doing evil to obtain good? (Page 2)

now im no lawyer, but i do know a few things about our laws. if my freind tells me the details of how he is going to rob a bank, including which one date and approx time. if i do not alert the athorities i am an accomplice. i broke the law too.

when it comes to these wire tppings, they were approve shortly after 9/11 (this is not new), and the congress and senate were briefed on the program, they knew what was going on. in 5 years no one said a word about it. it wasnt until the press broke the story, now some people want to come out and say essentially 'i know the law, this is a crime.' not 'here is a memo a sent to the president and all these people detailing how i was against this when it was initiated, dated a month after i was informed of the program.' now IF IT IS A CRIME, then all of our senators and congress people are accomplices, and if we should impeach bush, then they all serve to the same fate.

keeping in mind that the approval on wire tapping is not a blanket 'tap anyone you want.' insted it deals with a perticular classification of people and communications. (of which democrats have said that had these cased been brought to the the courts [which are a rubber stamp] they would have been approved.)

infact the patriot act tappled our rights WAY more than this wiretapping. i didnt see droves of people calling our legislative branch a bunch of criminals.

Tyrant, the facts as you recount them are inaccurate. Therefore, your conclusions are flawed. Check your facts, then form an opinion?

Bush has pushed the power of the Executive to entirely new levels.  No, he is not the first to assert this power, nor will he be the last, I'm sure. 

The problem I have is the extent to which he has done so.

The wiretaps are just one issue among many.  How many 'signing statements' has Bush used so far in his 5 years?

Prior to 1980, this was done approx. 12 times.  Reagan did it 71 times in his 8 year.  Clinton did it 105 times.  Bush is already over 500, and he's got 3 more years in power.

What is a signing statement you ask?

Example, the recent Anti-Torture amendment that McCain pushed, and passed 90-9 in the Senate?  Bush signed it into law.  But he effectively crossed his fingers when he did so.  He issued a signing statement that says:

"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act,relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutionalauthority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branchand as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutionallimitations on the judicial power."

Here's Time magazine's translation of what that means:

"If the President believes torture is warranted to protectthe country, he'll violate the law and authorize torture. If the courtstry to stop him, he'll ignore them too."

I, for one, most vehemently disagree with the extent to which he feels that he can disregard the laws of this country.

An Executive than can disregard at will the Legislative and Judicial is NOT a balance of powers or a system of checks and balances.

-Chris

A little incident commonly referred to 9/11 changed alot of things.  If the president sits on his hands and does nothing, then he gets crucified for not protecting the country.

I'm not sure how you go from what I said to assuming that I'm ok with what we did in WW2, unless you are posting this to support what I said.  I can't tell from your post. 

Isn't the ultimate example of this the dropping of the bomb in Japan (twice)?  Was it an act of "evil" or not?

As far as this part:

     ASA22-So for at least some of you its not the actual attempt to expand presidential power that is the crime, rather it is not explaining why he beleives he has the power to do what he has done?

That's not at all what I said.  I was agreeing with Renee's part that if the proper process to change the authority of the POTUS is followed and he's granted this power I don't have a problem with him having this power.  When power is grabbed without allowing the processes for change established by our founding fathers to control the change you have stepped onto the path toward something other than a democracy (or whatever it is we actually have).

Also, you made the point Bush isn't the first president to do this.  So?  He's the president doing it now and that's what I care about.  Are you actually using the "everyone else is doing it so it's ok" argument?

Then in the last paragraph let me break down what you say:

                  1.  They claim "inherent power...blah...blah so it's legal.

                  2.  Whether it falls within that power is another totally separate question.

What do you think we're talking about?  It's that totally separate question.  The answer to that one determines if declaring it legal as an "inherent power" was a legal act.

But very little of this has to do with (in my mind) with the original question of evil.  I don't believe our president is evil.  I'm speaking more in the abstract.  Once you start down a path you may be trapped in a spot where you believe that the only way to accomplish the original good you intended is to commit a small or necessary evil.  In my experience, most of the time had you not started down that path in the first place you would be in the position to have to make that awful choice.   

For discussion's sake, and I don't know if this is really what happened I'm just exampling here, let's say Bush was faced with a choice to order the wiretaps with judicial approval or without.  For whatever reasons, and they may seem perfectly justifiable, he chose without.  Later, to explain why he chose that way he said that it is within the inherent powers of the exec branch to do so, all things considered.  He might be right, but he could have brought up the issue before the wiretaps were placed and gotten whatever form of approval he needed so that he did not need to invoke "inherent powers".  I'll say it again because I think this gets missed by Bush's critics and earnest defenders.  HE MIGHT BE RIGHT!  He went about it wrong.  In my opinoin he should have appealed for the authority first.  Why didn't he?  If it was because he was afraid he wouldn't be granted the powers then he engaged in "better to ask forgiveness than permission" policy which is frightening considering the power he holds.  What happens if he outlaws alpacas or declares no red bikes can be made?  Just checking to see if anyone is still reading. 

My fingers hurt, I'm going away now.  I'll be back later.

So 9/11 means that we should just do away with our system of government?

9/11 is not sufficient justification for me to give up my civil liberties, nor for the President to disregard the Judicial and Legislative branches of government.

-Chris

hangloose,

i my origonal post was in regard to the movie, in support of you. i think people got way off the point, out of the abstract into the present. hence my point that i think a better takeaway from that great movie is 'are we empathizing with our enemy?' BC thats what i think we could have more of. i was stoked to see that someone had seen this great work (i wish it had more hype like brokeback) because i think americans will walk away better understanding todays issues (better than a movie about gay acceptance in our society) that really effect us.

edit: i was dissussing WW2 in context on the movie, BC war crimes have no limits. anyone who commits them can be tried until they die. has stuff happened in the past? YES does that excuse it? for all the do gooders, why dont we do the same srutiny to the those 'possible criminals' of the past too. we dont BC its conventiant, and that saddens me.


Renee,

i will walk away before i become really rude. i got my facts from CNN, so i apologize if i had any inaccuracy. one of the things i hate about the way the disagreements over the president have gone over the years is that people lower their level of disagreement. 'your worng' isnt that compelling of a form of arguement. maybe my facts were wrong again but...

Edited by tyrant 2006-01-20 4:08 PM

Dude, how does pointing out that your facts are inaccurate lower the level disagreement? Come one, cowboy up, no need to get offended (or rude). I didn't say "your worng" (sic); I said the facts are inaccurate.

And use your spellchecker!!!!

Edited by Renee 2006-01-20 4:13 PM

That's not what I am saying at all.  What I am saying is, we live in a vastly different world then we lived in during the Reagan administration or even the Clinton administration.  I just get so tired of people throwing out the "my civil liberties" crap and then turn around and bash the administration for not stopping something like 9/11.  If you want to stop another 9/11 from ever happening again(and I am not convinced you can), you will have to do some things that have never been done before and things that might seem intrusive to some people.

What are you saying then?  Because of 9/11, it's okay for Bush to sign the McCain amendment making the use of torture illegal, but then issuing a statement saying that even though he signed the law, if he feels torture is needed then he's going to do it anyway?

You brought up 9/11.  Explain how 9/11 justifies Bush's action in the specific example I gave of his signing statement regarding the McCain amendment.

-Chris

Hmmmm... my "civil liberties crap"... I don't think we're ever going to have a meeting of the minds about that crap.

With respect to preventing the tragedies of September 11, the Bush Administration more or less dismantled the terror watch group that they had inherited from the Clinton Administration. They ignored the warnings and drastically de-prioritized terrorism. Anything Clinton did, they didn't want to do. It was stupid and arrogant.

Would they have prevented the Twin Towers from coming down or from the Pentagon from being plane-bombed or the plane from going down in the Pennsylvania field? We will never know.

All we know is that there was a group in place whose job it was to eyeball all-things-al-Qaeda and this group's efficacy was greatly compromised when Bush took power. Oh, and our civil liberties were not being diminished or eliminated in the process.

Edited by Renee 2006-01-20 4:45 PM

I wouldn't claim to know enough about the McCain amendment to speak specifically to that.  What I am saying is, it makes me sick to have listened to people come out of the wood work spouting their utter discontent that something was not done to prevent 9/11.  Now, more than 4 years later, some of those same people are the ones screaming about the measures that are being taken to stop another such tragedy.  I am not saying those measures are right or wrong or that they would succeed in stopping a terrorist attack on the US. 

Stop dodging.  The question is simple:

Does 9/11 give the President the right/power/authority to disregard legislation that passed congress and that he signed into law?

-Chris

Is that only if they are Republican?

What about Jamie Gorelick effectively putting in place the "wall" between FBI, CIA and NSA in terms of communication and information? This was established to hide the investigations into the ChiComs giving campaign donations to the DNC and Clintons in order to gain access to formerly forbidden technology transfers. So 8 months into power, Bush completely dismantled entire governmental agencies and frameworks? Give me a break. He can't even get judges approved, undersecretaries approved, and you think in 8 months this guy single handedly took it all apart and made us vulnerable to terrorist attack? This guy is either a dumba** or a diabolical genius, but only how it fits your argument. Oh, I forgot, Dick Cheney probably did it.





Edited by cerveloP3 2006-01-20 6:21 PM

So far no one is willing to take a stand and say that it's okay for Bush to ignore the McCain amendment even though he's the one that signed it into law.  Since no one defending Bush is willing to speak up against that, I have to assume then that you are okay with President authorizing the torture of anyone he deems nescesary.

I see lots of finger pointing and hand waving about what other presidents have done.  Let's talk about what this current one is *doing*.

To put where I stand out there:  Torture is not justifiable under any circumstances whatsoever.  Period.  Interrogation, by all means yes.  But to cross the line from interrogation to torture is unacceptable to me no matter the explanation or reason given.

-Chris

Exactly where is the line where interrogation stops and torture begins??

I believe international convention defines that pretty well already.

Still dodging the question?  Come on, you can answer it.

-Chris

1) My pointing to the past is not, contrary to your assertion, an arguement of justification. It is merely made to point out the ridiculousness of certain anti-Bush camp that say that this President is doing something unprecidented. Those types of statements are simply not historically accurate. Put bluntly they are false!

2)Additionally, one of the great examples historically of extra-executive use of power is Lincoln. Who repeadedly during the Civil War engaged in acts that were specficially, and argueably outside the scope of the power of the executive branch. One of those being the Emancipation Proclomation.

3) There are those that have stated that anytime a president engages in conduct that is not within the executive branches power, i.e. exceeds his power, that is wrong. And it threatens our nation, civil liberties, rights,(fill in the threat).

4) My point in actually using historical facts, (God knows we would never want those to get in the way of a debate about what a government can and cannot do, we'll just keep talking out of our collective a$*es and talking about what we think) is to demonstrate that it isn't as simple as a black and white bright line rule. That is if the president exceeds his power=bad.

5) Regarding torture. I've said it before on other threads, the World is a complex and horrible place. There are things going on that we can't even fathom. There are people in our government that do horrible, aweful, terrifying things on a daily basis. And they do these things to protect our country. Not just the people in power, but you and me. I don't know if there is a bright line, where I can say in EVERY situation a certain course of conduct is wrong. Because of this I am unwilling to say torture, assasination and other aweful things are per se wrong.

6) Regarding the issue involving the Torture legislation. The problem with this type of legislation is it ignores the realities of the world. At some point our country, or more specifically those individuals in the field will need to resort to torture. To have legislation in place that per se makes torture illegal would subject those individuals to criminal liability.

7) I agree in a perfect moral world there would be no need for spies, torture, and the nastyness of world politics. The problem of course is that we don't live in a perfect moral world. Believe it or not boys and girls, there are still individuals,groups and governments that want to destroy the U.S.

8) And Renee regarding the 9/11 thing and the Bush admninistrations culpability in the attack, don't we now know that the planning for the attack began during the Clinton administration? The fact is that ALL the previous administrations hold some responsibility for the attack. It wasn't just the 8 months of the Bush administration that lead to the attack.

1) What other president has issued 500 signing statements?

2) Agree that Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus was extreme.  I do not feel we are faced with today the same magnitude of problems that faced Lincoln, so the extreme action is not warranted.

3) It *does* impinge on our civil liberties.  There are times when I'm willing to accept that.  Curfews in response to large natural disaster, etc. are examples of that.  There are times when it is called for.  In the immediate wake of 9/11, certainly incredible actions were justifiable.  We're coming up on 5 years now since then.  The same/greater level of Executive conduct is no longer warranted.

4) See above.

5) Give an example where you feel torture is justified.  I stand by my position that it is not accecptable.  If we are to hold ourselves to a higher moral standard than our "enemies" then we cannot justify it's use.

6) If the president is not going to follow it, why did he pay it lip service by singing it into law?  PR and politics, pure and simple.  Publicly he signs the law.  Privately he feels he is above it.  It's simple, if you want to avoid criminal liability, do not violate the law.

7) So are all laws null and void, because there are others in the world who won't abide by them?

8) This I agree on.  I don't feel that any single person can be charged with having purposely or inadvertently taken specific actions that led to 9/11 ( other than those that carried it out ).  9/11 would have occurred no matter who was sitting in the oval office.  As a collective society we were unprepared and not looking for that type of attack.

I'm going to have to continue to disagree with you on this.  Would you as a prosecutor accept "Others broke the law and are breaking the law, so I decided it didn't apply to me" as justification for a crime that was committed and decide to drop the case?  ( Crime referring in this case to torture ).  Or here's another example.  A police officer who tortures a suspect and excuses his actions with "I'm charged with the public's protection and I decided that it needed to be done to carry out that charge".  Is that acceptable to you?

It is not acceptable to me.

-Chris

Youre examples are simplistic. The easy examples are just that easy. You given an example of clearly unwarranted and unilateraly unjusitified actions in your police officer example. If we're going to play hypotheticals lets use this one on torture: A foreing agent is captured by U.S. spies say somewhere in Central Europe. We know that he has information about a planned attack on a large city in Europe. Is the torture of that foreing agent OK if it would gain information that could be used to save 1,000's of people? Or how about a president that exceeds his authority to put a stop to a practice that is legal but morally reprehensible?

in answer to your questions: 1) Lincoln's extra-consitutional use of executive power far exceeded what this current president has done. Congress and the Supreme Court had expressly spoken on the issue of slavery. Congress had explicitly spoken by its refusal to act in accord with the presidents wishes. In the case of Lincoln he specifically over stepped his power as executive and specifically infringed upon the powers of the other two branches. Even so it's hard to say it was the wrong thing to do. Which is exactly my point. The issue isn't black and white.

5) Foreign agent with knowledge or suspected knowledge of a plot to kill the president or attack the U.S. Torture may be warranted in order to obtain information to stop said attack. Or how about if the torturing of a foreign agent could have lead to information that would have stopped the training bombings in Spain. Here's a "true life" example. My grandfather used to tell a story of his unit capturing an advance scout of the German Waffen SS. Their interogation process was less than passive. It lead to the scout giving up the position of his main force. Which lead to a successful counter offensive by U.S. forces. I'm sure history is full of such examples. My point is :Never say never.

The point about this thread wasn't just torture. Torture may be just one aspect of the issue. The entire issue is whether it is ever acceptable for the government to engage in conduct that may be morally wrong, illegal or "evil" in order to protect the "greater good". I used historical examples to try to show that this isn't an issue that is reserved to the current administration contrary to certain peoples assertions (not yours).

I guess the question is why is Lincoln's actions OK, FDR's actions OK (In retro spect, they weren't seen as OK at the time) and Bush's actions improper? Where is the distinction drawn? How do we draw such a distinction.

What if the foreign agent is a US operative captured in North Korea or Iran.  Is North Korea or Iran permitted to torture the US operative?

I'm hoping that you would see that action as barbaric, inhumane, and a criminal act.

If you do, then how can such an act be condemned if we condone and justify such action by our own government.

My answer is simplistic, my examples are simplistic, because my position is simplistic.  Torture is not justifiable under any circumstances.

Turn your grandfather's story about.  US scout captured by the Germans, and "less than passively" interrogated.  Justified?  Excusable?  Why is it okay in your Grandfather's units case?  Because we won?  Because the other side was wrong?

Why was the other side wrong?  Because they lost?  Or because they engaged in unimaginable acts against humanity. ( There, I've tied it back to the original topic ).  I say it was their actions and methods that made them "evil".  Our actions and methods make us "good".  Torture is not "good" no matter which "side" one is one.

I say never.

-Chris

Geez... would somebody just go run already? Or go ride their Bikes, for ***** sake?

I swam masters this morning, and ran this afternoon.

Bike comes tomorrow. 

I understand. To answer your question, yes history is written by the victors. American revolution, we win and the founding fathers are revolutionaries, if we don't win, they are filthy rebels.
How would you react if you found out that by torturing a captive operative 9/11 could have been prevented, but the U.S. instead chose to take the "higher" moral ground and not torture the captive? How would the nation react.

I certainly understand your position. I'm not trying to persuade you to change said position. My purpose is to point out that it is my belief that the world is not black and white, it is often shades of gray. Was Lincoln wrong in his Emancipation Proclomation? It certainly exceeded presidential authority/power. At the time it was seen as "illegal". But was he ultimately correct in doing it?

But to answer your question about if the other side, specifically N. Korea capturing a U.S. operative: 1) I am unapologetic about my nationalism. I believe the U.S. is the greatest country on earth, and I also believe we have an inherent right to defend ourselves. I also believe our leaders are charged with protecting the lives of the citizens, and engaging in actions that potentially put Americans at risk is deriliction of their duties. If given the choice between protecting Iranian interests or U.S. interests, or lives for that matter, I will always choose U.S. 2) But to directly answer your question. Yes, if Iran or N. Korea felt that an American agent had information that would prevent the deaths of thousands of its citizens, not only would they have the right, they would be derilict in not engaging in such action to protect their citizens. Notice the caveat, you had previously asked under what circumstances I have answered that the circumstances that justify the use of torture would be to save the lives of hundreds or thousands. Not to gain typical or mundane information. And I do see it as inhumane, and barbaric. But that falls directly into the title of this thread. Doing evil (torture in your scenario) to engage in good (saving thousands of lives).
3) I understand your position, I feel it is nieve, and dangerous but I understand it. I can also respect it at the same time. It certainly eliminates such debates and provides clear guidlines. Never means never. It is also certainly the moral high ground, and in the perfect World I would love to agree with you. I just can't. You're certainly not wrong, I just don't agree.
4) as always discussion with you are interesting, thought provoking, well mannered and enjoyable. Thanks COJ was getting a little too boring over the last week or so.