I agree, though, he has the disadvantage that a bunch of taped archives he never intended to leak...leaked.
I assume you would hear similarly disturbing quotes from other presidents if their private conversations got out.
The Clinton emails were supposed to be private, yet never had anything close to that type of behavior.
Does that mean that Nuremberg and Tokyo trials were just a farce?
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." - US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 [1]
"No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed." - United Nations Universal Declaration of human rights. Article 11 [2]
[0] http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_webera.html
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9
[2] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
In a parallel fashion, WWII's Prisoners Of War (POWs) were renamed DEF by the US ("Disarmed Enemy Forces"), to dodge the Geneva convention about POWs, and some were badly treated (The Wikipedia page has a discussion on the numbers – see "Other Losses").
There is no such thing as black and white.
And Nuremberg trials was famous for doing precisely what gizmo686 described -- charging defendants with "crimes" that were defined as crimes after the fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Criticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_gentium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_humani_generis
It works in the same manner as unwritten common law does - set by custom and precedent.
Did not say, or imply that they were normal behavior. I said that other presidents (not all other, some other) have probably said similarly disturbing things.
>The Clinton emails were supposed to be private, yet never had anything close to that type of behavior.
Clinton wasn't who I had in mind, but I suspect private, verbal conversations would be more revealing than emails.
That's one of the reasons they were motivated to use private email. Because they were fully aware it was one FOIA away from being a public forum. But at the same time, all of the important stuff was via other channels. There was hardly any direct work stuff at all in those emails. Mostly just her foundation and campaign conversations.
Since 2006 when the courts changed their rules, any email sent for official or business purposes, with the except of client-attorney email is potentially postcard. Nothing important to a company should be in there.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160623/09170034795/email...
The question of what is subject to FOIA is complicated.
We already know why she used her own private email server — to use her Blackberry. This has been repeatedly established by the inquiries and the FBI investigation. We even have an email to Powell in 2009, well before any of the emails in that blog post, that shows her reason. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324
Evidence exists to support this was intentional to hide information. Evidence doesn't equal proven. Granted it is not proven, but saying there exists no evidence doesn't seem to be accurate.
That is exactly backwards. She requested a Blackberry-like device similar to the one given to Obama but was denied. https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/emails-s...
> Evidence exists to support this was intentional to hide information.
No such evidence exists, which is why all inquiries and investigations came to the conclusion I stated above.
>No such evidence exists, which is why all inquiries and investigations came to the conclusion I stated above.
That doesn't mean there was no evidence. It only suggests that evidence wasn't proven. You can not draw the conclusion there was none.
The FBI also came to the conclusion that Clinton wasn't intelligent enough to understand confidential markings. Then the stunt the FBI pulled just before the election I would say the FBI has shown itself to be incompetent.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/7/fbis-comey-hi...
Mull was the Executive Secretary of the State Department at the time he sent that email (two years after the NSA had denied Clinton's request). He was in no position to overrule the NSA and make that offer. At no point during Clinton's tenure were Blackberry devices authorized to access state.gov email servers. He was very likely referring to http://www.zdnet.com/article/nsa-wanted-hillary-clinton-to-u..., which was the only authorized device up to 2015 and was the device that the NSA offered (but not supported by State department infrastructure) http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/nsa-re....
> That doesn't mean there was no evidence.
Then where is it?
Aside: citing the Moonie Times and the Daily Caller projects know-nothingism. Here are the three top articles on the Daily Caller right now:
1. Charlie Sheen Offers America The Most Insane Ticket To Take Down Trump
2. TPM’s Josh Marshall Reduced To Tweeting Porno Link Of ‘Teasing, Licking’ ‘Angela & Strawberry’TPM’s Josh Marshall Reduced To Tweeting Porno Link Of ‘Teasing, Licking’ ‘Angela & Strawberry’
3. ‘FK YOU. GO TO HELL’: Georgetown Prof Loses It On Muslim Trump Voter‘FK YOU. GO TO HELL’: Georgetown Prof Loses It On Muslim Trump Voter
None of this is news.
It was given. Apparently you don't like the source. Here's another. http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v...
Also, there were a lot of questions being asked about FOIA considering there was no evidence. http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judic...
Again, your original assertion is not defensible that there was no evidence. Again evidence does not equal proven. Simply there was information that suggests a rationale.
Aside: you are aware of what Judicial Watch is, right? They're the conservative group that led the prosecution against Clinton on this issue and repeatedly failed. Of course they are going to ask questions about FOIA, the Espionage Act, and anything else they can try to stick on her. You're being misled by listening to only the prosecution and not the judge or the defense that totally dismantled their case.
So there was evidence?
>Mull simply did not have the ability to give Clinton a Blackberry.
That is irrelevant to establishing a motive. The emails don't suggest that Clinton was aware of that fact and they do suggest that Mull for some reason thought this information that would be important to Clinton's decision.
>you are aware of what Judicial Watch is, right
Yes, but this is to be expected. When the right is in power, I expect left leaning groups to lead the charge to accountability and vice versa. It is rare that a group ever holds itself accountable.
>judge or the defense that totally dismantled their case.
They thought it was good enough to proceed with questioning. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-orders-clinton-answer-w...
I'm not sure what you mean by dismantled. They requested a deposition and was granted. Clinton did not answer all questions and they have requested through federal court that she answer all questions. I have not seen an update on that request.
Don't be facetious. That's like saying that there is evidence that the Sun revolves around the Earth because we see it pass overhead every day. That evidence doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny either.
> That is irrelevant to establishing a motive. The emails don't suggest that Clinton was aware of that fact and they do suggest that Mull for some reason thought this information that would be important to Clinton's decision.
The emails don't even suggest that Clinton saw Mull's offer, and they don't suggest that either Abedin or Clinton thought Mull's offer was viable after their experience with the NSA. Why should they waste their time with it if it wasn't going to go anywhere?
> Yes, but this is to be expected.
Exactly. Then why do you use them as your sole source? The Daily Caller article lifts its entire story from Judicial Watch's arguments. If you wanted to learn why those arguments didn't work the first n times, the other side's arguments are out there for you to see.
> They thought it was good enough to proceed with questioning.
He threw them a bone. He denied their motion to depose Clinton and instead sent her a written questionnaire. She returned her answers on October 13, containing exactly the same reasons she gave before for using the Blackberry.
You are making assumptions for which we don't know the answers. Which is exactly why such questions are asked to begin with.
>Then why do you use them as your sole source? The Daily Caller article lifts its entire story from Judicial Watch's arguments. If you wanted to learn why those arguments didn't work the first n times, the other side's arguments are out there for you to see.
Likewise then why do you suggest I simply dismiss claims by taking the other side's argument?
We can also assume it would be a defensive position. Evidence doesn't become no evidence based only on the other side's account. It might be determined to be weak, irrelevant to claims etc based on investigation.
Stating there was no evidence suggests there was 0 basis to make the claim prior to investigation. We don't in hindsight do the investigation and then look back and say the evidence isn't evidence. We can say the evidence wasn't conclusive or didn't support said claims strong enough to investigate further etc.
You are making the claim that Clinton used her private server to skirt FOIA, and your evidence is that the Executive Secretary once sent an email about using a device approved by the State Department. Nowhere in the response does Clinton or anybody on Clinton's team say that they won't use this non-existent device because they want to skirt FOIA, yet somehow this constitutes (the sole) evidence to support your claim. Meanwhile, we have her entire email chain with the NSA and mountains of testimony under oath supporting the other conclusion that she used her personal server simply because she wanted to use her Blackberry.
> Likewise then why do you suggest I simply dismiss claims by taking the other side's argument?
I don't. I'm simply suggesting that you discard arguments that have already been discarded. The side that has been attacking Clinton for 20 years isn't going to tell you which of their arguments didn't hold water.
Edit: This chain has reached maximum depth, and I can't reply any further. Can we agree that there is no reasonable evidence that Clinton used her personal email server in order to skirt FOIA?
I am not making that claim. I am asserting that evidence existed to suggest that is a possibility. I am not trying to prove the claim.
>mountains of testimony under oath
Yes, and this testimony occurred due to evidence that was being investigated.
It seems you are trying to prove to me the outcome or conclusions instead of whether or not any evidence existed.
We already know why she used her own private email server — to use her Blackberry
Then we have JFK, who was prepared to start WWIII over a tiff in Cuba, Eisenhower who threatened nukes over Korea, and Reagan, who thought it was hilarious to joke about signing a law to bomb Russia.
And let's not forget Dick Cheney, who wanted to nuke Iraq, a decade before 9/11.
I dunno, maybe nuking people is less of a big deal for some American leaders, having already done it twice.
Cuba wasn't a 'tiff'. Deploying Soviet nukes to Cuba was an attempt to subvert MAD, which would have made WWIII more likely.
Not getting your Cheney thing. If he said it, was probably a joke. But I doubt it, since Iraq was an Ally at the time.
Nuking Japan likely saved millions of US/UK/AUS/NZ/CAD etc lives, so I don't think you've worked through the numbers, curiously, despite your moralistic, high-brow typing.
2. And what were US nukes in Turkey? (You know, the ones the US removed because the Soviets put nukes in Cuba.)
3. Answered below.
4. The numbers you've carefully "worked through" there are simply an absurd exaggeration of a long discredited myth.
1. Warn them we have nukes
2. Nuke off the coast of a major city so everyone can see what's going on
3. Demand their surrender.
4. Nuke a city if they don't surrender. Wait for them to surrender before continuing...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lw9lg/seeki...
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/22/books/l-gore-vidal-s-ameri...
We may never know.
[Please don't quote Reddit as a ref]
If you haven't browsed it before, I highly recommend looking into it.
1. Nuke city A
2. Demand unconditional surrender
3. Nuke city B
...
Seems Imperial Japan was prepared to go to vol 11 on this, so I don't think your approach would have worked, unfortunately.
Japan had four conditions for surrender.
1: The imperial government stays in power.
2: The imperial government handles disarmament and demobilizing the military.
3: No occupation of Japan or it's territories.
4: The imperial government handles trial and punishment of their war criminals.
First of all, the United Nations did warn Japan to surrender. The Potsdam declaration promised that if the Japanese didn't surrender, "the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." The Japanese prime minister told a press conference on July 28th 1945 that his response to the declaration was "mokusatsu" which apparently has several different translations (either something like "no comment" or something like "to ignore with contempt"). There is some controversy about how that was intended, but Suzuki's next sentence to the reporters was "The only alternative for us is to be determined to continue our fight to the end" which in my mind signals that ignoring was the correct way to interpret it. No matter how you translate it, however, it wasn't the immediate surrender that was the only answer to the Declaration that the United Nations would accept.
There was no mention of nuclear weapons in the Declaration, but remember that in 1945 nuclear weapons weren't a scary thing- it's largely because of what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki that they become taboo, but up to that point they weren't particularly scary to the public at large. The MIT Radiation Laboratory had chosen that name to suggest that it was harmless nuclear physics research, not it's actual highly classified military radar work, as a point at how nuclear physics was viewed in the first half of the 1940's even by physicists, leave alone the public at large.
But I think your plan is a heck of lot riskier than the historical approach, for two reasons.
A) Your plan seems to assume that time is on your side. That simply isn't true. While the numbers are uncertain, I've seen esimates between 20,000 and 50,000 Chinese dying each week the war continued. China was a US ally. If plan AOEUASDF1 takes more than three weeks (or two months if the lower estimates are correct), congratulations, your plan ends up with more total people dead than what happened historically- and the people you've killed are your allies, not your enemies. Great work there, statesman. B) The effect of the bomb was largely psychological, on one single man (who mattered) and a more leisurely approach could well have lessened the psychological impact- and given that there was still a bit of skepticism on the effectiveness of the bomb (running all the way up to Truman) making a big deal of it and then having it turn out to be a flop would vastly reduce those all-important psychological effects.
Recall that after both atomic bombings, the intervention of the Soviets into the war, and the deadliest air raid in history (Operation Meetinghouse, the firebombing of Tokyo back in March actually killed more than either atomic bomb) the key Japanese decision makers, the Big Six, were tied 3-3 on whether to try and negotiate a peace. They'd actually been deadlocked that way since April 1945 when the Suzuki cabinet had been formed. Nothing changed anyone on the Council's minds until very early in the morning of the 10th, many hours after receiving news of the second atomic bombing, Suzuki took the unprecedented step of asking the Emperor what he wanted. He said that he wanted peace. Only at that point did the hardliners give way- both atomic bombs were not sufficient. And even so, it took several more days of discussions with senior military leaders- and an attempt at a coup by junior military leaders- before the Japanese finally surrendered. Given all of that hindsight knowledge (which Truman had no idea about), it seems clear to me that the Japanese surrender was a really near-run thing. Again, none of the three hard-liners in the Big Six changed their mind after two atomic bombs actually destroyed real Japanese cities, killing something like 150,000 people. It does seem to have changed Hirohito's mind, but it's hard to predict what impetus was enough to do that. Given that the earlier firebombing of Tokyo did not cause him to intervene and end the war, and that killed more people, it was clearly something more than just the number of dead that drove Hirohito's decision. I seriously wonder if the idea of an atomic bomb was rolled out more slowly- to give him a chance to get used to it- it would have had as great a psychological shock.
So if you don't change Hirohito's mind then you kill far more people overall. Even with perfect hindsight, I'm not sure that your approach leaves more people alive. Given that I know far more about how the Japanese government of 1945 worked (or didn't, really) than Truman did, it's really hard for me to say he should have done anything other than what he did.
Uhm, that would still expose so many people to radiation. I'm not sure if there's any way it could've been done sanely.
"The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest seaports in southern Japan, and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The four largest companies in the city were Mitsubishi Shipyards, Electrical Shipyards, Arms Plant, and Steel and Arms Works, which employed about 90% of the city's labor force, and accounted for 90% of the city's industry."
"A decade before 9/11" was 1991, which saw the Persian Gulf War. The US and Iraq were most decidedly not allies then.
Actually, the US and Iraq were allies until Iraq invaded Kuwait. Ambassador April Glaspie.
We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as
your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me
to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the
1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with
America.
Until after the Kuwait invasion and until after Thatcher lent H some of her testicles, yeah, Reagan and Bush were Iraqi allies.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Saddam_r...
as defense secretary for the elder Mr. Bush,
Mr. Cheney commissioned a study of how many
tactical nuclear weapons would be needed to
take out an Iraqi Republican Guard division,
if necessary.
(The answer: 17.)
There is no question you'd hear the same or worse. The stress alone in that position makes people say insane shit, I'd be willing to bet.
Amazing what anger can bring you to.
Starting to wonder whether this whole Internet thing was a bad idea.
Sounds like you already know this, but the current president-elect just said the same thing:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-preside...
“The law’s totally on my side," the president-elect told the Times. "The president can’t have a conflict of interest.” Translation: When this president does it, that means it is not illegal. Unlike Nixon, however, I'm starting to worry that Trump's going to get away with this.
Since that is clearly an absurd statement, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant that nothing the president does is legally considered a conflict of interest. In otherwords, the specific laws against conflicts of interest do not apply to the president.
This turns out to be a suprisingly true statement. The only conflict of interest law I could find (after an admitadly brief search) is [0].
I have not thourally reviewed it, but found the following snippet in the definitions section:
"Except as otherwise provided in such sections, the terms “officer” and “employee” in sections 203, 205, 207 through 209, and 218 of this title shall not include the President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, or a Federal judge." [1].
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11
According to Christopher Hitchens "The trial of Henry Kissinger", Kissinger was very much a part of the private diplomacy that crashed the vietnam peace deal.
He later negotiated more or less the same peace deal, only 4 (?) years later and with about a million more dead people. If 10% of that book is true Kissinger is a war criminal that shoud be tried in the Hague.
You read that in a mainstream journal? You were played. You typed it yourself? You've been played. You dreamt it? You're a bard.
> But my favorite quotes are from Nixon about Vietnam. During a spring offensive by the North Vietnamese in 1972, Nixon told Kissinger:
>> We’re going to do it. I’m going to destroy the goddamn country, believe me, I mean destroy it if necessary. And let me say, even the nuclear weapons if necessary. It isn’t necessary. But, you know, what I mean is, what shows you the extent to which I’m willing to go. By a nuclear weapon, I mean that we will bomb the living bejeezus out of North Vietnam and then if anybody interferes we will threaten the nuclear weapons.
> A week later, he continued to a somewhat horrified Kissinger:
>> Nixon: I’d rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that ready?
>> Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.
>> Nixon: A nuclear bomb, does that bother you?… I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christ’s sake! The only place where you and I disagree is with regard to the bombing. You’re so goddamned concerned about civilians, and I don’t give a damn. I don’t care.
>> Kissinger: I’m concerned about the civilians because I don’t want the world to be mobilized against you as a butcher.
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/10/25/nixon-and-the-bomb...