And the anti-war party is?

There are other parties. But don't tell anyone.

Yes, every US politician has bloody hands up to the armpits. Nothing short of revolution and mass execution of the elites will ever cure this.

Are you sure you have the stomach for that? And wouldn't that be a war crime, in and of itself?

You've pointed up the problem, now what's your proposed solution?

if I don't vote at all does that relieve me of guilt by association?

R, Voting in a way which indicates your individual rejection of both liable parties is a start. Your extreme suggestions are not the only alternatives available.
Politicians live and breathe votes, depriving them of their oxygen, and supporting others, is a good way to start.

N, if you don't vote at all you are not actively expressing your lack of association.

When Putin stands trial for Chechnya and people do time for the Uighers, possibly: states speak as they always speak.

D, first we should take care of business at home. Lack of prosecution of torturers is beyond the pale.

I will never tell anyone that.

B, the subject should never have arisen.

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to guilt by association. Yes, I voted for Obama, but I did so with the not unreasonable expectation he would prosecute torturers. When he didn't, I protested loud and often, and I continue to protest in no uncertain terms.

Please advise me as to what my duty is beyond that? Vote for Republicans? Are you mad? Cheney -- both Cheney's -- and Yoo -- are still defending torture -- and if anyone's equally guilty, it's the millions of Americans who agree with them.

My take?

Secretary of Torture

I Was Waterboarded
.

T, it's not the vote in 2008 which matters. The leader of the Democratic Party had not refused to prosecute torturers then. If you support the Democratic Party now, you are supporting the leader of the Democratic Party. There are other parties besides the Democratic and Republican.
Casting a vote for is not associating with, it is actively supporting.

S, it is the act of not prosecuting torturers when one is in a governmental position to prosecute torturers that is the crime. One must make the distinction. We have every right to judge those who were given the responsibility to carry out our laws and who failed to do so. Not being capable of stopping a crime is not a crime. A citizen not speaking out is not a crime.

It's a dodgy choice, no doubt. Less and less is invested in the public system in terms of public faith. More and more in terms of corporate influence. R.

if you tell the dnc you will be voting dem next when they champion citizen initiative, and a few hundred thousand join you, america would be on the way to democracy.

but there aren't a hundred thousand americans who want democracy, so in the meantime just don't vote anyway.

it just legitimizes those creeps in the beltway.

B, this may be the most difficult election choice ever. Not since LBJ have the Democrats been in such a criminal position.

A, if a party loses by a number smaller than that polled by a minority party, next time around there is a possibility for change. Votes count, staying at home isn't even exercise.

Peter, as much as I'm sure you're well-meaning about this, I consider this the moral equivalent of banging drums to rally the pro-life or anti-gay lobby to come out for the Republicans.

There is too little information content in a vote to say that this is something one can make a decision upon. Right now we face Climate Change. My choices are (a) vote for the Republicans, who think Climate Change is not happening, (b) vote for the Democrats, who admit Climate Change is happening, but are taking only lukewarm steps to fix it, or (c) vote for someone who will not be elected, thereby probably assuring the election of (a).

True ethics is complicated and not reducible to a single issue in a world where many ethics are involved and no one is purely good. I could decide not to vote for (a) or (b) based on this issue, but if my vote brings down humanity because they fail to safeguard us against Climate Change, how is that ethical?

I note you've mentioned the Green Party. It's got a very good agenda these days. The reason I'm not behind it is not that I don't like their ideas, it's that I don't think they're viable. Or at least not yet. But what stands between them and viability is not you convincing people they should be shamed out of voting for the Democrats. They have good reasons to vote for the Democrats and if you elect yourself the one to tell them they don't, you don't make a friend of them and ultimately do the party no good.

I would focus on the positive angles of the Green Party platform more directly and leave out the theatrics about how we're all war criminals. Rhetoric like that will just not end well, I'm sure of it. For sure you will not have me nor will I be lobbying for you. I don't want any part of it. And you should want me to think otherwise.

Change the pitch.

K, the law is the law. Turning a blind eye to the torture of prisoners is not what this nation is about. I consider probable war crimes by their leaders to be a reason not to vote for the Democrats and the Republicans. There are other choices. Fear of Republicans is hardly a reason to vote for Democrats. I will choose neither of those poisons.

Another GREAT Npost, but I have to take issue with one sentence:

"Turning a blind eye to the torture of prisoners is not what this nation is about."

Sorry, Peter,although I tend to agree with most everything You write, I have to contend torture didn't start recently and HAS BEEN an integral part of american policy for minimally more than thirty years.

Central America, anyone?




-R-

How is it this wound up sounding like something I might hear in a Militia Camp?

M, then it is about time this country stopped. Never before has such obvious criminality been ignored by those responsible for upholding the law.

D, you really should stop hanging around the militia. Try somewhere else for summer camp.

Peter, Your response to my comment is not only elegant, gentlemanly, but, also true. I love Your style.

You are a real writer (and humanist, too, for that matter), as You say a lot with few (if any) wasted words.

Alright Peter, I'll bite. I'm a war criminal for voting for the Ds (mostly). Here's my rationale.
I live in a world where my vote is one of perhaps 200million potentially. I can at the local level vote the Greens, but there is no sense at the national level (yet) supporting anyone other than the Ds because the most powerful branch of our government is the Supreme Court. I could vote Rs or Gs or even the Communist Party, but any of those choices gets me the kind of person who would appoint another Roberts or Scalia or (god forbid) Thomas. At least by having supported Obama I got a Sotomayor and a Kagan, not the best choices but certainly miles better than the alternative.
Dont kid yourself. You can be righteous in this world, or you can be pragmatic. I have grandchildren, so I know what my choice is.

Ultimately I think we will have to vote with our feet - in the streets.

And ultimately I agree with Dr. Bramhall, but believe this thuggish government will have no problem using their "law enforcement"
"peace officer" psychopaths to shoot down as many as necessary to quell the swelling chorus of those demanding justice.

Is there really a way to conduct war without it being 'criminal' ?

If you know of any examples could you point to them ?

Is there really any way to be American without paying taxes to the exercise of war ?

Politics, politicians, and elections are useless distractions, a smokescreen. Corporations and the rest of the Wealthy Ruling Class control the planet. Period. Yes, the WRC has its whores and servants in politics and in the media, but again, nothing but a smokescreen!

T, which begs the question, of what use are good judges if the Executive Branch is allowed to act outside the rule of law? Since the Magna Carta civilized peoples have resticted princes as well as peons with the rule of law.

Dr. S, the French may indeed know the right way to express popular opinion.

M, I certainly hope we haven't reached that point.

K, the laws of civilized people should be applied whenever possible.

If the torture of enemy combatants saves just one American life then it is worth it. you people need to quit being so touchy feely when it comes to the enemy since they are very willing to kill you if the get the opportunity.

G, fortunately, your opinion is negated by the legal systems of the civilized world.

You are right Pete. I just keep forgetting how terrorist, despots, and all of the other enemies of Life, Liberty, And the Pursuit of Happiness follow the rules and play nice.

Gunguy is another schizophrenic psychopath who agrees with the Constitution when it allows him to fondle his weapons, but wants the freedom to ignore "cruel and unusual" punishment when it suits his fancy.

Also is to dumb to know that treaties signed become part of the Constitution, such as the Geneva Conventions.

This as*hole supports the Constitution when IT agrees with him. otherwise thinks he should have dominion over it.

"Slightly" perverted understanding of democracy.

Schmuckinjapan,

Once again you prove your ignorance. Treaties entered into by the US do NOT become part of the Constitution. Since you have claimed to be around all of these military personnel ask a few of them if they ever went through SERE. I did in the early 80's and while it was unpleasant I would have no problem putting enemy combatants through the same sort of treatment I received. And if it saved one American life I would do much worse.

gunguy45: "And if it saved one American life I would do much worse."

Sorry to call you a schizophrenic psychopath.

That should be sadistic schizophrenic psychopath.

"The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Section 1, Clause 2. This clause asserts and establishes the Constitution, the federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, and treaties made by the United States with foreign nations as "the Supreme Law of the Land" (using modern capitalization). The text of Article VI, Clause 2, establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, both in the Federal courts and in all of the State courts, mandating that all state judges shall uphold them, even if there are state laws or state constitutions that conflict with the powers of the Federal government. (Note that the word "shall" is used here and in the language of the law, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Do you have a problem understanding multisyllabic words?

Furthermore:

"A well regulated militia"

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:[6]
“
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:[7]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If you have deluded yourself into thinking the founding fathers had maniacs like you in mind when they chose the words "a well regulated militia" than you are more delusional than I'd previously thought.

If you are representative of this militia referred to by the founders', I'd rather take my chances with the Crips, Bloods and Hell's Angels.


Additionally, if you are childish enough to compare SERE training with torture in the field, my assessment of you as being a sadistic schizophrenic psychopath is a "GROSS" understatement.

Now put your daddy's guns back where they belong and go back to your playpen.

Isn't it a bit odd that there hasn't been a single comment defending Obama? Does everyone accept the fact that he is a war criminal? Or are they simply ignoring his culpability? Are people so jaded they accept such criminality?

What's the holdup? Are they waiting to prosecute for political reasons? If so, how many lives have been destroyed during the wait?

Would so many prisoners have been turned over to Iraqi human rights violators if prosecutions had begun a year ago? Nobody will ever know. All we know now is that those who commit human rights violations and torture will not be prosecuted in these United States.