Comments on: Who Said It?

By: Andrew Williams

Andrew Williams — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:02:52 +0000

My guess was Hitler. I was close.

By: pam

pam — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:18:56 +0000

I was gonna say John Wayne

By: akromper

akromper — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:22:19 +0000

Laughable. I wonder what the US reponse would be if the UN declared the US as a threat to sovereign nations and asked that we willingly disarm.
And yes, I’m disappointed that heads aren’t rolling over the whole torture issue. I really don’t care if a smoking gun was found through those means, it disprespects us all. Rice and Cheney needs some jail time. No looking back? Ok, but if that appled to everyone there would be no need for laws at all. I’ll be at the local bank making a “withdrawal”.

By: JS

JS — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:11:36 +0000

I was thinking it was the prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials who said it.

By: Nick T

Nick T — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:02:45 +0000

(Yawn)

Sorry Radley, I have fallen so far into the abyss of cynicism that not even Bush himself talking at length about prosecuting war crimes (there’s a substantively similar clip on Andrew Sullivan’s blog where Bush talks about investigations and prosecutions) gives me the slightes bit of hope that we will even start to see intelligent, reasoned debate in this country let alone investigations and prosecutions. I’d love to be wrong on this, but no one is going to care about what Bush said here.

By: Gary McGath

Gary McGath — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:21:01 +0000

My guess was Obama. I should have known better.

By: Stormy Dragon

Stormy Dragon — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:11:25 +0000

To bring an old Frankling saw into the 2st Century, it would appear the war crimes have become nothing more than an excuse invented by winners for hanging the losers.

By: tired dog

tired dog — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:10:35 +0000

We, the US, have now codified the Nuremberg defense, making it a free pass to act in any way at any time at any place with full confidence one’s acts cannot be prosecuted.

We shall now reap the whirlwind as ‘energetic interrogation’ techniques gain acceptance in civilian criminal law; ‘only’ for the most egregious crimes of course, such as selling some drugs, conspiring against the state, or child abuse.

Our moral standing is rightly viewed as nil…good luck to us all.

By: Gabriel

Gabriel — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:50:18 +0000

If America does it, it is by definition not a war crime. Duh.

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:41:51 +0000

#3, the fact that a lawyer tells you something doesn’t mean that it’s “the law”, even if that lawyer works for the president–it’s the lawyer’s interpretation of the law, not the law. In fact, given recent history, if the lawyer is working for the president, it’s reasonable to assume that what they’re telling you is legal isn’t legal.

By: ktc2

ktc2 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:22:00 +0000

As a former soldier (54B Nuclear, Biological & Chemical weapons specialist) I can tell you what we were taught. It is each soldiers responsibility to know if an order is illegal and act accordingly. Obviously that SUCKS because what illegal is rarely black and white to the guy on the ground, especially when he’s getting “legal advice” from highly politicized attorneys who make anything sound legal. Nonetheless, the ultimate judgement rests with the individual soldier and he must be willing to accept the consequences of his decision.

By: PersonFromPorlock

PersonFromPorlock — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:58:21 +0000

“Befehl ist Befehl” is exactly congruent with “the law is the law.” Trying someone who “was just following orders,” where orders have the force of law (as they do for military personnel) is either going to break “the law is the law” or legitimize the Nuremberg defense.

By: Andy Craig

Andy Craig — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:08:42 +0000

-Boyd

Bush lost the election, and as libertarians know, politics is just war by another means.

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 02:49:10 +0000

Usually you’re safe if you just win the war.