Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Hitting the Panic Button (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=1961)

TwinSwords 07-17-2008 07:19 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 83896)
Nice, oh and thanks, that was the word I was searching for... "linkify"!

Brendan is a linkificationist of long standing. ;-)

AemJeff 07-17-2008 07:23 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef (Post 83886)
And your side is making a piss-poor case with this assumption of guilt rhetoric.

I might stipulate to that, but I'd point out that, hypothetically, if my side were pushing the assumption a little too hard, we might be reacting to memories of the late '90's. At least in this case the issues are national security, rather than private behavior.

All I'm really saying is that claims from the right that Bush is is being scapegoated for political reasons aren't likely to produce much sympathy. I think most of us on this side believe we have a far more serious claim than what was held against his predecessor.

ledocs 07-17-2008 07:31 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
Rosa and Heather are great. Reasonable, knowledgeable women. What a concept.

HeatherH 07-17-2008 07:31 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Wonderment et al -

The relevant part of the ICC statute:

The principle of “complementarity” provides that certain cases will be inadmissible even though the Court has jurisdiction. In general, a case will be inadmissible if it has been or is being investigated or prosecuted by a State with jurisdiction. However, a case may be admissible if the investigating or prosecuting State is unwilling or unable to genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. For example, a case would be admissible if national proceedings were undertaken for the purpose of shielding the person from criminal responsibility. In addition, a case will be inadmissible if it is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.


Trials that result in light punishments would be very unlikely to trigger that "unwilling or unable" exception. So should anybody in the US be paranoid about the ICC? No. Is it going to fulfill lefty fantasies of providing judicial judgement on the Bush Administration? Also no.

Wonderment 07-17-2008 07:36 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

The thing that we're arguing about, it seems to me, is how else we might impose at least a modicum of accountability, on Bush, and on many in his Administration. I've been leaning towards a sort of Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but I think that's pretty much of a dream, too.
We will get no truth and less reconciliation with Bush, Cheney and the other perps hiding behind executive privilege and classified information. They also are known to try to destroy evidence.

So I'd be looking at the end of the day for strong censure motions from both houses of Congress and legislation with some teeth to prevent future abuses.

Another problem with Heather's theory of accountability in US courts is the breadth of pardoning powers wielded by the president. We have seen pardon abuse of an absolutely unconscionable degree by both Dem. and Repub. presidents. For the sake of political expediency presidents can subvert and have subverted justice from WITHIN the legal system.

Nothing prevents President Obama or President McCain from preemptively pardoning all the torturers, murderers and liars of the Bush regime.

handle 07-17-2008 07:48 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 83895)
I think we are, if we're talking about what we wish for, in our dreams. But it ain't gonna happen, and I think most of us are resigned to that, too.

The thing that we're arguing about, it seems to me, is how else we might impose at least a modicum of accountability, on Bush, and on many in his Administration. I've been leaning towards a sort of Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but I think that's pretty much of a dream, too.

SHHH! Keep it on the down low, and maybe they will forget to pardon themselves before they leave office!
Before anybody who started posting the day after someone else seems to have mysteriously stopped (I take the paranoid cake, but maybe the paranoids are after me) chimes in, I will go with the presumption of guilt, as, from where I sit, the presumption of innocence rule hasn't applied to the media for many years, and my tendency is to consider it nearly vestigial. Feel free to correct me, those who begin their posts with "Hmmmmm", or anyone else for that matter.
welcome back if it is you, apologies if it isn't

Wonderment 07-17-2008 07:50 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

Trials that result in light punishments would be very unlikely to trigger that "unwilling or unable" exception. So should anybody in the US be paranoid about the ICC? No. Is it going to fulfill lefty fantasies of providing judicial judgement on the Bush Administration? Also no.
Thanks for checking in, Heather.

I'm not sure if preemptive pardons would be kosher in the eyes of the Court, but I agree that the ICC leaves a lot of wiggle room and Americans should not fear membership, which would not allow for retroactive (ex post facto) prosecution anyway.

I'd be a lot more interested in the following "Pinochet" scenario. Don Rumsfeld is vacationing among "Old Europeans" in the South of France and a judge from any other EU country issues a warrant either on universal jurisdiction grounds or under a complaint filed by say a British subject held and tortured at Gitmo. Book him!

Chef 07-17-2008 07:51 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by HeatherH (Post 83902)
Wonderment et al -


Trials that result in light punishments would be very unlikely to trigger that "unwilling or unable" exception. So should anybody in the US be paranoid about the ICC? No. Is it going to fulfill lefty fantasies of providing judicial judgement on the Bush Administration? Also no.

Somewhat more comforting. Actually, a lot more comforting.

Still, it's revealing how this was bubbling right under the surface with what Bob was saying at the time?

And a there's still issues like mission creep and the relative vulnerability of free societies vs. their alternative. Even crazy proceedings that are illegitimately brought in foreign forums can make career-ending political hay.

My hypothetical target isn't George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld. It's people like John Yoo or General Geoffrey Miller (formerly the senior officer of Guantanamo)

Still, it should be said that the US really operated in bad faith on this one, negotiating this treaty so that we got essentially everything we asked for (so anxious were the other countries to have us on board). Then we actively undermined the results ever since. Not our finest our in the ol' Diplomacy department.

Chef 07-17-2008 07:52 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Oh yeah. Forgot to thank you for stopping in, Heather. Much obliged

look 07-17-2008 07:53 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by HeatherH (Post 83902)
Wonderment et al -

The relevant part of the ICC statute:

The principle of “complementarity” provides that certain cases will be inadmissible even though the Court has jurisdiction. In general, a case will be inadmissible if it has been or is being investigated or prosecuted by a State with jurisdiction. However, a case may be admissible if the investigating or prosecuting State is unwilling or unable to genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. For example, a case would be admissible if national proceedings were undertaken for the purpose of shielding the person from criminal responsibility. In addition, a case will be inadmissible if it is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.


Trials that result in light punishments would be very unlikely to trigger that "unwilling or unable" exception. So should anybody in the US be paranoid about the ICC? No. Is it going to fulfill lefty fantasies of providing judicial judgement on the Bush Administration? Also no.

Heather, thank you for your insights.

If your schedule permits, I wanted to ask you to take the bull by the horns and tell Bob you wish to be granted your own weekly show here on BHTV. It would be fascinating to see you conduct foreign policy interviews with authors and public officials, alike.

handle 07-17-2008 07:59 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by HeatherH (Post 83902)
Wonderment et al -

The relevant part of the ICC statute:

Excellent job on the vlog! Please ignore any Mickey comparisons, you have a unique approach that stands on it's own merits.
And thanks for the elabloration.
Your link doesn't seem to work though, maybe we crashed the server?

Chef 07-17-2008 08:01 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 83904)
We will get no truth and less reconciliation with Bush, Cheney and the other perps hiding behind executive privilege and classified information. They also are known to try to destroy evidence.

I'm curious. Aren't Truth and Reconciliation commissions generally the aftermath of epic scale paroxisms of violence or massive injustice?

I'm familiar with Rwanda, East Timor, Chile, and of course South Africa.

I think Bosnia and Kosovo never went this route, but I might be wrong.

Again, it seems like we have a mismatch of scale, don't we? Or are these sorts of things more common than I imagine.

TwinSwords 07-17-2008 08:03 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by look (Post 83911)
Heather, thank you for your insights.

If your schedule permits, I wanted to ask you to take the bull by the horns and tell Bob you wish to be granted your own weekly show here on BHTV. It would be fascinating to see you conduct foreign policy interviews with authors and public official, alike.

I'll second that.

bjkeefe 07-17-2008 08:04 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by look (Post 83911)
Heather, thank you for your insights.

If your schedule permits, I wanted to ask you to take the bull by the horns and tell Bob you wish to be granted your own weekly show here on BHTV. It would be fascinating to see you conduct foreign policy interviews with authors and public official, alike.

Second that.

[added] Uh, okay. Third.

bjkeefe 07-17-2008 08:05 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef (Post 83909)
Somewhat more comforting. Actually, a lot more comforting.

Hard to believe you were ever really worried.

Wonderment 07-17-2008 08:07 PM

Re: The ICC
 
4th*

*Also noting that it would break the glass ceiling at Bheads, since no woman has a weekly show, Bob, John, George, Mickey, Will, Matt, Mark and This Week in Blog dudes.

look 07-17-2008 08:11 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 83923)
4th*

Also noting that it would break the glass ceiling at Bheads, since no woman has a weekly show, Bob, John, George, Mickey, Will, Matt, Mark and This Week in Blog dudes.

As my daughter would say, 'Dur!'

*laugh* Couldn't resist, Wondie (TSE doesn't realize you prefer the French spelling).

bjkeefe 07-17-2008 08:21 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef (Post 83916)
I'm curious. Aren't Truth and Reconciliation commissions generally the aftermath of epic scale paroxisms of violence or massive injustice?

I'll let the obvious temptation pass.

I am not thinking in terms of scale, in any case. I am thinking in terms of a TaRC more in this sense: We'd like to get the truth out. In the long term, it's more important for the health of our nation to know what happened than it is to quench our thirst for vengeance. So, as much as it pains me to contemplate Bush, et al, not being punished, I'd rather give some guarantees of immunity in return for full and honest testimony.

Even if I dreamed that the Democrats in Congress actually grew some spines, I don't see the legal route being anything but a decades-long mess. It would distract the media to no end, and we'd never make any progress on any of the problems that still exist now and in the future.

I also worry about the backlash. For as convinced of the guilt that I and a lot of others are, I don't think enough of the country shares our view that there's sufficient cause to pursue the legal approach, and once the spin machine revved up, this would be doubly true. "He (they) were just trying to keep us safe, doing what he (they) thought was right," is what I'd expect to hear 24/7 from Fox and friends.

And finally, I worry about the precedent. If the previous administration is put on trial upon leaving office one time, how much easier will it be to threaten this the next time? Will it prevent presidents from taking any bold action?

There are arguments against my worries, to be sure, and chief among them is that the Bushies are sui generis. But when I add up all of my worries, and throw in political realities, I am moved to look for the next best thing. And that's some sort of truth and reconciliation approach.

The term, perhaps, is a little loaded. Obviously, it is for you.

claymisher 07-17-2008 08:21 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bkjazfan (Post 83869)
Now, I have been following presidential elections fairly closely since 1980. My question is has any contender flip-flopped as much as Senator Obama? I am not a supporter of either candidate so I am not putting him down for it but am curious if this is the norm. Personally, I can't remember anyone doing it as much; however, I could be wrong.

John

You are indeed wrong:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...ves/16124.html

edit: Sorry! I hadn't scrolled down when I replied!

Wonderment 07-17-2008 08:46 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
Quote:

Where the F is Mickey??
La migra se lo llevó*


*Translation:

ICE took him away.

look 07-17-2008 08:50 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 83931)
La migra se lo llevó*


*Translation:

ICE took him away.

What were the charges?

KingFish 07-17-2008 08:54 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
Althouse commenter, "Ron", here....

First, Geez, Bob sucking up to Heather like you want to show her your etchings next! I've seen suaver moves at frat mixers! Buy the girl a drink at least! Heather, don't worry about the tooth gap, just eat corn on the cob at your Bloggingheads appearance, and the horndogs will come out of the woodwork. If you could debate Mickey about immigration while doing so, Bob could probably charge for that episode of Bloggingheads.
Just funnin', y'all!

Second, you may think you could invade Althouse like D-Day. My feeling is that you would be more like the Canadians at Dieppe instead....

Seeing Megan on Bloggingheads reminds me of a line from Cary Grant in His Girl Friday: "It's pleasant to have a face around here a man can look at without shuddering."

claymisher 07-17-2008 09:01 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
This whole election Bob's been in the defensive crouch, always worried about Obama not walking on eggshells, as if Obama wouldn't be attacked if only he said just the magic words to escape the Republicans. You know what? They're going to attack no matter what. They'll just make up shit. So you might well go out and advance your case and not worry about bullshit artists.

So it was nice to see Heather settle Bob down here:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/128...38&out=00:7:27

And then there's Bob again saying Obama should say something Obama's actually already said:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/128...9&out=00:37:12

Come on Bob, stop parroting right wing talking points! Don't be a villager!

claymisher 07-17-2008 09:02 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by KingFish (Post 83933)
Althouse commenter, "Ron", here....

First, Geez, Bob sucking up to Heather like you want to show her your etchings next! I've seen suaver moves at frat mixers! Buy the girl a drink at least! Heather, don't worry about the tooth gap, just eat corn on the cob at your Bloggingheads appearance, and the horndogs will come out of the woodwork. If you could debate Mickey about immigration while doing so, Bob could probably charge for that episode of Bloggingheads.
Just funnin', y'all!

Second, you may think you could invade Althouse like D-Day. My feeling is that you would be more like the Canadians at Dieppe instead....

Seeing Megan on Bloggingheads reminds me of a line from Cary Grant in His Girl Friday: "It's pleasant to have a face around here a man can look at without shuddering."

If your aim was to make my skin crawl, mission accomplished!

Wonderment 07-17-2008 09:05 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
Quote:

What were the charges?
Cussin' and makin' a ruckus.

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2008/...gra_5-1-08.jpg

look 07-17-2008 09:06 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
Thanks, Ron, we're warmed up now, you can send in the A team.

bjkeefe 07-17-2008 09:17 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by claymisher (Post 83934)
Come on Bob, stop parroting right wing talking points! Don't be a villager!

In fairness, Bob managed to call Obama a flip-flopper fewer than ten times. This week.

look 07-17-2008 09:21 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
Excellent.

Chef 07-17-2008 09:22 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 83927)
I'd rather give some guarantees of immunity in return for full and honest testimony.

Presumably some officials wouldn't get that immunity?



Quote:

And finally, I worry about the precedent. If the previous administration is put on trial upon leaving office one time, how much easier will it be to threaten this the next time? Will it prevent presidents from taking any bold action?
Excellent, excellent points.

Quote:

The term, perhaps, is a little loaded. Obviously, it is for you.
Yup, but I shouldn't pre-judge.

Chef 07-17-2008 09:26 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 83921)
Hard to believe you were ever really worried.

What can I say? When Heather talks about the ICC , it sounds like much more of a sensible idea.

More human rights and multilateral standards. And a lot less frogmarching of US officials off to Brussels.

I'm easily swayed, I suppose.

handle 07-17-2008 09:45 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef (Post 83940)
Presumably some officials wouldn't get that immunity?

Why do you think Scott McClellan wrote that book claiming he was a believer who awoke one day to see the darkness? Can you say plausible deniability?

Wonderment 07-17-2008 10:02 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
Quote:

No doubt a very small number of individuals have used "undivided Jerusalem" in the non-standard way Heather and Mickey describe, but unless Obama was talking to them, he made a pretty big blunder (which I'd guess will nevertheless turn out to be of little importance).
I am unpersuaded by Heather's defense of the remark and agree that it was a major gaffe and was an outrageous pander to AIPAC.

Although Obama somewhat fixed it subsequently, the damage to credibility among Arabs/Muslims was done. He blew a lot of political capital internationally to cozy up to a very small minority among US Jews who might defect to McCain.

This was another Obama overkill, much like his critique of the Supreme Court decision when it found the death penalty for rape to be unconstitutional.

Pandering is ok; hyperpandering is counterproductive.

bjkeefe 07-17-2008 10:09 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef (Post 83940)
Presumably some officials wouldn't get that immunity?

I haven't thought about it that deeply, since I still think it's a pipe dream, but at first glance, I'd say immunity for anyone who tells the truth. (How one measures sufficiency of compliance is left as an exercise for the student. ;^) )

One other reason I forget to add last time is that in a lot of ways, Congress was complicit in many of these actions. Either they signed off explicitly, they turned a blind eye, or they refused to take any action when things became too obvious even for them to ignore. Apart from Henry Waxman, I can't think of anyone else who's done anything of substance in response.

AemJeff 07-17-2008 10:09 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 83945)
Pandering is ok; hyperpandering is counterproductive.

He raised half of what McCain did in the latest period. I have a feeling Obama's pandering may be about to be refocused.

piscivorous 07-17-2008 10:16 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
I think you have the numbers reversed.

AemJeff 07-17-2008 10:46 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by piscivorous (Post 83948)
I think you have the numbers reversed.

You're right. I can't even find the damn headline I was referring too.

Move along... Nothing to see here!

Chef 07-17-2008 10:48 PM

Re: The ICC
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 83927)


And finally, I worry about the precedent. If the previous administration is put on trial upon leaving office one time, how much easier will it be to threaten this the next time? Will it prevent presidents from taking any bold action?

I don't think this point can be emphasized enough. Especially given the country's absolute burnout on the issue of foreign intervention, which might last decades.

I've recently read a book called "A Problem from Hell: America and the age of Genocide", written by Samantha Power (who I think is actually on Obama's advisory team).

She makes an interesting case toward the end that there should be mechanisms in place to punish politicians and appointed officials who fail to act in the face of genocide. Now, leaving aside how workable that is, it's eerie to hear such a strongly interventionist perspective in post-Iraq America.

It's an impressive and powerful book. Highly recommend that one.

piscivorous 07-17-2008 10:59 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
There was some chatter a couple of days ago that tied DNC, RNC and candidate fund raising together that was making this argument, on not the just ended period but the prior one, that made this argument I believe and you have probably conflated the two.

rcocean 07-17-2008 11:25 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
Bob,

Why not reward BJ by having him on Bloggingheads? He's certainly earned it - the guy practically lives here.

bkjazfan 07-17-2008 11:28 PM

Re: Hitting the Panic Button
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 83938)
In fairness, Bob managed to call Obama a flip-flopper fewer than ten times. This week.

It seems that Bob is most upset about this divided or is it undivided (?) Jeruselem statement by Obama (shows how much I know).

I noticed on the Net that Nat Hentoff is very upset with Obama's endorsement of faith based government initiatives. Being a big first amendment type Hentoff thinks that Obama committed an unpardonable sin with that one. Not being a scholar or lawyer I don't know what that's all about. His criticism of Obama flip-flopping makes Wright's look pale in comparison.

John


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.