In my posts, I was indicating a shared sense of "irony" with the author of the editorial I had read. I found it ironic that the Administration would wonder at the outcry and resistance these very same policies are meeting in the mainstream media, when they, themselves, have chosen to employ and damn near quote agendas and procedures from the likes of the Gestapo... regardless of how tame you may feel these procedures are.
I find it ironic now that the very man who incorporated the phrase "slippery slope" every single time topics like "gun control" or "big government" crop up is now this ready to give ONE man (or woman) this much control over "legal trifles" like determining if and when the Executive Branch of the United States government needs follow the Rule of Law. I mean, what is to stop the NEXT PotUS from deciding that it is in the best interests of the nation to incorporate the same interrogation procedures against "suspected" anti-American Americans? The GOP's biggest slur on FDR for incarcerating Japanese-Americans in the Arizona and California deserts was to call him a "fascist"... just like Franco, Mussolini and Hitler (who were all doing the same thing). I'm still waiting for evidence that even ONE of those incarcerated Japanese-Americans was later known to have been an insurgent agent working for the Imperial Army of Japan.
I find it ironic that I am hearing you defend past exercises of executive authority that history has not only shown to be ILLEGAL, but also simply BAD POLICY, based only on the premise that the President in question was doing SOMETHING rather than nothing. Clinton did SOMETHING when he ordered 4 cruise missiles to vaporize an aspirin factory, yet you called that a criminal act when discussing it on your patio. Carter did SOMETHING when he ordered the doomed rescue attempt in 1980, yet you mocked the effort from beginning to end every single time we have discussed it.
I find it ironic that you cite ONE instance where this procedure has produced verifiable results (without showing that alternative methods would NOT have worked), but ignore the many examples I have given of Presidents that have broken the Law and the results have been American lives endangered or lost. An example? Reagan agreeing to the Algiers Accords in 1981, in which the US promised (and has maintained) to:
- Never again interfere in any way, politically, economically or militarily, in the internal affairs of Iran.
- Iran was given back the $8 BILLION in assets the US had seized during the Hostage Crisis.
- Iran was held "blameless" in the event that any American corporation or individual attempted to file suit against the Iranian government for actions or events that occurred during the Crisis. (http://www.parstimes.com/history/algiers_accords.pdf)
I define that as "negotiating with terrorists"... how's THAT for irony?
I could go on and list such "success stories" ad nauseum... Operation LINEBACKER in 1972 (which cost 61 pilots and crewmen their freedom or their lives)... selling arms to IRAN in 1983 (which resulted in the kidnapping of 30 people, 16 of which were Americans)... the use of those funds to pay for rebel actions in Central America that same year (which resulted in the death of 7 American advisers)... and the best of all for last... the GIFT of chemical and biological agents and munitions to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. I'm quite sure I don't need to elaborate on how THAT little policy faux pas turned out for us, do I?
If you honestly can justify each of THESE illegal executive actions simply by saying "it's okay, because American lives were in danger!", then you and Ollie North can carry this discussion as far as you like. I'll stick it out on the sidelines.
Now, FINALLY, to address your rather direct point... what would I do if I were PotUS and faced with a nuclear terrorist plot that ONE man knew the details of and we had him in custody?
I would get the information.
Yes.
I would drop the bomb on Hiroshima, too... and Nagasaki. I'd have fire-bombed Dresden and Hamburg. Want to carpet-bomb Tokyo into a desert waste to hasten the end of the war? DO IT!
Those are individual executive determinations made as the occasion required.
What I was referring to in my original post was a POLICY put in place by and ADMINISTRATION as it re-writes US LAW to suit its political agendas. I would NOT make it policy to BREAK THE LAW simply to further a political agenda, and if I, as the highest elected official in the USA, found that the overwhelming majority of my associates and constituents did not approve of that action, then I would rescind it post haste.
I can't be more direct than that.
5 comments:
A man of conviction is a beautiful thing!
Eloquent, educated and well thought out. I agree with everything you have stated in your post.
The one thing that I have noticed in the last several posts is that we have been discussing reactions to specific incidents. As you well know there are times when our laws, traditions or policies that are currently in place at the time do not apply to the situation at hand. When that happens there are times a new approach even if temporary seems to be in order.
You have listed several times in history where a change in policy seemed to be in order and in those cases they turned ugly for everyone involved. My challenge to you is to find the times in American History where a deviation from current American policy under similar situations worked to the benefit of the United States, its people and or its allies.
I agree that 99.9% of the time we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard and for that matter moral code politically and personally. Our sense of humanity and decency depends on it and for that we will pay a price at times. I pray that I'm never in a position to have to make some of the decisions that our CIC has had to make in the past or even now and for those of us that consider ourselves Christians some of these decisions that have had to be made would put us at odds with our own beliefs. It seems to me that time and time again good men have to make difficult decisions that go against eveything they believe in.
Just another rant, not sure it means anything
Not only do I recognize irony and sarcasm… but I can spot “reverse psychology” a mile away, too!
Okay, I’ll bite…
When in American history has the illegal actions or policies of a past President benefited the US and her allies?
Ryan managed a couple of examples in his post… obviously, any success in gathering intelligence via the procedures in question would be one. Lincoln’s suspension of “habeas corpus” during the Civil War, which allowed him to arrest and detain without charge or trial some 18,000 people from the Border States that he so urgently needed NOT to break with the Union, would be another (which was determined to be illegal in the “ex parte Merryman” decision of 1861). This does seem to have stopped Maryland from voting to join the Confederacy, and thus keeping Washington D.C. from being an island amidst enemy territory for the duration of the War.
My examples (sarcastic or otherwise) of the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo with the express intention of instilling terror and death on a civilian population center have been cited as “war crimes” more times than can be counted… but unquestionably furthered the US cause in WWII in immeasurable ways.
Another example would be the “sanctuary” status provided by Operation Paperclip to such questionable Nazi or Wehrmacht personalities as von Braun (slave-labor director at the V2 facilities), Strughold (medical experiments on and the torture-murder of Dachau inmates), Rudolph (later forced to renounce his US citizenship due to Nazi affiliations and Israeli investigation into his war criminal status) and maybe 20 or 30 other suspected war criminals. That these men contributed to US success in the Cold War is unquestionable… that we needed criminals to accomplish the deeds is unfortunate. However, I would have to say that the benefits are measurable and quite evident, none the less. This is a better example of what you were asking than any of the previous examples… this is stated US policy, directed and implemented with Congressional approval, NOT executive orders or directives authored by the PotUS alone.
I am certainly willing to concede the point that at times, especially times of war or crisis, the US has “bent” written Law to forward progress and interests both at home and abroad. My hesitation at blindly accepting policies like the interrogation procedures we were discussing stems more from executives that refuse to face the “music” their policies and actions might call down on them. Truman, Carter and Reagan all are examples of PotUS that were willing to face that music (“the buck stops here” mentality, let’s call it), while FDR, Nixon and (seemingly) Bush Jr. fight the accusations like it was a disease that would kill.
My hesitation is not directed at the fact that the incidents happened in the past… only that they have been questioned and found wanting in legal application, and should now be “curbed” if nothing else. What possible good can come from continued use of these procedures? Even if 1,000 GUILTY men are found via these procedures… if one innocent man is “water boarded”, or God forbid, killed, then it is all for nothing and the US looks like a new Saddam… again.
The US leads the free world in numerous facets of nationhood, and as such, we cannot afford to EVER follow the adage of cracking eggs to make an omelet. It simply won’t do…
I would only add one more thing...
Both Baddboy and Ryan have mentioned (numerous times)that we are NOT fighting a recognizable enemy, as we did in WWI, WWII, Korea or Vietnam. There are no uniforms or field armies to square off against, and this complicates matters immeasurably.
I agree.
In fact, I argue that it is exactly because of this that we MUST (as a nation) always strive to maintain the "moral" high ground in such an endeavor. In such a fight, how can we possibly afford to make mistakes, or to allow error in judgements to taint our efforts in the eyes of the world? NOT because we need to answer to the "world" but because policing the WORLD is a big job... too big for us to do alone.
Holy Crap!!!
For once in my life I make an honest attempt at sincerity and then....BOOM!!!! Have you met my ex-wife?
I actually wasn't attempting to be ironic or sarcastic when I wrote that statement and for that I apologize if it was taken that way. Since we have never actually met face to face it's actually pretty funy that you would take it that way. I'm usually a very sarcastic person and many folks would refer to me as a smartass but this one time I was actually sincere in my commentary but it's nice to know that I got your attention.
Okay, THAT made me laugh!
I didn't take your comment to be anything but genuine, so don't worry.
It would seem my irony and sarcasm meters work fine, but my "funny" functions are lacking lately. I'm sure Ryan will testify to the very same fact.
Trust me when I say that you have EARNED the right to voice your opinion here anytime you want. Jambo seems to think the world of your "dice pit" discussions, and regularly refers to them when we speak, and has mentioned your service record, as well.
I can't tell you how important it is to have the voice of a veteran among all of us "civies" and "armchair generals"... if for no other reason then to keep our egos in check when they get just a tad TOO overblown.
Fear not, friend... you'll need a sight more sarcasm than what I've seen to ruffle me.
Post a Comment