It is official: Obama lied about his torture investigations

[K. A. Pital]

The point is that it can be framed as politically-motivated investigations, and yes, the American public probably doesn't care all that much about waterboarding "terrorists", and Bush is not so unpopular that there would be general agreement that this was a good thing! You seriously think that the Republican party (or Democratic party, for that matter) will just meekly submit to be arrested en-masse amongst the senior party leaders? Or large parts of the CIA, Department of Defense, State Department, god knows how many private contractors, Justice Department- with everything that's come out about the torture policy, it implicates large parts of the power structure. The level of arrests needed would look like a politically-motivated prosecution, that the implicated would devote all their power to enforcing in the public eye. It's not going to happen for a long time.

So what you said is - America doesn't really have checks and balances when it comes to crimes commited by powerful institutions of the American government, and cannot police itself. In turn this means that America is dangerous for itself and even more so for other nations in the world. You also said this as if it was normal and no steps should or could be taken to remedy this problem.

As many posters have noted, this is accepting the crime out of sheer expediency and nothing else, which is even worse than accepting it because you have some twisted rationalization that the crime may actually have done some good. This also means that further crimes can be commited, because the upper part of the establishment is now positively sure expediency will never let anything happen. During Watergate, at least some measure of fear was there for the Destiny-Plotting Genuises corrupt crooks who call themselves "national leaders". You are saying that even this small measure is done away with for the sake of expediency and this is unlikely to change in the future.

Tell you what, that makes me even more scared of America, not less. If Obama was a hawkish lunatic, that would be a problem with Obama. You are saying there's a systemic problem which will not be solved.

[Shroom Man 777]

Stas, Deagan, this state of affairs is exactly how America has gained its prominence in the world. If they stopped this, this would be more devastating to the might of America than if they unilaterally disarmed all their nukes. This is American power. This is what makes America the greatest nation in the world. If they don't have this, their country is nothing! They cannot relinquish this. They'd sooner see the world burn than do so.

[Edi]

So, Bakustra, in essence you are admitting that the US is a nation that actively engages in, condones and covers up war crimes with the approval of the majority of the population.

That's the only reasonable interpretation one can draw from it.

[Bakustra]

Yes, it is a systematic problem. We have a government that decided to commit crimes on such a scale that there really isn't a good scapegoat that can be pilloried to appease the public, since it's so widespread and so obviously goes all the way to the top, the political establishment is split over it too so you couldn't get the massive support that there was for kicking Nixon out- and even then he was pardoned by Ford and the full extent left uncovered. The Alberto Gonzales hearings probably destroyed any chance of justice bearing served on at least some of the perps, because they unveiled that not only large parts of the upper reaches of the Bush administration, but the senior Republican membership of Congress (and probably some Democratic members) were complicit in the crimes, let alone the sheer number of bureaucrats and civil servants. There's nobody to throw under the bus like Oliver North and Poindexter were for Iran-Contra, let alone Nixon doing that for Watergate.

Logistically, you have the problem that large parts of the organization doing the investigation are almost certainly themselves guilty, so you'd be asking many members of the Justice Department to investigate themselves and arrest themselves. The partisan climate would make any investigation look like a political witch-hunt, and with things the way they are now, I fear that there would be genuine violence sparked too. If there were some way to bring people to justice without risking the country itself, then I'd be all for it, but I just don't see one.

Nixon was far more hated than Bush is currently. The problems are pretty clear, but at the same time, how do you charge large parts of your own power structure with crimes at once without collapsing in a democratic society where the guilty are convinced they have done nothing wrong, that this is political oppression, and have the public voice to get that out? If you have a plan for getting around the opposition, that'd be great, and I'd love to hear it. But don't pretend that this is an easy decision to make, or that this is some kind of proof that Obama is especially evil as US politicians go.

Unless Congress would actually attempt in the event to prohibit by legislation the Justice Department from investigating and bringing to trial the criminals of the Bush mob (which would be a separation of powers violation), the problem of the opposition doesn't enter into it. In fact, a saavy politician could make the Republicans eat it over their clear attempts to interfere with the rule of law and peg them as the party which protects its own criminals: "If they're so innocent, why are they afraid of a trial?". And the guilty are always convinced they've done nothing wrong, so that objection also doesn't obtain. Let them squawk as much as they like. All anybody would have to say in rebuttal is "these are the people who lied this country into war in Iraq, cost us 4000 lives and $3 trillion".

The point is, sooner or later, this sort of confrontation is going to have to come. No republic can allow this state of affairs to continue to fester and expect to survive in the long run.

That sounds even more like a witch-hunt, Degan. You're suggesting that people would support what for all the world looks like a witch-hunt, sounds like a witch-hunt, and has the media blaring about how it's a witch-hunt, and any actions you take to shut them up would make it look more like a witch-hunt. Your strengths clearly don't lie in PR; you sound like a stereotypical bad cop here! If it were something that didn't implicate so many people, and were also something that was more generally accepted as bad, then it would be doable, if painful. As it is, you'd have to convince the Republican Party to not only comply with the investigations, but use what power they have to gag Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and the whole crew and get a whole bunch of bureaucrats to give up as well. Not exactly practical, unless you have a better plan.

So, Bakustra, in essence you are admitting that the US is a nation that actively engages in, condones and covers up war crimes with the approval of the majority of the population.

That's the only reasonable interpretation one can draw from it.

Wrong. Both candidates in '08 categorically rejected the use of torture, so you can hardly say that the majority supports it (unless your sole purpose is to pluck out little packets of words you can use to attack the US as a morally-behaving nation, which is a worthy goal but also a dead horse), but you can say for sure that the American public is not concerned enough about it that it would go along with the mass arrests necessary to really punish the perpetrators. I mean, are you willing to consider why it's not a practical solution or do you think that I'm exaggerating the likely effects? If you do think so, why do you think that and what do you think would happen?

[Zaune]

... so you can hardly say that the majority supports it ... but you can say for sure that the American public is not concerned enough about it that it would go along with the mass arrests necessary to really punish the perpetrators.

So are you saying that instead of a sincere if wrongheaded belief that the war crimes committed by their government were justified, the majority of the US public just thinks bringing the perpetrators to justice is too much hassle? I grant you that the ensuing shitstorm would probably rival the War of Southern Aggression in scope, if not turn into the actual rematch that some of them have been yearning for ever since, but that still doesn't say anything good about US culture. Or human nature, I suppose.

[Bakustra]

... so you can hardly say that the majority supports it ... but you can say for sure that the American public is not concerned enough about it that it would go along with the mass arrests necessary to really punish the perpetrators.

So are you saying that instead of a sincere if wrongheaded belief that the war crimes committed by their government were justified, the majority of the US public just thinks bringing the perpetrators to justice is too much hassle? I grant you that the ensuing shitstorm would probably rival the War of Southern Aggression in scope, if not turn into the actual rematch that some of them have been yearning for ever since, but that still doesn't say anything good about US culture. Or human nature, I suppose.

People agree that it's torture and wrong generally, they just don't think about it enough to really connect the dots before the witch-hunt association kicks in. That still doesn't say much good about the US, but honestly the US doesn't have all that much going for it anyhow, culture-wise.

[Samuel]

Wait, how do we know this? Have we actually tried important people for war crimes and had the approval rating of the sitting party drop because that? Or it just convient sounding bullshit that the establishment feeds it useless idiots amoung liberals?

[Patrick Degan]

Unless Congress would actually attempt in the event to prohibit by legislation the Justice Department from investigating and bringing to trial the criminals of the Bush mob (which would be a separation of powers violation), the problem of the opposition doesn't enter into it. In fact, a saavy politician could make the Republicans eat it over their clear attempts to interfere with the rule of law and peg them as the party which protects its own criminals: "If they're so innocent, why are they afraid of a trial?". And the guilty are always convinced they've done nothing wrong, so that objection also doesn't obtain. Let them squawk as much as they like. All anybody would have to say in rebuttal is "these are the people who lied this country into war in Iraq, cost us 4000 lives and $3 trillion".

The point is, sooner or later, this sort of confrontation is going to have to come. No republic can allow this state of affairs to continue to fester and expect to survive in the long run.

That sounds even more like a witch-hunt, Degan. You're suggesting that people would support what for all the world looks like a witch-hunt, sounds like a witch-hunt, and has the media blaring about how it's a witch-hunt, and any actions you take to shut them up would make it look more like a witch-hunt. Your strengths clearly don't lie in PR; you sound like a stereotypical bad cop here! If it were something that didn't implicate so many people, and were also something that was more generally accepted as bad, then it would be doable, if painful. As it is, you'd have to convince the Republican Party to not only comply with the investigations, but use what power they have to gag Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and the whole crew and get a whole bunch of bureaucrats to give up as well. Not exactly practical, unless you have a better plan.

To put the matter plainly, you are full of shit. This is due process of law, not "witch-hunts". And as for "convincing" members of the late maladministration to cooperate with a criminal investigation, that's what subpoena power is for. You don't "convince" them to cooperate, you COMPEL it under threat of contempt of court and obstruction of justice. And I find most laughable your notion that justice must be subject to public relations.

[Bakustra]

Wait, how do we know this? Have we actually tried important people for war crimes and had the approval rating of the sitting party drop because that? Or it just convient sounding bullshit that the establishment feeds it useless idiots amoung liberals?

Consider the scope of the necessary arrests. This would include most of the Bush administration, a number of Republican Senators and Representatives, large parts of the CIA's upper reaches, parts of the Department of Justice, parts of the Department of Defense, and that's just at a minimum, ignoring the number of actual torturers that would have to be tried, as well as private-sector individuals. Now consider that this would be overwhelmingly targeting a specific party and large parts of its upper reaches, which has an affiliated private news channel with which to repeat the story of witch-hunts endlessly, and you'll see why I think that this has the potential to destroy the US government. Unseating Obama and ending Democratic rule would be the least effect, to be frank. Consider that this plays into the paranoid narratives of a number of Tea Partiers.

To put the matter plainly, you are full of shit. This is due process of law, not "witch-hunts". And as for "convincing" members of the late maladministration to cooperate with a criminal investigation, that's what subpoena power is for. You don't "convince" them to cooperate, you COMPEL it under threat of contempt of court and obstruction of justice. And I find most laughable your notion that justice must be subject to public relations.

Degan, re-read what I wrote. You have posted something bizarre which ignores the reality of the situation altogether. Degan, how do you think that this would play out, if the investigations started? Please, present your version of events, because it seems to ignore what would actually happen in favor of some parallel (or more probably perpendicular) universe.

[Molyneux]

Wait, how do we know this? Have we actually tried important people for war crimes and had the approval rating of the sitting party drop because that? Or it just convient sounding bullshit that the establishment feeds it useless idiots amoung liberals?

Consider the scope of the necessary arrests. This would include most of the Bush administration, a number of Republican Senators and Representatives, large parts of the CIA's upper reaches, parts of the Department of Justice, parts of the Department of Defense, and that's just at a minimum, ignoring the number of actual torturers that would have to be tried, as well as private-sector individuals. Now consider that this would be overwhelmingly targeting a specific party and large parts of its upper reaches, which has an affiliated private news channel with which to repeat the story of witch-hunts endlessly, and you'll see why I think that this has the potential to destroy the US government. Unseating Obama and ending Democratic rule would be the least effect, to be frank. Consider that this plays into the paranoid narratives of a number of Tea Partiers.

To put the matter plainly, you are full of shit. This is due process of law, not "witch-hunts". And as for "convincing" members of the late maladministration to cooperate with a criminal investigation, that's what subpoena power is for. You don't "convince" them to cooperate, you COMPEL it under threat of contempt of court and obstruction of justice. And I find most laughable your notion that justice must be subject to public relations.

Degan, re-read what I wrote. You have posted something bizarre which ignores the reality of the situation altogether. Degan, how do you think that this would play out, if the investigations started? Please, present your version of events, because it seems to ignore what would actually happen in favor of some parallel (or more probably perpendicular) universe.

So...because of this, you think that we're justified in letting people literally get away with murder?
I'm sorry, that just cannot be defended.

[Patrick Degan]

Degan, re-read what I wrote. You have posted something bizarre which ignores the reality of the situation altogether. Degan, how do you think that this would play out, if the investigations started? Please, present your version of events, because it seems to ignore what would actually happen in favor of some parallel (or more probably perpendicular) universe.

I have read what you've written, apologist. It still amounts to the same broken argument: we must not pursue criminal investigations against members of the late maladministration because it would look bad and the Chimpus Caesar Fan Club wouldn't like it. Oh, and BTW, an Appeal to Consequence Fallacy does not become a legitimate argument simply because you repeat it ad nauseum.

[SCRawl]

I have seen a few hours into the future, and the dogpile on Bakustra is so enormous that nothing else is getting through. I just want to create a new timeline in which this doesn't happen, by reminding everyone that the "No Dogpiling" guideline is still in effect.

[Bakustra]

Degan, re-read what I wrote. You have posted something bizarre which ignores the reality of the situation altogether. Degan, how do you think that this would play out, if the investigations started? Please, present your version of events, because it seems to ignore what would actually happen in favor of some parallel (or more probably perpendicular) universe.

I have read what you've written, apologist. It still amounts to the same broken argument: we must not pursue criminal investigations against members of the late maladministration because it would look bad and the Chimpus Caesar Fan Club wouldn't like it. Oh, and BTW, an Appeal to Consequence Fallacy does not become a legitimate argument simply because you repeat it ad nauseum.

I'm genuinely curious as to what you think would happen. You're basically ignoring everything I post, instead relying on insisting that "justice does not rely on popular opinion". That's true, but implementing justice is difficult when people would resist it, as I believe that they would to the point of violence, because this resembles a witch hunt and the targets would declare that it was a witch hunt, and much of their base believes in a world where this is a highly plausible state of affairs consistent with the actions of the Obama administration. I believe that if they were confronted with something that validated fantasies of the NWO, black helicopters, and death panels, that the true believers would attempt to obstruct it however they could. Now, if you have an alternate scenario that you believe to be more plausible and you have good reasons for it, then I will consider it fairly.

You appear to believe that the presence of truth drives out falsehood or similar, removing all considerations of practicality. I would love to visit the universe that you hail from, but I am not a resident there.

So...because of this, you think that we're justified in letting people literally get away with murder?
I'm sorry, that just cannot be defended.

If it is a choice between letting people get away with their crimes or a complete collapse of the political order in the US, then I'm not sure why you expect Obama to pick the latter option or why it's still so clear-cut. If the circumstances were different, then it would be an obvious choice one could condemn Obama for not taking.

[Molyneux]

So...because of this, you think that we're justified in letting people literally get away with murder?
I'm sorry, that just cannot be defended.

If it is a choice between letting people get away with their crimes or a complete collapse of the political order in the US, then I'm not sure why you expect Obama to pick the latter option or why it's still so clear-cut. If the circumstances were different, then it would be an obvious choice one could condemn Obama for not taking.

I may be edging into Rorschach territory, but damn it, this is what rule of law is about. Holding the American political process does not absolve Bush or anyone in his administration of (alleged) guilt; I disagree with your prediction that actually prosecuting Bush+co would lead to the collapse of America, but I do say that if our system is corrupt enough that the only feasible option to preserve it is to allow murder and torture to go unchallenged, then obviously the "political order" in the US is too corrupt to defend and should be abolished.

If that latter is true, then yes, it is still the sworn duty of the Justice Department to investigate crimes and to bring guilty parties to justice - even if that causes upheaval.

[Patrick Degan]

I have read what you've written, apologist. It still amounts to the same broken argument: we must not pursue criminal investigations against members of the late maladministration because it would look bad and the Chimpus Caesar Fan Club wouldn't like it. Oh, and BTW, an Appeal to Consequence Fallacy does not become a legitimate argument simply because you repeat it ad nauseum.

I'm genuinely curious as to what you think would happen. You're basically ignoring everything I post, instead relying on insisting that "justice does not rely on popular opinion". That's true, but implementing justice is difficult when people would resist it, as I believe that they would to the point of violence, because this resembles a witch hunt and the targets would declare that it was a witch hunt, and much of their base believes in a world where this is a highly plausible state of affairs consistent with the actions of the Obama administration. I believe that if they were confronted with something that validated fantasies of the NWO, black helicopters, and death panels, that the true believers would attempt to obstruct it however they could. Now, if you have an alternate scenario that you believe to be more plausible and you have good reasons for it, then I will consider it fairly.

An Appeal to Consequences Fallacy remains an Appeal to Consequences Fallacy, no matter how many times you insist upon repeating it. You offer no reasonable logic behind your continual statements of chaos to come for attempting to exercise the operation of law, you just assert it as a self-evident truth.

Are you saying that if the Bush Mob were brought to trial, there would be an armed insurrection? An attempted coup d'etat? Secession Mk. II? What data do you have on the numbers of rightwingers who would actually attempt violence on a mass scale as opposed to those who merely talk big but would just sit, drink beer, clean their guns obsessively, and continue to bathe in talk radio blather to make themselves feel good pretending that they're "resisting the Man"? That is, when it doesn't interfere with their NASCAR or WWE time.

No, Mr. Bakustra, you are in no position to be offering to consider anything fairly. You have yet to offer anything solid to back your self-evident assertions of chaos if the machinery of justice actually were employed to do its fucking job in this case.

You appear to believe that the presence of truth drives out falsehood or similar, removing all considerations of practicality. I would love to visit the universe that you hail from, but I am not a resident there.

Strawman Fallacy. I said no such thing, nor even implied it. I said "let them squawk". My position is that the manufactured outrage of the Right should not be a deterrent to actually pursuing an investigation or even criminal proceedings if warranted —and they almost certainly would be warranted. And as for practicality, you seem to live in a parallel universe in which deep political criminality can go unpunished for years and even decades and still allow any system of free democratic government to survive in the long run. Real-world evidence, on the other hand, indicates that this leads to a very different result.

If it is a choice between letting people get away with their crimes or a complete collapse of the political order in the US, then I'm not sure why you expect Obama to pick the latter option or why it's still so clear-cut. If the circumstances were different, then it would be an obvious choice one could condemn Obama for not taking.

You will now demonstrate the reasoning and evidence to back this assertion, if you would be so kind.

[Winston Blake]

The breakdown of justice in this county is far from exceptional. In fact, it's contemptible. And the lie that Barack Obama told in this building in Philadelphia is a big part of that.

So let me get this straight, elements in the American government seem to have committed a crime which cannot be prosecuted - because it is simply too big. I wonder if history will record this as the 'Big Crime' technique, analogous to Hitler's Big Lie technique. Any appeal to the obvious turbulent consequences of bringing this to justice must face the fact that the long term consequences for America are far worse. In the space of a decade of so, America's legitimacy has plummeted, and these affairs set a dangerous precedent that could destroy the entire American system of check and balances.

At best, it can be argued that out of 'is / ought', these crimes certainly OUGHT to be punished, but probably WON'T, due to the barrier of short-term turbulence.

Here are some quotes which come to mind. I'm not advocating a new American Civil War obviously - but I think the basic sentiments are relevant:

A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say : Let the damned thing go down the drain!

Heinlein's quote can be adapted into something I would love to hear in Obama's voice:

I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. The commission of war crimes is one of them. I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of war crimes against anyone. We have had this situation for eight years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the sacrifices of its own free people for the sake of justice, then I say : Let the damned thing go down the drain!

[someone_else]

I mean, are there any decent chances anyone guilty of war crimes gets in court and maybe found guilty and jailed?
To me, seems like the answer will be NO and all this stuff will disappear in a couple years.

Probably there is too much money and political power in play, and any half-serious investigation will find huge piles of fuming shit that would severely change how people see their leaders.

[Zaune]

Any appeal to the obvious turbulent consequences of bringing this to justice must face the fact that the long term consequences for America are far worse.

You overlook one significant point. If the Obama Administration forges ahead with war-crimes trials and the Right kick off a Second Civil War in response, is that a war that the US government is capable of winning?

[Bakustra]

I may be edging into Rorschach territory, but damn it, this is what rule of law is about. Holding the American political process does not absolve Bush or anyone in his administration of (alleged) guilt; I disagree with your prediction that actually prosecuting Bush+co would lead to the collapse of America, but I do say that if our system is corrupt enough that the only feasible option to preserve it is to allow murder and torture to go unchallenged, then obviously the "political order" in the US is too corrupt to defend and should be abolished.

If that latter is true, then yes, it is still the sworn duty of the Justice Department to investigate crimes and to bring guilty parties to justice - even if that causes upheaval.

Now explain why exactly Obama should follow this reasoning and come to the same conclusions.

The breakdown of justice in this county is far from exceptional. In fact, it's contemptible. And the lie that Barack Obama told in this building in Philadelphia is a big part of that.

So let me get this straight, elements in the American government seem to have committed a crime which cannot be prosecuted - because it is simply too big. I wonder if history will record this as the 'Big Crime' technique, analogous to Hitler's Big Lie technique. Any appeal to the obvious turbulent consequences of bringing this to justice must face the fact that the long term consequences for America are far worse. In the space of a decade of so, America's legitimacy has plummeted, and these affairs set a dangerous precedent that could destroy the entire American system of check and balances.

At best, it can be argued that out of 'is / ought', these crimes certainly OUGHT to be punished, but probably WON'T, due to the barrier of short-term turbulence.

*snip*

Much as other people doubt that the prosecutions would create significant unrest, I doubt that the US will collapse in the long-term either. It's been 49 years since the French police gunned down peaceful protesters in Paris itself, and during the course of the Algerian war, the French tortured hundreds of thousands of people. Nobody ever saw a day in jail or a franc in fines for these crimes. General amnesties were issued. But France, whatever you may think of it today, has not seen the destruction of its governmental systems or any of the potential long-term consequences, nor is it a torturing nation today. The US committed many atrocities in the Philippines at the start of the last century, and nobody ever saw punishment for that, either. It took a general ordering the killing of all Filipino boys and men over the age of ten on Samar for there to even be a trial (though not for war crimes), but all he got was retirement. The US committed a number of war crimes for fruit, of all things, in the 1910s and 1920s.

Prosecuting our war criminals is a recent phenomenon and mostly has resulted, like with My Lai and Abu Ghraib, in scapegoats being tried to quash any sense that there might have been policies in place to encourage such crimes. While I would love to see justice done, don't pretend that this is some sort of aberration. Even back then the populace was split between support and dissent, though now at least it favors dissent more that support. Frankly, if letting war criminals go dooms us, then we were damned from the beginning of the 20th Century!

An Appeal to Consequences Fallacy remains an Appeal to Consequences Fallacy, no matter how many times you insist upon repeating it. You offer no reasonable logic behind your continual statements of chaos to come for attempting to exercise the operation of law, you just assert it as a self-evident truth.

Are you saying that if the Bush Mob were brought to trial, there would be an armed insurrection? An attempted coup d'etat? Secession Mk. II? What data do you have on the numbers of rightwingers who would actually attempt violence on a mass scale as opposed to those who merely talk big but would just sit, drink beer, clean their guns obsessively, and continue to bathe in talk radio blather to make themselves feel good pretending that they're "resisting the Man"? That is, when it doesn't interfere with their NASCAR or WWE time.

No, Mr. Bakustra, you are in no position to be offering to consider anything fairly. You have yet to offer anything solid to back your self-evident assertions of chaos if the machinery of justice actually were employed to do its fucking job in this case.

Degan, you don't know what the Appeal to Consequences is. I let this go earlier, but what it is refers to is the truth-value of statements. If I were invoking the Appeal to Consequences, then I would have said something along the lines of "this would disrupt American society, therefore it cannot be true." My argument is "this is true, but prosecutions are unlikely to happen because it would disrupt American society." Note the fundamental difference between the two statements.

I want you to think for a moment about a place called Little Rock Central High School. There we had a situation where people, when confronted with a threat to their worldview, did not in fact lose themselves in alcohol and Ozzie and Harriet, but instead engaged in protest and threatened violence against the Little Rock Nine. So explain why exactly you think that people would not widely protest a similar threat, apart from hilariously classist " Plebians" attitudes, which are themselves quite inaccurate.

You appear to believe that the presence of truth drives out falsehood or similar, removing all considerations of practicality. I would love to visit the universe that you hail from, but I am not a resident there.

Strawman Fallacy. I said no such thing, nor even implied it. I said "let them squawk". My position is that the manufactured outrage of the Right should not be a deterrent to actually pursuing an investigation or even criminal proceedings if warranted —and they almost certainly would be warranted. And as for practicality, you seem to live in a parallel universe in which deep political criminality can go unpunished for years and even decades and still allow any system of free democratic government to survive in the long run. Real-world evidence, on the other hand, indicates that this leads to a very different result.

For real-world evidence, look above you. Unless you want to redefine "long run", in which case it doesn't matter anyways since it apparently takes more than a century to manifest, then it seems that nations can survive and can maintain relatively democratic governments while having taken horrible actions. You also seem to think that the outrage would be manufactured- why do you believe that the right wing of American politics is entirely insincere?

If it is a choice between letting people get away with their crimes or a complete collapse of the political order in the US, then I'm not sure why you expect Obama to pick the latter option or why it's still so clear-cut. If the circumstances were different, then it would be an obvious choice one could condemn Obama for not taking.

You will now demonstrate the reasoning and evidence to back this assertion, if you would be so kind.

Certainly. We have a situation in which the rhetoric of the right has focused on how the current government is too extreme and verges on tyranny. The apparent witch-hunt of the war-crimes prosecutions would validate this and be harped upon repeatedly. The arrest of senior Republicans would grind the government to a halt as the remaining Republicans either become as obstructionist as possible or proceed to leave altogether. Using cloture and other methods to force it forward would further validate the cries of tyranny. I doubt that it would come to civil war, but you would probably see riots, mass protests, and further shootings as more individuals like Lochner feel pushed towards fighting tyranny. What is your evidence that the Republican party would be quiescent and get meekly in line with this? Them being apparently either poor white trash or Wall Street slime?

Any appeal to the obvious turbulent consequences of bringing this to justice must face the fact that the long term consequences for America are far worse.

You overlook one significant point. If the Obama Administration forges ahead with war-crimes trials and the Right kick off a Second Civil War in response, is that a war that the US government is capable of winning?

There almost certainly would not be a second civil war anyhow. I doubt that the military would revolt in large numbers or the survivalist/militia groups fire the first shot (either of which would be necessary for civil war-) unless the Obama Administration really cocked things up beyond all plausibility.

[Patrick Degan]

An Appeal to Consequences Fallacy remains an Appeal to Consequences Fallacy, no matter how many times you insist upon repeating it. You offer no reasonable logic behind your continual statements of chaos to come for attempting to exercise the operation of law, you just assert it as a self-evident truth.

Are you saying that if the Bush Mob were brought to trial, there would be an armed insurrection? An attempted coup d'etat? Secession Mk. II? What data do you have on the numbers of rightwingers who would actually attempt violence on a mass scale as opposed to those who merely talk big but would just sit, drink beer, clean their guns obsessively, and continue to bathe in talk radio blather to make themselves feel good pretending that they're "resisting the Man"? That is, when it doesn't interfere with their NASCAR or WWE time.

No, Mr. Bakustra, you are in no position to be offering to consider anything fairly. You have yet to offer anything solid to back your self-evident assertions of chaos if the machinery of justice actually were employed to do its fucking job in this case.

Degan, you don't know what the Appeal to Consequences is. I let this go earlier, but what it is refers to is the truth-value of statements. If I were invoking the Appeal to Consequences, then I would have said something along the lines of "this would disrupt American society, therefore it cannot be true." My argument is "this is true, but prosecutions are unlikely to happen because it would disrupt American society." Note the fundamental difference between the two statements.

Excuse me, but you are the one who is arguing chaos if attempts to prosecute the Bush war criminals proceeds. To quote YOUR OWN FUCKING WORDS:

but implementing justice is difficult when people would resist it, as I believe that they would to the point of violence, because this resembles a witch hunt and the targets would declare that it was a witch hunt, and much of their base believes in a world where this is a highly plausible state of affairs consistent with the actions of the Obama administration. I believe that if they were confronted with something that validated fantasies of the NWO, black helicopters, and death panels, that the true believers would attempt to obstruct it however they could.

And:

If it is a choice between letting people get away with their crimes or a complete collapse of the political order in the US, then I'm not sure why you expect Obama to pick the latter option or why it's still so clear-cut.

And:

Consider the scope of the necessary arrests. This would include most of the Bush administration, a number of Republican Senators and Representatives, large parts of the CIA's upper reaches, parts of the Department of Justice, parts of the Department of Defense, and that's just at a minimum, ignoring the number of actual torturers that would have to be tried, as well as private-sector individuals. Now consider that this would be overwhelmingly targeting a specific party and large parts of its upper reaches, which has an affiliated private news channel with which to repeat the story of witch-hunts endlessly, and you'll see why I think that this has the potential to destroy the US government. Unseating Obama and ending Democratic rule would be the least effect, to be frank. Consider that this plays into the paranoid narratives of a number of Tea Partiers.

YOUR WORDS, Mr. Bakuksta —"destroying the U.S. government", "complete collapse of the U.S. political order" and clear implications of armed insurrection IF the Justice Department were to dare do its legal duty. That is Appeal to Consequence and no amount of bluster on your part is going to fool anybody reading this thread to the contrary.

I want you to think for a moment about a place called Little Rock Central High School. There we had a situation where people, when confronted with a threat to their worldview, did not in fact lose themselves in alcohol and Ozzie and Harriet, but instead engaged in protest and threatened violence against the Little Rock Nine. So explain why exactly you think that people would not widely protest a similar threat, apart from hilariously classist " Plebians" attitudes, which are themselves quite inaccurate.

Nice Red Herring. You also may note that what protests occurred were quite ably contained by Eisenhower sending in the 101st Airborne Division to enforce the Brown decision. There was no insurrection. The school wasn't burned down. The two little girls were not mobbed and killed, nor their family homes set ablaze. The white majority settled down and learned to live with the new reality that blacks were people too. So I don't imagine what you think you're demonstrating.

You appear to believe that the presence of truth drives out falsehood or similar, removing all considerations of practicality. I would love to visit the universe that you hail from, but I am not a resident there.

Strawman Fallacy. I said no such thing, nor even implied it. I said "let them squawk". My position is that the manufactured outrage of the Right should not be a deterrent to actually pursuing an investigation or even criminal proceedings if warranted —and they almost certainly would be warranted. And as for practicality, you seem to live in a parallel universe in which deep political criminality can go unpunished for years and even decades and still allow any system of free democratic government to survive in the long run. Real-world evidence, on the other hand, indicates that this leads to a very different result.

For real-world evidence, look above you. Unless you want to redefine "long run", in which case it doesn't matter anyways since it apparently takes more than a century to manifest, then it seems that nations can survive and can maintain relatively democratic governments while having taken horrible actions. You also seem to think that the outrage would be manufactured- why do you believe that the right wing of American politics is entirely insincere?

Your "evidence" is laughable on its face and easily refuted by the evidence I presented as to how most people in Little Rock didn't even bother. The protestors weren't joined by the citizenry en-masse.

If it is a choice between letting people get away with their crimes or a complete collapse of the political order in the US, then I'm not sure why you expect Obama to pick the latter option or why it's still so clear-cut. If the circumstances were different, then it would be an obvious choice one could condemn Obama for not taking.

You will now demonstrate the reasoning and evidence to back this assertion, if you would be so kind.

Certainly. We have a situation in which the rhetoric of the right has focused on how the current government is too extreme and verges on tyranny. The apparent witch-hunt of the war-crimes prosecutions would validate this and be harped upon repeatedly. The arrest of senior Republicans would grind the government to a halt as the remaining Republicans either become as obstructionist as possible or proceed to leave altogether. Using cloture and other methods to force it forward would further validate the cries of tyranny. I doubt that it would come to civil war, but you would probably see riots, mass protests, and further shootings as more individuals like Lochner feel pushed towards fighting tyranny. What is your evidence that the Republican party would be quiescent and get meekly in line with this? Them being apparently either poor white trash or Wall Street slime?

No, Mr. Bakustra, by "demonstration", I meant you actually pointing out evidence of a situation so incindiary that there is the very real potential for mass violence or even armed revolt if the Bush war criminals were brought to trial, not your surmises which are worthless as proofs of anything. Do you think you can manage that little feat? Furthermore, what's particularly laughable is you continuing to think this is a matter that would be pursued in congress instead of the federal courts, which is where Bush and co. would be tried, as they are no longer members of the government but civilians and therefore with no immunity of any sort from being brought to ordinary criminal trial just like any other group of lawbreakers.

[Winston Blake]

Any appeal to the obvious turbulent consequences of bringing this to justice must face the fact that the long term consequences for America are far worse.

You overlook one significant point. If the Obama Administration forges ahead with war-crimes trials and the Right kick off a Second Civil War in response, is that a war that the US government is capable of winning?

I wasn't envisioning a second civil war, more like a period of riots at worst, probably more like the highly polarised atmosphere of the American Civil Rights Movement or Red Scare. I admit it's possible things could get so bad that the truth gets buried by the 'winners' of an actual war, but outside America, history could record the truth. Even if something like that broke out, which seems very far-fetched, Germany and Japan recovered quite well from far worse situations. They became prosperous, democratic, and well-respected within a few decades. If Germany and Japan had insisted they were right all along and pretended they did nothing wrong, what kind of ostracised mess would they be in today? Or consider that Post-Soviet Russia was certainly a much bigger mess than this situation could possibly cause, but things 'got better'.

[Patrick Degan]

And as far as Bakukstra's attempt to limit the definition of Appeal to Consequences as merely applying to beliefs, the judgement of Lord Denning rejecting the appeal of the conviction of six Irish men for allegedly bombing a pub in Birmingham, England in 1974, brought by falsified evidence and police perjury, outlines the negative form (if P then Q would occur, Q is undesirable therefore P is false) of appeal ad consequentum as applied to the real world in detail:

Just consider the course of events if their [the Six's] action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. That would mean that the Home Secretary would have either to recommend that they be pardoned or to remit the case to the Court of Appeal. That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, 'It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.' They should be struck out either on the ground that the men are stopped from challenging the decision of Mr. Justice Bridge, or alternatively that it is an abuse of the process of the court. Whichever it is, the actions should be stopped.

[Winston Blake]

Much as other people doubt that the prosecutions would create significant unrest, I doubt that the US will collapse in the long-term either. It's been 49 years since the French police gunned down peaceful protesters in Paris itself, and during the course of the Algerian war, the French tortured hundreds of thousands of people. Nobody ever saw a day in jail or a franc in fines for these crimes. General amnesties were issued. But France, whatever you may think of it today, has not seen the destruction of its governmental systems or any of the potential long-term consequences, nor is it a torturing nation today. The US committed many atrocities in the Philippines at the start of the last century, and nobody ever saw punishment for that, either. It took a general ordering the killing of all Filipino boys and men over the age of ten on Samar for there to even be a trial (though not for war crimes), but all he got was retirement. The US committed a number of war crimes for fruit, of all things, in the 1910s and 1920s.

I'm reluctant to engage you since you're busy talking to other people, so I will keep this nice and short.

I wasn't claiming that letting war crimes go unpunished would cause the U.S. to collapse or cause its destruction, so these examples are irrelevant. 'Check and balances' can be destroyed without actual state collapse - it would merely result in a government like that of many third world governments, or like modern Russia.

France and the US really WERE repulsive countries back when they pulled off all that horrible shit. The fact that you don't care about slipping back into that is bizarre to me. If the US pulled off a new Trail of Tears, would you just say 'well shucks, guys, this has happened before, no need to get your panties in a twist'.

Prosecuting our war criminals is a recent phenomenon and mostly has resulted, like with My Lai and Abu Ghraib, in scapegoats being tried to quash any sense that there might have been policies in place to encourage such crimes. While I would love to see justice done, don't pretend that this is some sort of aberration. Even back then the populace was split between support and dissent, though now at least it favors dissent more that support. Frankly, if letting war criminals go dooms us, then we were damned from the beginning of the 20th Century.

Bolding mine. Also irrelevant - I wasn't pretending it's an aberration. A big injustice shouldn't have to be unusual to be considered something which must be righted - being a big injustice is enough.

I think I can boil my feelings down to this: America used to suck, America got better, now America has a choice: be a sucky country again, or own up to its shit and show it can still be trusted.

[Bakustra]

And as far as Bakukstra's attempt to limit the definition of Appeal to Consequences as merely applying to beliefs, the judgement of Lord Denning rejecting the appeal of the conviction of six Irish men for allegedly bombing a pub in Birmingham, England in 1974, brought by falsified evidence and police perjury, outlines the negative form (if P then Q would occur, Q is undesirable therefore P is false) of appeal ad consequentum as applied to the real world in detail:

Just consider the course of events if their [the Six's] action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. That would mean that the Home Secretary would have either to recommend that they be pardoned or to remit the case to the Court of Appeal. That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, 'It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.' They should be struck out either on the ground that the men are stopped from challenging the decision of Mr. Justice Bridge, or alternatively that it is an abuse of the process of the court. Whichever it is, the actions should be stopped.

That's not what I said, you blithering idiot. That is referring to the truth-value as well. He's saying that they should be considered guilty because the options are worse, which is exactly consistent with my post, as it renders a truth-value on their guilt because of the potential consequences. My position is that people will refrain from such because of the consequences, but the guilt or innocence is independent of that. You throw lots of accusations of fallacy around, but you don't seem to know what they actually mean, so doing so does not make you look any smarter or more experienced.

Much as other people doubt that the prosecutions would create significant unrest, I doubt that the US will collapse in the long-term either. It's been 49 years since the French police gunned down peaceful protesters in Paris itself, and during the course of the Algerian war, the French tortured hundreds of thousands of people. Nobody ever saw a day in jail or a franc in fines for these crimes. General amnesties were issued. But France, whatever you may think of it today, has not seen the destruction of its governmental systems or any of the potential long-term consequences, nor is it a torturing nation today. The US committed many atrocities in the Philippines at the start of the last century, and nobody ever saw punishment for that, either. It took a general ordering the killing of all Filipino boys and men over the age of ten on Samar for there to even be a trial (though not for war crimes), but all he got was retirement. The US committed a number of war crimes for fruit, of all things, in the 1910s and 1920s.

I'm reluctant to engage you since you're busy talking to other people, so I will keep this nice and short.

I wasn't claiming that letting war crimes go unpunished would cause the U.S. to collapse or cause its destruction, so these examples are irrelevant. 'Check and balances' can be destroyed without actual state collapse - it would merely result in a government like that of many third world governments, or like modern Russia.

France and the US really WERE repulsive countries back when they pulled off all that horrible shit. The fact that you don't care about slipping back into that is bizarre to me. If the US pulled off a new Trail of Tears, would you just say 'well shucks, guys, this has happened before, no need to get your panties in a twist'.

Prosecuting our war criminals is a recent phenomenon and mostly has resulted, like with My Lai and Abu Ghraib, in scapegoats being tried to quash any sense that there might have been policies in place to encourage such crimes. While I would love to see justice done, don't pretend that this is some sort of aberration. Even back then the populace was split between support and dissent, though now at least it favors dissent more that support. Frankly, if letting war criminals go dooms us, then we were damned from the beginning of the 20th Century.

Bolding mine. Also irrelevant - I wasn't pretending it's an aberration. A big injustice shouldn't have to be unusual to be considered something which must be righted - being a big injustice is enough.

I think I can boil my feelings down to this: America used to suck, America got better, now America has a choice: be a sucky country again, or own up to its shit and show it can still be trusted.

No, no, I actually enjoy this. But the problem is that the US and France did those things and then improved, so I am reluctant to assign a sort of long-term degeneracy of government as a likely consequence. In other words, historical experience has suggested that nations can and do get better from committing horrific crimes.

The problem of expansion of political power on behalf of the executive, which is a real threat (and I think that people are conflating it with the war crimes), is distinct from the question of war crimes. But that itself is something that I do believe can and should be fought and would not create unrest if it were broken, since it doesn't create the same problems. Now, the fundamental problems that lead to the shift of political power in favor of the executive are not likely to be addressed, but they're distinct from the war crimes as well, though I fear unlikely to get fixed in my lifetime.

I think that it would be ideal if there were prosecutions, but I don't think that America can be trusted, nor should it be, frankly.

[Zaune]

I wasn't envisioning a second civil war, more like a period of riots at worst, probably more like the highly polarised atmosphere of the American Civil Rights Movement or Red Scare. I admit it's possible things could get so bad that the truth gets buried by the 'winners' of an actual war, but outside America, history could record the truth. Even if something like that broke out, which seems very far-fetched, Germany and Japan recovered quite well from far worse situations. They became prosperous, democratic, and well-respected within a few decades. If Germany and Japan had insisted they were right all along and pretended they did nothing wrong, what kind of ostracised mess would they be in today? Or consider that Post-Soviet Russia was certainly a much bigger mess than this situation could possibly cause, but things 'got better'.

If this was purely about the political side of the chain of command that might be true, but the armed forces are going to have to clean house as well, at every level of the chain of command. I don't buy into the claims about how soldiers are dehumanised and "trained to kill" until they can't tell right from wrong, but I can see how a large number of their comrades in arms being court-martialled for mistreating a bunch of insurgents would leave Afghanistan and Iraq veterans with conflicted loyalties.

And don't take this the wrong way, but the fact that the USA would almost certainly get over even the worst-case scenario in the long run is going to be cold comfort to the victims of the short-to-medium term consequences.