CAMPOS: A tortured defense
By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published April 16, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
In 2003, when he was a deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, John Yoo wrote a long legal memorandum arguing that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to torture people.
Furthermore, Yoo claimed, the president's power to torture can't be limited by Congress, the courts, or international treaties. As long as the torture is being carried out because the president believes it's necessary, Yoo argued, it's legal and cannot be made illegal.
Yoo's arguments bothered some people quite a bit. His memo, after all, was not merely some academic exercise. Yoo provided the U.S. government with a handy legal justification for committing acts normally considered war crimes, and our government duly proceeded to torture hundreds of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as at Guantanamo Bay (several of the victims died as a result).
Yoo then returned to his tenured professorship at Berkeley's law school. Now some of the people who were unhappy with Yoo for helping our government commit war crimes are wondering whether any of this might be relevant to Yoo's current employment.
That has upset Brian Leiter no end. Leiter, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Texas and the author of a popular blog, practically exploded with outrage at the suggestion that a law professor who makes shoddy legal arguments that facilitate the commission of war crimes ought to incur some negative professional consequences.
Leiter claims that anyone calling for Yoo to be fired is "calling for him to be punished for his ideas, and nothing else." This is absurd. What's at issue aren't Yoo's ideas, but rather the very real possibility that he is a war criminal. (Indeed, U.S. courts have established what Columbia law professor Scott Horton describes as "a particularly perilous standard of liability for government attorneys who adopt a dismissive attitude towards international humanitarian law.")
What's especially odd about Leiter's impassioned defense of Yoo is that Leiter also claims the Bush administration is guilty of numerous war crimes, and that, in his words, "Bush and his gang of war criminals deserve to have their status confirmed by a court of law."
Furthermore, Leiter believes Yoo's legal arguments justifying torture as a weapon in what Leiter calls "the fake war on terror" are clearly wrong.
Leiter's defense of Yoo adds up to this: Yoo hasn't been convicted of war crimes, and it isn't even clear he's personally guilty of war crimes, since he was merely giving his superiors advice on how to commit war crimes under color of law, as opposed to actually committing the crimes himself. Thus to suggest he deserves to be fired is nothing but an attack on academic freedom.
What I find most offensive about this sort of argument is its lack of seriousness. To echo Orwell, it could only be made by someone for whom "torture" is at most a word.
Leiter thinks various members of the Bush administration are war criminals, and that their worst crimes - crimes for which they should apparently be subjected to Nuremberg-style prosecution - include the systematic torture of helpless prisoners in the name of a phony "war on terror."
Anyone who believes this must also acknowledge that John Yoo's eagerness to make specious legal arguments in support of torture seems to have led directly to lots of people being tortured, some to death.
Under such circumstances, it takes a twisted sense of moral priorities to get outraged about the (very slim) possibility that Yoo might lose his academic sinecure because he went out of his way to help the U.S. government commit war crimes.
In the end, I suspect that for Leiter, as for so many professors of this or that, words such as "torture" and "war crimes" are indeed nothing more than words, with which they can continue to play their petty and useless academic games.
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be reached at paul.campos@colorado.edu.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Holiday movies
Check out our movie page to read reviews and see your holiday options.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Broncos-Jets Action
Visit our photo galleries for some hard-hitting action photos from Sunday's game.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's postgame rant on the Jets.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Stein's View
Editorial cartoons by Ed Stein
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
Read the Rocky's coverage of Colorado's cannibal, Alfred Packer, in 1886.
April 16, 2008
7:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
Like the fire bombings of Germany, the forced relocation of Japanese-Americans to internment camps, or the dropping of atomic bombs, war crimes are only tried against the losers. Until a victor stands over a loser and flaunts their status by putting every prison guard to trial for war crimes, there is not going to be any follow through. Even then, it is highly unlikely that the engineer who designed the gas chamber would be convicted. Intellectual fuel to the fire has always gotten away where the brute force of execution has been convicted. Even in the aftermath of war, the elite escape the consequences.
April 16, 2008
7:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
Gee, Paul, if it would only save one life, wouldn't it be worth it? Isn't that your mantra? There are no rules when the other side is not an organized, recognizable military force. Period. Except in the tiny minds of liberals who hate our military.
VVVV, you use typical liberal distorted arguments from the past which are not relevant in the modern context. When in a fight for survival, as in WWII, a country makes mistakes (the internment camps) but those are not war crimes. As for the bombing, you would have preferred for millions more American soldiers to be killed because we did not bomb or would you have just surrendered in 1941 to save all those lives? Which is it?
April 16, 2008
8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
Mike_in etc. "There are no rules when the other side is not an organized, recognizable military force." So I assume you would have no objection to President Hillary Clinton ordering your torture when you strongly object to, say, increased taxes? After all, you're not part of an organized military force, are you?
April 16, 2008
8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
Leave it to Campos to support the leftist lawyers attack on Yoo. No wonder Campos did not make it as a lawyer; he does not know the law. These are out of uniform terrorists not regular uniformed military captives. International law allows them to be shot on the spot as saboteurs, spies or worse. And they are the worst. Their specialty is beheading innocents, (real) torture, car bombing market places, schools, churches any public place they can murder innocent men, women and children to spread terror to the public. They are completely outside the protection of the Geneva Convention precisely meeting that exception. International Courts and their war crimes be damned. Any interrogation methods used by the US is far less than torture and Campos knows that very well. That may be wrong. He has no idea or facts on what methods were used. He is making wild exaggerations strictly for the purpose of slander.
Moreover, Yoo is correct. Congress cannot over ride a president’s authority under the Constitutional separation of powers. That is especially true in time of war. The President has complete authority to waive civil liberties and authorize just about anything he sees necessary to protect this country. Look how FDR imprisoned German and Jap citizens in WW ll when they were thought to be a threat of sabotage on the West Coast. FRD was probably the last Democrat president that could be trusted with this countries security. If the Liberals Democrats in Congress do not like that they can amend the Constitution. Lets see how much of the American public will support that.
Campos chooses to ignore Congress voted overwhelming approval giving President Bush the authority to go to war. The Democrats are merely playing politics saying they were misled. How is that for equivocating? Captives are indeed being treated within the law and Campos is merely slandering Yoo’s character for making an interpretation of the law, even in the extreme. That is why Yoo is with a real law school doing serious legal work and not some half assed college law professor/RMN opinion writer. His main objective is to further the slanderous propaganda of the left on Bush and this administration.
I fully expect another blow from the Islamist terrorists smuggling in some kind of a bomb, probably across the Mexican border. President Bush has been too successful preventing it so far. I only hope if they do they plant it under Campos’ worthless butt and not mine.
April 16, 2008
9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
Rumsfield and Yoo had better be careful with their international travel plans in the near future. There are going to be some countries (yes...even those outside of the ME) who will detain and try them for war crimes. As they should.
April 16, 2008
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
jackwoehr writes:
Campos's article was the high point of my (print) newspaper reading today. Good work.
April 16, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
Gene, hmmm...wouldn't it be better not to be subject to torture by either?
But to get back to the topic, the point of the article wasn't whether Yoo's opinion was correct (it wasn't and has been completely repudiated, even by the administration). It was whether Yoo should be fired, despite tenure, because he wrote that legal opinion.
Campos thinks he should. I disagree, because the cure is worse than the disease. A very good articulation of this view is in this morning's Washington Post Op-Ed, by Ruth Marcus:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
Summary: "Keeping John Yoo at Berkeley is the high price of liberty."
April 16, 2008
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
I don't agree with Mike_in_Hartsel. If we play dirty because the other side follows no rules, how are we any better? If we become like the enemy we're fighting, we've lost already, no matter the political/military outcome. I also disagree with malis. A declaration of war does not give the president the power to do whatever she or he damn well pleases. Even in wartime, we have a democratic republic in place with rules and safegaurds. As far as I'm concerned we're in undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress has abdicated its responsibility in this area since Vietnam and simply allows the president to initiate military conflict without the declaration of war.
However, ... Mr. Yoo gave an opinion. If his opinion was used as an excuse for torture by American personnel, that can and should be held against him. But now that he has the job, I think it would be wrong to fire him. If he goes looking for another job, and the law firm or teaching institution says we think your opinion was detestable and refuses to hire him, that's another matter.
Mr. Yoo should be careful where he travels overseas. Some countries may consider him to have advocated war crimes.
April 16, 2008
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Oops. I said I disagree with malis. I meant rjnova.
April 16, 2008
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
Gene, how do you answer those who disagree with you, if you refuse to know what they say? (sorry...rhetorical question--I fully understand you have no desire to know what those who don't agree with you are actually saying). I read both Campos and Rosen even though I rarely agree with either.
Try reading the Marcus column...I'll bet you agree with her reasoning (on whether Yoo should be fired from his tenured position) and, who knows, you might even learn something.
April 16, 2008
11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oracle writes:
Mallis, You're an idiot. Hillary is not a head-sawing murderer
bent on our annhilation. Oh, at least I don't believe she sawed anyones head off.
April 16, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"If we become like the enemy we're fighting, we've lost already, no matter the political/military outcome." - peterpi
I agree. But, we disagree in our assessment of becoming like the enemy. We are nothing like our enemy. Water boarding is nothing like the Muslim equivalent of torture: beheading, plucking out of eyeballs, burning people alive, hanging people.
You may call water boarding torture. But that does not mean it is the same torture as the brutal and slow beheading of captured victims. The fact that soldiers and journalists have volunteered to be water boarded shows how different we are from the Muslims. What journalist has volunteered to have her eyeball plucked out in order to understand torture?
We are nothing like our enemies and for you to even suggest that we are shows how much liberals' melodramatic emotionalism cannot be trusted.
April 16, 2008
11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
Oracle ?? Are you OK? I'll assume you just woke up and can't read without your morning coffee. Please go back and start at the beginning of the string, noting my Hillary reference was a response to the MiH post just in front of it (unless you made the mistake of thinking anything Gene says has any basis in reality). Thanks.
April 16, 2008
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oracle writes:
I'll stand by my opinion, coffee or not.Your loopy straw-man argument that M_I_H might not mind our Prez ordering torture for taxes??? or wha?? because of???
The so-called "torture" of those whose stated aim is our destruction is what you and Campos are wetting yourselves about.
The idea that discomforting (yep, waterboarding is unpleasant) those who would see us murdered in an instant, for information which
would save (even one) life, acually makes me feel much safer.
April 16, 2008
1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
BrianLeiter writes:
Professor Campos has the dubious distinction of being a professor of constitutional law who called for Ward Churchill to be fired for his views, and long before there was any documentation of research misconduct. He has called for Glenn Reynolds of the University of Tennessee to be fired for his ideas as well. I have written in the past about Campos's disgraceful pattern of contempt for the First Amendment and academic freedom:
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog...
Anyone interested in my actual views on the Yoo case might consult what I wrote about it here:
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog...
I also recommend the posting by attorney Scott Horton and our exchange of views in the comments section here:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/04/re...
April 16, 2008
1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
Oracle, oh, you're serious! I thought you were a loopy Hillary supporter worried that I was accusing her of torture. I was was just observing that MiH had expressed an absolute ("there are no rules... Period.") and so I used an 'ad absurdum' argument to show there were circumstances in which he might prefer rules. Sorry if I confused you on that.
There are three issues relevant to today's discussion:
1) Is Torture Effective? A serious topic deserving of serious discussion. I tend to assign greater credibility to folks with the most knowledge and experience in the area--people who interrogate prisoners as part of of a profession. Overwhelmingly but not universally, they state physical torture is not an effective method of getting accurate information (not talking about current government employees--they have to support the positions of their superiors. Either that or quit. Folks I'm talking about are either retired or independent security consultants). As human history has sadly proven, a skilled torturer can get nearly anyone to say nearly anything. Not a comforting thought if you're after the truth.
2) Should the United States use Torture? If so, routinely? Just in extreme circumstances? To what degree? (the Rack or Flaying? Or nothing more serious than Waterboarding?) If the answer to #1 is no, the question is moot (why torture if it doesn't work?). Even if the answer to #1 is yes, I still tend toward no, for the reasons some of the others have articulated. I have great concern for the future of our country, if we feel we must become what we are fighting. I feel torture must remain a crime. I assume you'll answer with the movie-plot scenario people keep bringing up as rationale: If I need to torture this one person who has knowledge that would prevent a catastrophe, is it not morally justified to do so? My answer might surprise you--Yes. But, that action should still be illegal. The person should be tried and either found not guilty because of exigent circumstances, or pardoned after the fact. What we shouldn't do is allow that almost impossible potential circumstance to drive our day-to-day judgment (and hey, folks, Jack Bauer is fiction--his torture works only because that's the way the writers write it).
3) Should John Yoo be fired? I've answered that above, and I get the feeling Brian Leiter articulates the point far more clearly anyway. This is, by the way, the actual topic of the Campos column today.
April 16, 2008
11:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sweetpickle writes:
Our Surpreme court decided it's OK to torture people while we're killing them, so these muslims should consider themselves lucky.
April 17, 2008
7:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
Even Benedict Arnold received a trial before he was hanged for treason. What President George W. has justified is nothing less than Stalin or Mao removing those that may or may not be enemies, subject only to the personal whim of a secret police.
Mike, In WWII the war crime wasn't the dropping of bombs. The war crime was the selection of targets like Hiroshima and Dresden that had little or no military significance, little military presence, and acted only as terrorism to scare the enemy into surrender. Would I have preferred Americans dead?? No, but that is not the only solution. Just like any fearmongerer, you believe the world is black and white. Don't you think a demonstration of an Atomic bomb where nobody was killed, or just the Japanese fleet was destroyed would have provided the same incentive for Japan to surrender? There is never a situation where it must be all or nothing. That kind of thinking is how war crimes are always justified, and it is always a crime. But that narrowmindedness is exactly how situations like Darfur are sustained, and is the most inhuman, irrational, and sadly common instinctual reaction. It is the antithesis to the evolution of humanity.
Should Yoo be fired? I don't know. But I do know he's more dangerous than Ward Churchill, and just as despicable.
April 17, 2008
7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
Agreed, 4 V's
April 17, 2008
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oracle writes:
Malis, "Ad aburdum" perfectly sums up your thinking. So, to ease your confusion, I'll help. In answer to your questions:
Does "torture" work? Answer: Demonstrably yes. Should the U.S. use
"torture" Answer: Yes, where doing so has a likelyhood of providing
useful intelligence. Should Yoo be fired for providing a legal argument for "torture". Uh, no.
As to 4V,Hiroshima had NO military significance? Using the bomb ENDED THE WAR. I think that is militarily important,yes? And as most on the Left, you seem to be incapable of using your own logic.
You insult Mike because he correctly knows the world is very much black and white, but in your superior insight, it is all shades of gray. With your nuanced sophisticated worldview, you proceed one sentence later to say:"There is NEVER a situation where it must be all or nothing" A statement that is the epitome of "black and White". the Left and it's sole redeeming quality: Humor.
April 18, 2008
6:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
Thank you Oracle. Rarely do I find a position stated with such utter clarity. Nice to talk to someone with no hidden agenda.
Folks, please take a second look at Oracle's comment just above, as a specimen of a certain cartoonish world view. Cartoonish in the same way the television show, '24' is a live-action video cartoon. Denying the world is complex, that a seemingly simple solution may introduce unintended consequences. Denying that the views of others might have any validity at all. Instead of providing any sort of rationale for his positions, stating assertions as if they were facts and pretending (or perhaps even believing?) that settles the argument.
This is the world view that brings people to advocate use of torture as a routine government policy.
Let us be grateful that Oracle's influence is limited to the figurative graffiti of his postings.
April 18, 2008
2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oracle writes:
Wow,I am red faced with embarassment, watching such a public display of self-affection. You again bravely construct your tall, strong,menacing straw man, and then, brilliantly, and for all to see, cut him down, leaving but a high heap to climb upon to bask in your own pure light. Mal, the commentary centers on wheather
John Yoo should be fired for writing a legal defence of using harsh techniques to illicit information from people who want all of us dead. The answer to that question is unequivically NO. My comments never reference "24", never said the world wasn't complex
(whatever that means),and most certainly never denied that the views of other have NO validity.(Just yours)And most assuredly was stating fact about the efficacy of waterboarding(what you on the left call torture) Just ask Shiek Khalid as he coughed up(get it?) the names of every Al Qaeda operative he knew. That acually does settle the argument.
Now that you are done preening, be grateful for this bit of graffito: "For a good time, call Oracle!"
April 19, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
Poor Oracle. The more he replies, the stronger the evidence of his 'Cartoon' world. A cartoon is a method of presenting a story (usually fiction) that simplifies the narrative and graphic representation, while using exaggeration and distortion to appeal to emotion. Is there a better metaphor for what Oracle represents?
He apparently believes his words should mean not what they say, but what he decides they should have said. Let's illustrate with a couple of examples:
Oracle[1]: "...the world is very much black and white..."
Oracle[2]: "[I] never said the world wasn't complex"
...and another in which we don't even need to compare separate quotes, because the self-contradiction is wholly contained in one sentence: Oracle: "[I]...most certainly [1]never denied that the views of other [sic] have NO validity.([2]Just yours)"
...the statement parses to, of course, the views of others have no validity unless they are in agreement with his. That is assuming he didn't mean to include the double negative (he should have either used 'said' instead of 'denied,' or left out the 'NO,' but I think I understand what he meant).
He has difficulty detecting when someone is in agreement with him. Oracle: "Mal, the commentary centers on wheather [sic] John Yoo should be fired...The answer to that question is unequivically [sic] NO." Somehow he is unable to detect that’s my position too (for different reasons of course, but same position). He also has a habit of defending himself against attacks only he can detect. Oracle: "My comments never reference '24'" ... no, MY comments, not his, referenced '24.'
Oracle has long abandoned serious reasoned discourse, preferring simplistic insult and bald assertion. Even when he tries to provide evidence for an assertion, he can go only as far as what he hears on talk radio. For example, he says of "Shiek [sic] Khalid" (Khalid Sheikh Mohammad), "That acually [sic] does settle the argument," and believes it to be true. If you're interested, Google 'Khalid Sheikh Mohammad interrogation' and review the entries. Make sure you sample different PoV and include articles with later dates. Unlike Oracle, I'll assume you're capable of making up your own minds on an issue that, to serious people, is certainly not settled.
One might wonder why I bother posting to an aging Campos thread. Certainly not for Oracle's benefit...he's so emotionally tied to his world view, and so resistant to information he does not already believe, he'd never consider he, perhaps, might be wrong on some things. I guess it's just because I enjoy the exercise...I like being forced to think through a subject and articulate the conclusions as clearly and simply as possible (simple has its uses!). Besides, it's a slow afternoon. Just sitting and watching the NBA playoffs and I can't stand watching TV and doing nothing else. So, pick y'all up on an interesting thread next week and, Sunday, go Nuggets!
April 20, 2008
6:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
arby writes:
A quote from General Curtis Lemay USAF. Lemay authorized the fire bombing of Tokyo and the dropping of the A bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"If we win I will be a hero and be given a medal. If we lose I will be tried as a war criminal and executed. I intend to win"
So do we want to win?
April 21, 2008
5:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
The atomic bombings in Japan were sucker punches against hundreds of thousands of defenseless people - period. And the US absolutely could have demonstrated what the atomic bomb was capable of doing without detonating it on populated cities.
VVVV is right. We didn't lose the war, so it wasn't a war crime. At least, that is the earthly judgment. I cannot believe a Higher Power would agree.
April 21, 2008
8:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
arby writes:
mytwosense
While I may agree that looking at WWII from this vantage point we could have done things a little differently. You must remember we were attacked and highly pissed off. I think General Lemay did the right thing from the viewpoint at the time. Anyway he got his medal. And we don't speak Japanese or German. So where is his replacement? We are in seriously deep s**t in Afghanistan and Iraq and no one is willing to drop the hammer. You can't half win.
April 21, 2008
8:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
arby writes:
r.e. WWII
We were in and out in 4 years. Over with, done, finished. We won! No ifs, ands, or buts. All right, now, we as the good guys will help put your country back on its feet. We will shake hands and forget it and get on with life.
Do you see that happening now? I don't. Are we still the good guys? If we want to get this over with we need to adopt the WWII mentality of everyone pitching in. And maybe sacrificing a little. AAAugh!!
April 21, 2008
9:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Arby,the WW2 mentality did most assuredly include everyone pitching in.But it also included something not seen since;the committment to victory and,most importantly,a clearly articulated policy that only the unconditional surrender of the enemy would end the hostilities.No road map to peace,no bombing halts,no peace process,no negotiation whatever.Until the enemy surrendered the "rain of ruin",in Harry Truman's words, would go on with all the ferocity we could muster.It worked,and when it was over we hanged most of the surviving enemy leaders.
April 22, 2008
2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
I just saw peterpi asks “how are we better than they?” It is because we are alive and they are dead. Equating a rabble of murders of women and children with normal human beings makes only sense to you and perhaps Jimmy Carter. Arafat was a unremitting terrorist and made a fool of Carter after the first Palestinian agreement. You can take that pacifist love you enemy crap to Boulder but it will not sell to anyone else.
April 22, 2008
9:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
arby writes:
Jimminy, rjnova,
Read my earlier posts. I agree with President Truman and General Lemay. You cannot half win. Don't start a fight if you're not prepared to finish it. We must as a people put up or shut up. It doesn't seem we are willing to do either. We need to either beat the snot out of them or come home. End of story. There isn't an Arab or Muslim country that we can trust. If we think Saudi Arabia or Pakistan will be our ally when the chips are down we are like the boy whistling as he walks by the graveyard.
April 23, 2008
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
wldchld512 writes:
I dont see how anyone who has actually seen Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers can call either a glorification of war. Both films portray very graphic and detailed images of both the horrors and tragedies of war.
April 23, 2008
10:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
arby writes:
widchid512
I didn't see anyone glorifing war. It is terrible. Unfortunately we as a species seem to think it necessary. We the people need to fight back with all of our might when attacked. We are not doing that. We can't be half friends with the country that sponors the most Muslim terroeists in the world. Because they have oil. Nor can we continue to sponosr a country that steals it's neighbors land.
That's the facts Jack. As the old saying goes. "If you don't stand for something. You'll fall for anything"
April 24, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
ComradeMarko writes:
People are still operating under the delusion that WWII was a "necessary" war fought for "our survival," and that America's participation was the deciding factor in the allies' victory.
April 24, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
arby writes:
ComradeMarko
You don't think WWII was necessary? You don't think it was fought for our survival? You don't think America's participation was a deciding factor?
Just when did you land on our planet?
April 24, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
i can't believe the folks on the far right are still trying to make the ridiculous connection between iraq and wwii
not gonna happen folks
worst foreign policy decisions in the history of the us
might as well come to terms with it
April 24, 2008
1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
arby writes:
jay
You are right. There is no connection because we are not willing to go all the way. If we don't we will be done for. We have patriots being wounded and killed, but we don't want to miss a game or the Sunday BBQ. We need to get it on! Now!
April 24, 2008
3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Does anybody else find it odd that the Rocky did not put Professor Campos' latest opus on line?
Censorship?
Did they get death threats?
Garden variety incompetence?
A belated attack of conscience?
Methinks that perhaps a drama is unfolding behind the scenes ...
April 24, 2008
6:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"There is no connection because we are not willing to go all the way"
There is no connection alright, but not because we lost the war before it began
April 25, 2008
12:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
arby writes:
jay
I'm not sure I understand. "We lost the war before it began"
By that do you mean we went in without a plan, without a clue as to who we were fighting or what the reaction would be, without an exit strategy, after the most experienced military man we had quit. If that is what you mean then I agree. If not please explain.