizes, or our different perspectives on which branch of our government has the legal authority to interpret US treaty obligations, will carry over to any rule of law. It is an interesting discussion and we can keep it going, but it wont bring clarity to the issue for future presidents.

And when it comes to the extent of presidential "war powers" independent of checks and balances, I would like to see clarity.

That is why I believe further investigation by a bi-partisan independent Commission and a resolution of these issues is in the best interest of the country....and if as a result of such an investigation, compelling evidence emerges that those past actions may have constituted a willful abuse of power, then, IMO, DoJ should consider criminal proceeding against the top decision makers.

:rolleyes:

Perhaps Redux should be investigated, have all his "everything" checked out, his email, under his bed, savings, checking & investments.
Interrogate or question all his friends and coworkers, then...if, IF, the authorities think something is amiss, he should be charged. :headshake

I'm probably misreading something in what you are posting here Redux, but I don't think that is the course of action you want to endorse, is it? :eyebrow:

Only for anyone in office before Obama and after Clinton. Other than that I don't think he believes anyone should be invesigated for anything.

So far the Demoncrats are off to a grand start. At least they really get complete ownership this time.

I never took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

And no one is talking about checking under the bed etc.

The issue at stake is a serious national policy issue...how far do the rights of executive power extend, particularly when a president claims we are in a "state of war" and no such proclamation has been issued by Congress. Does a president have the right to unilaterally interpret that an AUMF provides the same executive authority as a War Powers Resolution or Declaration of War. I dont think so, nor do many constitutional scholars.

If that is not serious shit that affects all the American people (much more than lying about a blow job), then I dont know what is.

The secondary question is if there sufficient evidence that Bush/Cheney and a small handful of top advisers willfully and intentionally took those executive powers beyond the Constitutional limits.

Or we would just do away with the oath of office and Constitutional checks and balances and Obama and future presidents can use whatever power they want, as long as they say we are in a "state of war" and their actions are to protect America.

Boy I never would have guessed that.:rolleyes:

Thanks for responding to the substance of my post! :eek:

Cops out r us

I don't think that's even secondary. They did what they did, "willfully and intentionally";
1- because they thought it was their right, maybe I should say the right of their offices.
2- because nobody stopped them, reinforcing their beliefs.

So while I agree the issue should be investigated and resolved as to exactly what the limits are, I'd rather it not be a witch hunt.

Ahem. Moving the topic back to the OP...watch the Iranian elections. If Ali Khamenei throws his weight behind Mohammad Khatami's or Mehdi Karroubi's challenge to Ahmadinejad's Presidency, things could get interesting. It could be that they intend to use the nuclear issue to hang him in the elections, let him be the face of the rejectionist camp and take the fall for it at a time when many states are willing to consider rapprochment with the US, North Korea nonwithstanding.

It seems the main worry among Iran's diplomatic corps is that Obama's change in tack is purely tactical and done to shore up world opinion - in other words to get them into talks, make unreasonable demands that Iran could never accept, have the talks collapse and let world opinion hang them. I don't think that is his intention here, but international politics is not a game where loser's get off easy.

For his part, Obama is almost certainly aware of the poisonous levels of infighting among the Iranian leadership, and wishes to proceed cautiously, for fear of insulting one or favouring another to the degree it sets the factions off into another round of infighting. In a country where there is no single, unified command of the armed forces, that is usually a bad idea.

Isn't diplomacy fun?

You are welcome. I see that your understanding of those who have taken such an oath is limited. It really puts things in perspective for me.

You're the man! ;)

But your personal attacks wont change the facts or my opinions.

I think Obama might proceed on multiple diplomatic tracks to subtlety pressure Iran.

Working with the Russians by showing a willingness to abandon Bush's plan for US missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republican in return for more Russian pressure and/or stiffer economic sanctions on Iran.

Opening discussion with Syria to persuade them, perhaps with incentives, that it is not in their interest to be a Iranian puppet state.

And working quietly and behind the scenes through these renewed external relations with the more "moderate" elements in the Iranian government.

Diplomacy can be fun and productive if applied more effectively than the bullying approach of the last eight years.