Is Accountability Part of the Change Agenda

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Frank says:

    Very well put. “order-following” defenses are a dangerous slippery slope.

  2. A.W. says:

    Sheesh.

    This is rich. The liberals push successfully a redefinition of torture, prisoner of war, due process, etc. into a way unrecognizable in the law before the war on terror commenced.

    Then you want to apply those principles retroactively.

    The fact is that the law never clearly outlawed those acts which you called torture…

    The fact is the law of war never recognized any rights in these unlawful combatants…

    The fact is the Supreme Court never extended due process to enemy combatants, period…

    …until now.

    Now, what, pray tell, would due process say about that? It would say that the principle of ex post facto and the doctrine of lenity would presume against prosecuting anyone for human rights abuses in the Bush admin. Mind you, the actual perpetrators of Abu Ghraib can and i believe, have been, prosecuted, but outside of that example, no one should be prosecuted if only because it would offend due process.

    But apparently the left is not so concerned about the due process of people trying to SAVE American lives.

    Sigh.

  3. Jonathan Roth says:

    A.W., do the world a favor and check “How to Break a Terrorist” out of your library and read it. Then come back here and post about what techniques save lives and which don’t. The writer lived the “ticking time bomb” scenario every day in Iraq and saw that-surprise surprise!-humane methods work and save lives, other methods either shut terrorists up, lead to bad information (which costs American lives) and gives terrorists a huge spike in recruitment (which also costs American lives.)

    Then google about how the U.S. executed Japanese army members for waterboarding U.S. Army members and repeat your claims about “the facts” and what is and isn’t called torture under the law. Somehow I doubt that you’ll take to time to develop and informed opinion, but I guess that’s good for Fox News; they need someone gullible enough to believe them.