Brief Political Rant otd

[mangosteen]

Rant: The main problem I have with Extraordinary Rendition is that, at its base, it is a cowardly thing to do. No one has the stones to repeal the 8th Amendment (i.e. "cruel and unusual punishment"), or even weather the national debate that would happen as a result of such an attempt. The same stoneless horde seems to think that "we're only doing it to bad people, so it's okay."

Assertion:
There are a couple of ways to view the US Constitution:
- It's an impediment to be 'worked around', usually through law made in times of emergency.
- It's a framework of principles to be worked within, and to be changed only through excruciatingly thorough debate.

Assertion: The former are just as guilty of trying to destroy this country as someone with a bunch of plastique and a point to prove.

Comments

[arfur]

um, link that works? the best one I can find is Voice of America, and I'd like to have a better version. :-)

[mangosteen]

The link works just fine for me.

[arfur]

weird. must be a caching problem. but they didn't create the item within the last half hour, did they?

clicking through in Firefox, I got
Wikipedia does not yet have an article with this exact name.
* Start the Extraordinary rendition article

but copying the link to IE 10 minutes later, and I'm fine. *shrug*

anyhow, yes:
I would assert that torture is simply counterproductive. It leads to desparate and unreliable "admissions." Even when it results in "useful" information, it (a) kills our standing as a beacon of democracy, weakening any support we might have from other countries, and (b) makes our enemies treat their hostages worse, strengthens their resolve, and attracts more to their cause.

As to your final assertion itself: long-term, yes. Short-term, I am still more directly afraid of the plastique, and short-term is all that the current encumbents need worry about. That's the problem with democracy, IMO.

[sunspiral.livejournal.com]

The link worked fine for me, and it's interesting if horrifying reading.

[deguspice.livejournal.com]

I added a short link to the "Extraordinary Rendition" page about private jets.  Unfortunately, the articles I read in the Boston Globe a while ago have disappeared into their for-pay archives, so I can't site them directly.

(First article: a local law firm's address is listed as the owner of one of the jets being used for extraordinary rendition, second article: law firm is no longer being used by the owners of the jets)

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with both assertions, and further wonder when any of the people trying to work around the Constitution are going to be charged with treason and/or impeached.

[ceo]

Treason might be difficult, as the definition of treason is hard-coded into the Constitution and it's fairly narrow. But there are plenty of treaties and conventions being violated here, which do have the force of law in the US.

I have this recurring fantasy of the inauguration of Bush's successor being closely followed by a massive wave of indictments for war crimes.

Now serving #1, Henry Kissenger. Henry Kissenger to the front of the queue, please

[marmota.livejournal.com]

That would be when the US accepts the jurisdiction of the ICC... which is to say, when snowcones are handed out in Hell.

[marmota.livejournal.com]

Nah... the key word there is "principles". Both those treating the Constitution as a framework to be worked within and those with plastique and a point to prove have principles. Dimatrecilly and orthogonally opposed principles fundamentally misunderstood by each other, but principles nonetheless. Those viewing the Constitution as an impediment to be worked around can only be said to be principled if you count greed and ruthless self-interest as principles.

[marmota.livejournal.com]

diametrically, oops. I can spell, I apprarently just can't type today.

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

Those viewing the Constitution as an impediment to be worked around can only be said to be principled if you count greed and ruthless self-interest as principles.

Too harsh. Don't think of the politician scumbags expanding their own personal bureaucratic empires; think of the well-meaning small-town church-going sheriff who is just trying to run that illegal meth lab out of town. Details such as warrants may not be foremost in his mind, especially after his neighbor's four-year-old was run over by a hopped-up meth-head.

These people are usually pragmatists who are trying to "do the right thing", and don't have a strong grounding in just why those Constitutional impediments are there.

Believe it or not, the same argument applies to Gonzalez's endorsement of torture. He believes that there are lives on the line and no time to waste. He's wrong, of course, but his writings do not indicate a power-grab.

against all enemies

[cos]

The former are just as guilty of trying to destroy this country as someone with a bunch of plastique and a point to prove.

That assertion is exactly why Richard Clarke titled his book "Against All Enemies". He was referring literally to the oath of office for federal elected officials, and saying that as counterterrorism head, he felt his job was "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic." He states this in the book, and in his speeches, in a context that makes it clear he's referring to exactly what you're talking about.

Have you read his book?

Re: against all enemies

[mangosteen]

Have you read his book?

No, not yet. The book queue is rather large at the moment. I'll keep it in mind, though.

[metalfatigue]

Eh. My main problem with extraordinary rendition is that it's not only evil, but mostly useless. People under torture say what they think the torturer wants to hear.

The fact that cowardly fuckwads are using the Bill of Rights as a spittoon liner is an entirely secondary generator of ire.