Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - cia detaining prisoners in secret locations

roachboy · 11-05-2005, 08:31 AM

interesting---powerclown's claim above, to the extent that it makes any sense in this context, is that the same "intelligence" information lead both factions within the american oligarchy to conclude that something was afoot in iraq--all of which points not to the validity of the bushcase for war, but to the importance of the doctored intel itself and to the central importance of a legal process that would result in charges being filed and trials held for those who engaged in the manipulation of that information--which was the premise for all arguments for war.
if an administration is willing to doctor information that congress assumes to be acurate/comprehensive, then there is a problem.
even someone as committed to justifying each and every act of this administration as you are powerclown can see that, surely.
if you have trouble with this scenario, just imagine this same thing having been done by a democrat and i am sure that you will be able to imagine a response.

=====
what is bewildering in the responses above that tend toward a support for the administration's policies is that what you are defending is the use of torture.
you are defending the creation of an elaborate system of concealing torture.
you are defending "disappearing" in a mode practiced by fascist military regimes in chile and argentina during the 1970s.
that is what you are defending.

it would perhaps make some sense to seperate the administration itself from its actions, that is to seperate the psychological need you seem to have that would drive you to see their actions as a priori elgitimate because they are a republican administration from what these actions are.

this is not about whether you like the bush administration.
this is not even about whether you found the claims to go to war to be compelling.
this is about whether you support the american use of torture.
and many of the responses that defend the administration above amount to a rationalization of this practice----i do not see how you can possibly defend it.

the other main tack in the responses above is a debate about the application of the term "war crimes" to these action.
1. surely if there is an action that would fall under that definition, it is the use of torture.
it is not clear whether the problem that irks folk about saying this perfectly obvious statement is that it implies something on the order of an international war crimes tribunal or assumes the existence of international legal standards that would be binding on nation-states.
so the argument from mojo above, for example, would lead toward the dissolving of the notion of war crimes on the basis of a refusal to accept any international legal standards/norms that would override domestic law.
following mojo's argument, then, it would follow that, for him, any adminsitration that persuades the legislature that war is rational in a particular situation acquires absolute impunity from that decision and cannot and should not be held to account for any action committed within that context.

the curious thing is that this position, aimed at a rejection of the notion of international law, comes to the same thing--it amounts to a defense of the administration's use of torture.

but there is a paradox in this as well: this same argument points to the centrality of the debate about the legitimacy of the intel that the administration used to fob off its case for war: it would follow that if this intel is demonstrated as false, then the case for war collapses; if the case for war collapses, then what of the declaration of this bizarre war on ghosts itself?
if the declaration is illegitimate because the premises that shaped it turned out to be false, would it not follow that the impunity mojo defends as part and parcel of war powers granted a president collapses as well?
and if that is true, what types of law might be invoked to hold an administration to account for torture in a normal legal context?
that is what is at stake in the seemingless endless debates about the intel.

11-05-2005, 08:31 AM	#28 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	interesting---powerclown's claim above, to the extent that it makes any sense in this context, is that the same "intelligence" information lead both factions within the american oligarchy to conclude that something was afoot in iraq--all of which points not to the validity of the bushcase for war, but to the importance of the doctored intel itself and to the central importance of a legal process that would result in charges being filed and trials held for those who engaged in the manipulation of that information--which was the premise for all arguments for war. if an administration is willing to doctor information that congress assumes to be acurate/comprehensive, then there is a problem. even someone as committed to justifying each and every act of this administration as you are powerclown can see that, surely. if you have trouble with this scenario, just imagine this same thing having been done by a democrat and i am sure that you will be able to imagine a response. ===== what is bewildering in the responses above that tend toward a support for the administration's policies is that what you are defending is the use of torture. you are defending the creation of an elaborate system of concealing torture. you are defending "disappearing" in a mode practiced by fascist military regimes in chile and argentina during the 1970s. that is what you are defending. it would perhaps make some sense to seperate the administration itself from its actions, that is to seperate the psychological need you seem to have that would drive you to see their actions as a priori elgitimate because they are a republican administration from what these actions are. this is not about whether you like the bush administration. this is not even about whether you found the claims to go to war to be compelling. this is about whether you support the american use of torture. and many of the responses that defend the administration above amount to a rationalization of this practice----i do not see how you can possibly defend it. the other main tack in the responses above is a debate about the application of the term "war crimes" to these action. 1. surely if there is an action that would fall under that definition, it is the use of torture. it is not clear whether the problem that irks folk about saying this perfectly obvious statement is that it implies something on the order of an international war crimes tribunal or assumes the existence of international legal standards that would be binding on nation-states. so the argument from mojo above, for example, would lead toward the dissolving of the notion of war crimes on the basis of a refusal to accept any international legal standards/norms that would override domestic law. following mojo's argument, then, it would follow that, for him, any adminsitration that persuades the legislature that war is rational in a particular situation acquires absolute impunity from that decision and cannot and should not be held to account for any action committed within that context. the curious thing is that this position, aimed at a rejection of the notion of international law, comes to the same thing--it amounts to a defense of the administration's use of torture. but there is a paradox in this as well: this same argument points to the centrality of the debate about the legitimacy of the intel that the administration used to fob off its case for war: it would follow that if this intel is demonstrated as false, then the case for war collapses; if the case for war collapses, then what of the declaration of this bizarre war on ghosts itself? if the declaration is illegitimate because the premises that shaped it turned out to be false, would it not follow that the impunity mojo defends as part and parcel of war powers granted a president collapses as well? and if that is true, what types of law might be invoked to hold an administration to account for torture in a normal legal context? that is what is at stake in the seemingless endless debates about the intel. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 11-05-2005 at 08:35 AM..