On that whole, "looking forward" thing
May. 14th, 2009 09:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumI see a lot of apologists (mostly for torture, but some for things like wiretapping), saying we need to look foreward, not backwards.
One.. huh? Prosecutions have to look bacwards. A crime has to happen before it can be prosecuted.
That's the first oddity. The other one is that I saw, in the dim and distant past of 2008, a lot of people saying, "Well sometimes the law has to be broken. If a cop knows someone has info, and the only way to get it is to torture the guy, then he needs to do it. No jury will convict someone who saves a kid's life by beating up a perp."
This is often followed by a bravura follow-on: "I'd do it if I had to, and I'd turn myself in and face the music."
Ok, lets assume that's true.
Why aren't the people who authorised the tortures saying, "Yeah, I ordred peopel to do it. I had to, it was to save lives. So go ahead, charge me. I'll prove it was needed, and no jury will convict me?"
One.. huh? Prosecutions have to look bacwards. A crime has to happen before it can be prosecuted.
That's the first oddity. The other one is that I saw, in the dim and distant past of 2008, a lot of people saying, "Well sometimes the law has to be broken. If a cop knows someone has info, and the only way to get it is to torture the guy, then he needs to do it. No jury will convict someone who saves a kid's life by beating up a perp."
This is often followed by a bravura follow-on: "I'd do it if I had to, and I'd turn myself in and face the music."
Ok, lets assume that's true.
Why aren't the people who authorised the tortures saying, "Yeah, I ordred peopel to do it. I had to, it was to save lives. So go ahead, charge me. I'll prove it was needed, and no jury will convict me?"
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-15 10:30 pm (UTC)Part of what the Republicans forget is the reason Nixon stepped down is he was told the Republicans in the House would vote to impeach,and the Republicans in the Senate would convict.
I wish that had happened. It would have made it harder for the, "partisan" actions of the "Left" bringing down the Noble Nixon.
It could still happen. If the evidence is strong enough, then the only people who will be able to vote against impeachment/conviction will be obviously voting party, not facts.
And it could be 435/100 to impeach/convict, the "GOP can do no wrong crowd won't believe it, even if Bush admitted to buggering baby guniea pigs for drug money.
So the real question is, who is willing to be grown up enough to say, "This demands real investigation."