Obama's tough moral choice (Lib Prof Pushes for Bush Prosecution) BARFASAURUS REX

Rocky MT News ^ | 1/22/2009 | Paul Campos

[mojito]

President Obama will face many hard boards that would be very difficult for him to bore very far into, even if he were so inclined, which to all appearances he mostly isn't.

Consider just one crucial issue among the many now facing the nation, which would require great courage and moral leadership from our new president, if anything like meaningful "change" were to take place at all.

This is the matter of prosecuting members of the Bush administration who committed very serious crimes, in particular those who authorized Americans to torture prisoners in blatant violation of both American and international law.

The following facts are not in dispute. The Bush administration authorized, among many other things, the use of waterboarding against prisoners. The Obama administration takes the position - as does almost everyone else in the world - that waterboarding is torture. Obama's nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, points out that we prosecuted our own soldiers for using waterboarding during the Vietnam War, and that there is no question that, in his words, "waterboarding is torture."

Furthermore, the United States has signed a treaty, the Convention Against Torture, which unambiguously obligates our government to prosecute acts of torture carried out by American government officials.

So the Obama administration is faced with a difficult moral choice: It can enforce the law, or it can do the politically expedient thing and ignore the nation's constitutionally binding treaty obligations when those obligations require something as disturbing as prosecuting American war criminals.

[6SJ7]

I pointed this out in 2003 in this very forum, that we were within our rights of the Geneva Convention had we taken these prisoners to the side of the road and put a bullet in their heads. Now it looks like perhaps that is what we should have done.

You are so right. These people fit the definition of spies. No identification. No uniform. Subject to summary execution under Geneva Conventions. Too bad we decided to "play nice".

[stripes1776]

Liberals are itching for show trials, so they can be just like their hero, Uncle Joe Stalin.

A moral Democrat? Isn't that an oxymoron?

[Tallguy]

Liberals are itching for show trials, so they can be just like their hero, Uncle Joe Stalin.

I wish that they would go down that road. We could stop using the term "McCarthy-esque" & start using the term "Obama-esque". Seriously, I doubt even Obama is that stupid. Pelosi, yes; Obama, no.

[ADemocratNoMore]

Reading the entire article has confirmed my initial opinion that the author was a clueless liberal moron, but I’m heartened by the comments section, where a large number of people have come to the same conclusion.

[BlueLandRed]

>I pointed this out in 2003 in this very forum,
>that we were within our rights of the Geneva
>Convention had we taken these prisoners to
>the side of the road and put a bullet in their
>heads. Now it looks like perhaps that is what
>we should have done.

I wish, but under the third Geneva Convention, Article 3,1(d)

>>The passing of sentences and the carrying
>>out of executions without previous judgment
>>pronounced by a regularly constituted court
>>affording all the judicial guarantees which
>>are recognized as indispensable by civilized
>>peoples.

So you can execute them, but only after a you’ve tried them and convicted them.

Also, we did pick up a number of people that were truly innocent.

[bert]

War crimes trials will result in persecution. The defendants will not be those persecuted.

[MrB]

It’s always, ALWAYS the collectivists that want to criminalize their political opposition and PUNISH disagreement.

FASCIST bastards.

They’re asking for backlash, bigtime. (Henry Bowman, pick up the white phone.)

[Hulka]

>>In these modern times, this is the ultimate oxymoron.<<

Actually, I think of it as an idiomatic intensifier.

But that’s just me. . .

;-)

[Let's Roll]

Just as they grab guns and enact ever more ridiculous hate crimes so that Joe and Jane Sixpack can’t defend themselves from thugs, bangers, etc., they don’t want countries to be able to either. Or at least western countries.

[mathurine]

Obama probably knows that there could be some interesting retaliations, perfectly legal, against ultraliberals if he accedes to their whining. One of them has to do with the upcoming house elections. Others have to do with such things as financial support for “higher” education, which turns out a lot of liberal unemployables at vast expense, while proprietary schools are turning out people ready and willing to go to work, donations to not for profit organizations that have outlived their usefulness, and many another. Let’s begin to point out what the loyal opposition can really do if no consideration is given to the 47% who did not vote for the self-styled “great I Am.”

[wastoute]

No, you are wrong, armed on a battlefield, participating, and not in a recognized uniform is a category that is recognized By Geneva Convention and that category can be executed summarily. (On the spot). Sorry. This is why we were told in the military to keep your uniform but ditch your rank if captured by the Russians. “Losing” your uniform on a battlefield can get you executed

[Venturer]

Bring it on Hoss.

[jmaroneps37]

“BARFASAURUS REX” I love it!

[Polarik]

None of these terrorists ever died from waterboarding, and isn’t “death” the sole criteria liberals use to judge righteousness, as in how many “dead Israelis” are equal to a “dead Palestinian terrorist.”

[murdoog]

I’m sorry. I saw the words “liberal” and “professor” next to each other and my BS alert alarm triggered. In these modern times, this is the ultimate oxymoron.

"Oxymoron" means "a contradiction in terms". Is that what you meant? Or did you mean "redundancy"? As a fairly conservative college teacher, I don't really agree that it's a redundancy either. But I think that's the word you were looking for.