Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Bush Admin couldn't destroy all of the copies of the memo. Now the release of the document Bush/Cheney feared so much. Obama, will not pursue, but at least the Repubs can't lie about it any more, at least convincingly lie about it. I suppose Bush and Cheney won't be doing any International travel anytime soon, not that they dared risk it before.
The Bush Admin couldn't destroy all of the copies of the memo. Now the release of the document Bush/Cheney feared so much. Obama, will not pursue, but at least the Repubs can't lie about it any more, at least convincingly lie about it. I suppose Bush and Cheney won't be doing any International travel anytime soon, not that they dared risk it before.
The Bush Admin couldn't destroy all of the copies of the memo. Now the release of the document Bush/Cheney feared so much. Obama, will not pursue, but at least the Repubs can't lie about it any more, at least convincingly lie about it. I suppose Bush and Cheney won't be doing any International travel anytime soon, not that they dared risk it before.
If you think this is the first time an administration has been caught trying to destroy evidence or hiding something behind a security classification, you're sadly deficient in the study of history. Whether it's right or wrong, it's a fairly common practice.
I'm among those who have always opposed the imposition of enchanted interrogation techniques because it violates our principles, but if this is an indictment of the Bush administration, one should be fair and indict every preceding administration too on the same grounds. The issue here isn't the interrogations themselves, or the legal opinions which buttressed or opposed their legal case, but the deliberate hiding of other opinions. While the subject matter may be different in other cases, the hiding isn't and if Bush is guilty, so are previous Presidents.
And, I must say this: Though I'm convinced the Bush administration did more damage to this country and our Constitution than all other administrations in the past 150 years combined, I recognize that even his administration must the able to conduct robust, internal arguments over policy without public scrutiny of every detail of that discussion. ANY administration, in any field of endeavor, MUST have the freedom to exchange opinions and ideas internally without having to consider how opponents would react to any idea or opinion floated during such discussions. Complete transparency would have the effect of chilling an honest debate and preventing the free exchange of ideas.
If you think this is the first time an administration has been caught trying to destroy evidence or hiding something behind a security classification, you're sadly deficient in the study of history. Whether it's right or wrong, it's a fairly common practice.
I'm among those who have always opposed the imposition of enchanted interrogation techniques because it violates our principles, but if this is an indictment of the Bush administration, one should be fair and indict every preceding administration too on the same grounds. The issue here isn't the interrogations themselves, or the legal opinions which buttressed or opposed their legal case, but the deliberate hiding of other opinions. While the subject matter may be different in other cases, the hiding isn't and if Bush is guilty, so are previous Presidents.
And, I must say this: Though I'm convinced the Bush administration did more damage to this country and our Constitution than all other administrations in the past 150 years combined, I recognize that even his administration must the able to conduct robust, internal arguments over policy without public scrutiny of every detail of that discussion. ANY administration, in any field of endeavor, MUST have the freedom to exchange opinions and ideas internally without having to consider how opponents would react to any idea or opinion floated during such discussions. Complete transparency would have the effect of chilling an honest debate and preventing the free exchange of ideas.
Well, torture is and was, against the Law. International and US Law. Rationalizing breaking the Law does nothing to aid us in anything. It makes us no better than who and what, we pretend to detest.
Well, torture is and was, against the Law. International and US Law. Rationalizing breaking the Law does nothing to aid us in anything. It makes us no better than who and what, we pretend to detest.
I agree and I think the conclusion arrived at by the best legal minds of the Bush administration was wrong.
However, that does not mean I think internal discussions of policy should be open to review while that discussion is on-going. There must be a degree of secrecy to ensure the free exchange of opinions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
