12/20/2008 09:29:51 AM EST

FDR: "War Criminal"

posted by KenTX

In the words of Barack Obama’s AG Designate, Eric Holder:

“Our government authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants.... We owe the American people a reckoning."

Never mind that the American people never received a reckoning for Eric Holder’s illegal pardon of Marc Rich.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
During time of war, the Commander In Chief has broad sweeping powers to protect the Nation from enemy attack. Let’s see how FDR stacks up to these charges.

FDR denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of thousands of accused enemy combatants, right here in America.
pow camps 

FDR openly detained American citizens without due process of law.
japanese internment 

FDR approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens in Hawaii who were communicating via shortwave with enemy agents in Japan. Lincoln approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens in Virginia who were communicating via telegraph with other American citizens in Tennessee. And these two guys didn’t even have bi-partisan congressional support for warrantless wiretaps.

I admire how FDR treated Nazi terrorists captured in America. He didn’t Mirandize them. He didn’t give them a jury trial. He didn’t give them constitutional rights. He might have even allowed them to be slapped around a little.

He gave them a swift military tribunal, and an even swifter execution. Compare that with the fraternity hazing that we call “waterboarding” .

You wanna talk civilian casualties? Talk to the survivors of Dresden, Germany and Hiroshima, Japan. FDR wasn't playin!
< Instability in Thailand caused by corruption of former PM | 'NewsBusters' Takes On Cenk & Michael Hirsh >
 Display:
FDR: "War Criminal" | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden)
Ken, a few simple questions (none / 0)

Do you think we should judge the events of today by the standards of the 1930s and 1940s (pre-UN, pre-Nuremberg trials etc)? I certainly don't.

Considering FDR has been dead since 1945, I would say it is a little late to hold him to account for things his administration did. By contrast, it is not too late to hold the still current Bush administration to account. Wouldn't you agree?

One final thing - I noticed you slipped this sentence in:

"FDR approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens in Hawaii who were communicating via shortwave with enemy agents in Japan."

Apart from whether proper procedure was followed, one of the complaints about the Bush administration's warrentless wiretapping has been what it has been used for, eg listening in on intimate conversations of US soldiers who were not suspected of any wrongdoing. Do you appreciate the distinction between your example and mine?

by jutewe on 12/20/2008 10:46:07 AM EST

You asked an honest question, (none / 0)
and you deserve a worthy reply. Unfortunately, I'm on my bb, so this will be brief. It doesn't matter if the year is 1865, 1945, or 2005; when the country is at war, civil liberties can be suspended by the Commander-In-Chief. Nothing supercedes the perogative of the president when he is waging war. That's why Democrats did not dare play the impeachment card. They would have been crushed at the polls, and by history.

by KenTX on 12/20/2008 11:03:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the reply (none / 0)

I appreciate the "expanded war powers" argument to some degree - the High Court of Australia has also recognised it in my country, but is (I think justifiably) vague about it's scope. This is because it is all about weighing up the seriousness of the situation, the severity of the government measures and the necessity of the measures. There is no blanket "we are at war" expanded level of power that the government has. At this moment Australia is "at war" (we were one of the original members of the "coalition of the willing"), but we face an almost negligable threat to our security compared to what we faced during WW2.

In general though, I don't go along with the "we must sacrifice freedoms for security" line. Often, there is no rational reason why a law or measure which lessons civil liberties would increase security. To take the wiretapping example, it is already easy for the executive to obtain a warrant if they have cause to suspect a link to terrorism (eg), and they can even do this retrospectively so that they don't lose information while waiting for the legal process to be completed. Therefore, the deliberate avoidance of judicial oversight by the Bush administration seems to be not only clearly illegal, but also unjustifiable and even dangerous.

There are many reasons why the Democrats might not have sought impeachment, and I'm sure that fear of attacking the President on "War President" grounds and the potential reaction to it was one of them. However, many Democrats seem to hold ill-founded fears of a negative reaction on many issues, causing them not to fight hard over matters of principle. I'm far from convinced that the Democrats would have been crushed at the polls if they did seek impeachment, but that is all history now and we can only speculate on what might have happened.

by jutewe on 12/20/2008 12:12:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Won't rehash this (none / 0)

1. FDR had war time powers because Congress declared war. Such is NOT the case in Afghanistan, Iraq, or the USA. Bush's Folly was a war of choice in both cases. Not so much, WW2...

2. Eric Holder didn't pardon anybody.

by MedfordTim on 12/20/2008 11:45:12 AM EST

Japanese American Internment Camps (none / 0)
In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government. The legislation stated that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership".

100th Congress, S. 1009, reproduced at internmentarchives.com; Retrieved 19 September 2006

by sisco66 on 12/20/2008 11:55:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
that's the way we roll (none / 0)
Sixty years from now, some future president will apologize to the families of al Qaeda for giving them a drink of water in an inclining posture. But during time of war, we don't apologize to anybody.

by KenTX on 12/20/2008 02:25:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken (none / 0)

When you are humiliated in your own post the wise move would be to leave it alone and go away. Then again, no one will ever accuse you of being that bright.

 

by z1p101 on 12/20/2008 02:40:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
zippy (none / 0)
Are you posting under the influence of cannibus again?

by KenTX on 12/20/2008 04:04:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you? (none / 0)
This isnt a declared war by Congress on a standing army--its not applicable.

by calturner on 12/20/2008 09:41:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Calturner Credibility Watch (none / 0)
"This isnt a declared war by Congress on a standing army--its not applicable."

War Powers Resolution

Standing Army? What the hell are you talking about? Our Army is standing up better than FDR's.

by KenTX on 12/21/2008 08:57:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll let (none / 0)
Ron Paul answer that question.

by z1p101 on 12/21/2008 09:19:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My Congressman, (none / 0)
Ron Paul of Lake Jackson, Texas, vote for House Joint Resolution 64, giving President Bush War Powers Authority to go to war against al Qaeda.

If he had voted no, it wouldn't surprise me, because he votes "no" on all legislation. That's why they call him "Dr. No".

by KenTX on 12/21/2008 09:44:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Liar, liar (none / 0)

pants on fire.

Is Ron Paul your Congressman or is Lampson?

"My Congressman is a Democrat. (TX-22). He was defeated, and replaced by a Republican."

-KenTX

I'm starting to believe you really are some security guard somewhere and are just another message board junkie with nothing else better to do with his time.

Or are you actually voting for 2 Congressman every election? Sounds like voter fraud to me.

Tisk, tisk. You constantly want to talk about others credibility, maybe you should watch your own.

 

by z1p101 on 12/22/2008 12:56:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX credibility check (none / 0)
Like I explained in detail two years ago, I have two houses in two adjoining congressional districts.

by KenTX on 12/22/2008 05:01:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why I vote for Ron Paul. (none / 0)
Ron Paul and KenTX agree on taxes.

by KenTX on 12/21/2008 09:52:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
AUMF (none / 0)
gives war powers authority to the Commander-In-Chief, whether his name is Obama or Bush. The argument that we are not at war with al Qaeda is so weak that its not worth debating.

by KenTX on 12/20/2008 11:58:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Tora Bora (none / 0)
You mean the guys we let go in Tora Bora so we could still have an excuse to invade Iraq and bankrupt the country?

Ken, what scares me is that you don't really care what FDR did. You are just looking for an excuse to justify the Bush family actions over the last 40 years that has led to many of the problems we have today, let alone the past 8 disastorous years.

We used to lynch people we did not like as well, do you think we should start doing that agian? Well.... maybe for just a few Wallsteet types, Fox News anchors and front running sport fans.

by sisco66 on 12/20/2008 12:11:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Iraq was about three things: (none / 0)
1. Oil 2. Permanent footprint in the Middle East. 3. Showing world leaders the price for antagonizing the U.S. Only after tens of thousands of foreign fighters rushed into Iraq did it become the pivot point in the War on Terror. Luckily, we stayed and we prevailed. Losing would have been an unthinkable disaster. I want to personally thank the handful of Democrats who supported The Surge. These people were true Profiles In Courage.

by KenTX on 12/20/2008 12:33:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ass, cash or grass, no one rides free (none / 0)
Yep, you got it. We showed them.

The problem is, we got the wrong them and did not get the oil or the girl, just the bill. Not to mention a nuclear armed terrorist state. We won't even be able to keep the military bases in the end.

The truly sad part about it is that we could have removed Sadam without ever firing a shot or destroying the country.

Your delusions are like a blooming onion, there is no end to them. But I will give you credit for going down with the ship.

by sisco66 on 12/20/2008 12:56:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey wait a minute! (none / 0)
I just noticed something! You're admitting that if Bush had war powers, then his actions were legal and constitutional. Then the debate narrows to whether the TWO congressional AUMFs gave war powers to Bush. I declare victory. Thread over.

by KenTX on 12/20/2008 12:02:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Three times up at bat... (none / 0)

...all of them swishes...

I admitted no such thing ie REAL reality, only yours. Doesn't count.

Gonzales did enough other stuff, waterboarding is the least of his problems. Lying to Congress on multiple occasions would take precedence at the very least.

Pardoning isn't a crime. Neither is commuting - Just ask Libby.

Use of force authorizations are not and will never be a formal declarartion of war. Besides, you AGAIN mistake Al Qaeda for Afghanistan and Iraq.

by MedfordTim on 12/20/2008 02:26:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Holder didn't pardon anybody? (none / 0)
OK. Gonzales didn't waterboard anybody. We're even.

by KenTX on 12/20/2008 12:13:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Also (none / 0)
The Nazi's were an actual "existential threat" to the world, unlike Saddam.

That doesn't excuse some of what FDR did, but it does help explain it and as it was said above in this thread, that was *before* the post WWII rules.

by ihavenobias on 12/20/2008 01:40:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
In Addition (none / 0)
For those who don't know, these are the words of that terrible person:

ERIC HOLDER: In hindsight, I wish I had done some things differently with regard to the Marc Rich matter -- specifically I wish I had ensured that the Department of Justice was more fully informed and involved in this pardon process but let me be very clear, very clear, about one important fact. Efforts to portray me as intimately involved or overly interested in this matter are simply at odds with the facts -- in truth because the Marc Rich case did not stand out as one that was particularly merit or use and because there was a very large number of cases across my desk that fit into this category I never devoted a great deal of time to this matter; I and others at the Justice Department had nothing to gain or to lose by the decision in this matter. We had no professional, personal or financial relationship with Mr. Rich or anyone connected to him. And to the best of my knowledge, none of us ever saw the Rich pardon application. Indeed it is now clear-- and this is admittedly hindsight-- that we at the Justice Department and more importantly former President Clinton, the American public in the cause of justice would have been better served if the case had been handled through the normal channels.

by MedfordTim on 12/20/2008 02:31:52 PM EST

YOU AGITATOR (none / 0)
You insidious pro-fascist traitor!

by Perry on 12/20/2008 07:43:30 PM EST

name calling (none / 1)
I get a lot of that. Its a sure sign of another frustrated liberal who can't refute the argument.

by KenTX on 12/20/2008 07:55:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Indeed! (none / 0)
You've caught me in my ruse. Good show, old chap

by Perry on 12/20/2008 08:19:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Several problems with attempt to justify Bush (none / 0)

To start with,

Bush and Cheney were doing warrantless wiretaping of domestic/domestic calls way before 9/11. Absolutely illegal and impeachable.

Torture is against Geneva convention and thus US law regardless of war status. At least Cheney, and probably Bush knew about and/or authorized this. Absolutely illegal and impeachable.

Intelligence information was purposely manipulated in order to justify going to war in Iraq, again absolutely by Cheney, probably with Bush knowledge/approval. Absolutely illegal and impeachable.

There is a long list of transgressions for both that unquestionably rise to level of impeachable offences without even starting down any actions theoretically excusable if done under war powers (which arguably did not exist anyway).   

I suspect we will hear a mountain of testimony against them once they are out of office and we will be horrified and won't believe they weren't tossed out years ago. This will be the anvil hanging over the heads of the current crop of the pansy Democatic leadership in both the house and senate.

by rolodex on 12/21/2008 01:31:59 AM EST

impeachable and academic (none / 0)
Democrats had two long years to impeach Bush. That is no longer an option. Their failure to act speaks volumes to the credibility of your legal theories. One more thing, and I want a direct answer to a direct question: You say there was "warrantless wiretapping" prior to 9/11. I'm willing to bet a dollar to a donut hole that Bill Clinton was do EXACTLY the same thing you are talking about, whatever the hell that is. Now answer the question, or get lost.

by KenTX on 12/21/2008 02:56:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Lofty goals (none / 0)
Who wants to impeach Bush? For all you know, democrats nationwide are just waiting for their chance to throw their shoes at him.

I'm willing to bet a dollar to a donut hole that Bill Clinton was do EXACTLY the same thing you are talking about, whatever the hell that is

If you're intent on betting, knowing what he's talking about first could be considered essential.

Also,

You say there was "warrantless wiretapping" prior to 9/11.

is not a question, direct or otherwise.

by OneHitKill on 12/21/2008 03:15:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Aldrich Ames kicks rolodex's ass. (none / 0)
The Clinton Administration held that the Executive Branch has the prerogative to conduct warrantless wiretaps or warrantless searches when National Security is at stake.

For example, the Clinton people searched the home of Aldrich Ames without a warrant.

In fact, Clinton even used warrantless searches when National Security was not at stake.

I say impeach the son of a bitch! Oh, wait a minute. We already impeached him. Never mind.

by KenTX on 12/21/2008 05:22:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
One more thing. (none / 0)
"Bush and Cheney were doing warrantless wiretaping of domestic/domestic calls way before 9/11."

You made the statement, now I want to hear about the details. Be careful. This is the kind of statement that forces participants to shop for a new nic.

by KenTX on 12/21/2008 05:28:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Enoung detail to choke a horse (none / 0)
It's not like you to be this skeptical, Ken. Need a little push? Here.

This is the kind of statement that forces participants to shop for a new nic.

I agree!  So, who wants to help me pick a snazzy new nic for Ken? I'm partial to "TinyTexan" or maybe "KunTX."

by OneHitKill on 12/21/2008 06:03:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm not done with you yet. (none / 0)
"Intelligence information was purposely manipulated in order to justify going to war in Iraq, again absolutely by Cheney, probably with Bush knowledge/approval. Absolutely illegal and impeachable."


After you listen to this clip from VP Joe Biden, you'll understand why it was not impeachable.

by KenTX on 12/21/2008 05:42:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Some topics for Ken to check out, Quest, Curveball (none / 0)

Thanks Onehitkill for saving me some time finding the Quest info. I believe I've heard this expanded upon much more and that this was supposedly part of the war on drugs, but i suspect it was much more, we might get more from the next administration about this.

If, doubtfull, but if Clinton did it also, that was a problem and I'd be for nailing him on that, but not for the BJ.

We don't let the current guy off the hook just because we didn't catch the last guy doing it.

The intelligence issues are many, one is all the stuff going back to Curveball.

What's all the talk of donut holes, is it on your mind because Rick Warren served you some water and donuts?

Your new nic, TXdonuthole?

by rolodex on 12/21/2008 10:56:45 AM EST

Rolodex Credibility Watch. (none / 0)
Let’s review the assertion of rolodex:

"Bush and Cheney were doing warrantless wiretaping of domestic/domestic calls way before 9/11."

That’s kind of hard to believe, because Bush and Cheney were not in office eight months prior to 9/11.
Let’s take a closer look at the timeline of warrantless wiretapping.

“In the case of the NSA's international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant. The president and his representatives have since argued that an executive order was sufficient for the agency to proceed. Some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree.
The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.
The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their "call-detail records," a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits.”

So where is your proof that Bush and Cheney were conducting warrantless wiretapping "way before 9/11"?

by KenTX on 12/21/2008 01:31:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Shows you aren't keeping up (none / 0)
Here's a few links...note that all are from between Oct - Dec of 2007. That's right, last year. Didn't Rush or Sean ever talk about it? I wonder why...

Former CEO Says U.S. Punished Phone Firm

Pre-9/11 wiretap bid is alleged

Before 9/11, NSA Asked Qwest for Network Access, Not Phone Records, National Journal Reports

US warrantless wiretapping predates 9/11

Hope this helps!

by MedfordTim on 12/21/2008 03:58:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank you Tim. (none / 0)
Your links were indeed illuminating, especially this one. Now I'm ready to debate anyone on the subject of "Pre-9/11 warrantless surveilance".

In the drug-trafficking operation, the N.S.A. has been helping the Drug Enforcement Administration in collecting the phone records showing patterns of calls between the United States, Latin America and other drug-producing regions. The program dates to the 1990s, according to several government officials, but it appears to have expanded in recent years.
 
Officials say the government has not listened to the communications, but has instead used phone numbers and e-mail addresses to analyze links between people in the United States and overseas. Senior Justice Department officials in the Bush and Clinton administrations signed off on the operation, which uses broad administrative subpoenas but does not require court approval to demand the records.
At least one major phone carrier — whose identity could not be confirmed — refused to cooperate, citing concerns in 2004 that the subpoenas were overly broad, government and industry officials said. The executives also worried that if the program were exposed, the company would face a public-relations backlash.
The D.E.A. declined to comment on the call-tracing program, except to say that it “exercises its legal authority” to issue administrative subpoenas. The N.S.A. also declined to comment on it.
In a separate program, N.S.A. officials met with the Qwest executives in February 2001 and asked for more access to their phone system for surveillance operations, according to people familiar with the episode. The company declined, expressing concerns that the request was illegal without a court order.

by KenTX on 12/21/2008 08:43:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Spiking the ball in the end zone. (none / 0)
"I'm willing to bet a dollar to a donut hole that Bill Clinton was doing EXACTLY the same thing you are talking about, whatever the hell that is."

-KenTX

by KenTX on 12/21/2008 08:45:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wrong highlight (none / 0)
The paragraph you SHOULD have highlighted:

In a separate program, N.S.A. officials met with the Qwest executives in February 2001 and asked for more access to their phone system for surveillance operations, according to people familiar with the episode. The company declined, expressing concerns that the request was illegal without a court order.

by MedfordTim on 12/21/2008 10:29:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
grasping your very last straw (none / 0)
That's it? That's your smoking gun? After years of accusing the Bush Administration of war crimes and constitutional violations, you're reduced to splitting hairs over technicalities in a Clinton designed data mining operation. I think I now understand why there was no impeachment. Your sauce is as weak as a soup, made from the shadow of a crow that starved to death.

by KenTX on 12/21/2008 11:01:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Rabbit stew (none / 0)

Ken, follow along...the original program may have been morally wrong (I tend to think so), but it was legal and the government (Clinton) got the necessary court orders. (See: FISA)

This new program bypassed that essential step.

The first is akin to getting money from your bank by cashing a check. The second is stealing the money while the tellers aren't looking.

by MedfordTim on 12/21/2008 11:22:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm glad to see (none / 0)
that I inspired Ken to do a little thinking and reflection.

by hazmat on 12/21/2008 04:10:46 PM EST

inspired to reflection, maybe... (none / 0)

I'm not so sure that what TxDonutHole is doing constitutes thinking though, it's more like raw emotional reaction, from the gut, shooting from the hip as GWB might say. He is so desperate to defend what the shrub has brought us, that he's lost perspective.

As I said, Clinton could have ben doing the same thing, and I'll grant that the international side probably has been going on for longer, it probably started with Reagans moronic war on drugs. Very similar to Bushs war on sex - just say no!

Most folks still are willing to give a pass to the meta-data collection, for international calls only, without a warrant. But listening in on any calls without a warrant (FISA for int'l, or regular US courts for domestic) are serious violations of the principal of right of privacy.

And as I said before also, We shouldn't let the current guy off the hook just because we didn't catch the last guy doing it. One of the reasons I have hounded on the impeachment issue is exactly that. If we intentionally let the caught one go, then we will almost certainly have to let the next one go to, it's called precedent. Then there is no end to it. I don't want Bush to get away with it, I don't want Obama to do it, I want the rule of law to return and to apply to the government just as it does to us pee-ons.


by rolodex on 12/21/2008 11:00:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Lemmee see if I got this straight. (none / 0)
Since Bush will be out of office in a mere 25 days, are you now advocating prosecution of William Jefferson Clinton on charges of willful violation of the Fourth Amendment? Thank you for admitting that Clinton was no more, or no less guilty than Bush. Always a pleasure doing business with you, and don't forget your parting gifts at the door.

by KenTX on 12/22/2008 03:03:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
FDR: "War Criminal" | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: