Fred Thompson: Whatever is Necessary
Posted on December 5, 2007
Compare this to Huckabee’s view on waterboarding. From the Charlie Rose interview:
Thompson: I’m telling you, as President, if the lives of a bunch of American citizens were at stake and I thought that there was a good chance that an individual had information and could impart information that would help save those lives, I’m just saying, that I would do whatever is necessary to get that information from that person. I would authorize that. Whatever is necessary to save a number of American lives.
Thanks to Cuffy who says this locks up the Jack Bauer Caucus.
» Filed Under ACLU, News, Politics As Usual, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
11 Responses to “Fred Thompson: Whatever is Necessary”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Freddy has gotten quite far with such little talent.
The string-pullers don’t want him as pres.
Say hello to your next figurehead: Sen. Chillary Rotlouse Chill-in.
Rush:
That’s a characterization that I think any conservative would identify with and be proud of. I know I agree with every fiber in my body that “government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.”
Now let’s talk about this statement by Thompson. Do you see the hypocrisy yet?
Thompson is asserting that he, as President, would be justified in doing anything he deems necessary under a certain, somewhat hazy set of hypothetical circumstances. Laws and treaties be damned, Thompson will do “whatever is necessary.”
That sure sounds like he’s empowering himself. It also sounds like he’s setting us up for perpetual dependence because you know damn well that our use of torture (and whatever else Thompson deems “necessary”) will perpetuate any animosity towards us.
In short, Rush’s quote is a line of crap. Conservatives constantly treat us like victims. We’re victims of a relentlessly militaristic religion. We’re victims of drugs. We’re victims of deviant sexuality and other immorality.
Modern conservatism is more than happy to label us as victims. You just choose to be condescending about a different set of issues.
I have to agree with Jeff Molby for the most part. The President takes an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and that includes the “cruel and unusual” clause. Any action that causes more pain than death by strangulation would definitely be cruel and unusual. I get that definition from the law of the land used at the time the U.S. Constitution became law.
POINT- If my kids was in harms way I would do anything in my power to get them out! The president of the United States should do the same for the citizens of the U.S.A. Who ever thinks different well you should not be an American and you would be the first person to sacrifice many lives to save your own.
Comparing roughing up a bad guy in order to get info to save thousands of lives as not empowering us and making us helpless victims is dishonest. Not doing what was necessary to get the info would definitely make us all become victims. Dead ones.
You’re right, but that’s not the only factor either. There’s the whole “due process” owed to anyone in the country legally and treaties that apply to most everyone else.
Who’s being dishonest?
He said, “Whatever is necessary to save a number of American lives.” You changed that to “thousands” and “all”.
BTW, is this “bad guy” wearing a black hat? How are you so certain he’s actually a bad guy? Are our grunts omniscient? Our LEOs? Our lawmakers? ANYONE? No. They are all fallible. That’s why our laws set forth a rigorous examination of the evidence known as “due process”.
As Kerwin pointed out, the President swears to uphold the Constitution. That’s his job. If he takes care of that, the rest will fall in place for the most part. There will certainly be tragedies, but surely you’re not foolish enough to think you can create a perfect world of peace and happiness.
On the other hand, if he fails to protect the Constitution (or willfully undermines it), it won’t matter two licks whether he manages to save a few lives today. This country is only “free” while the rule of law prevails. If anyone can literally suspend the law at his (or her) discretion, we are not free. This should be self-evident.
I know what Patrick Henry would say about Thompson’s statement.
No, we aren’t victims of a militaristic religion, we’re just targets of it! Numbnut! To stick our heads in the sand and pretend that we aren’t is just more foolish modern leftism. Alluding to documents which one obviously hasn’t read is ignorant and only fools ignoram-[edited]. The cruel and unusual punishment sentence in the constitution has nothing to do with the military. It deals with CIVIL punishments to CIVILIAN CITIZENS period. I’ll bet both of them are against my constitutional right to own and use a machine gun.
The part that you’re missing is that it isn’t (or at least isn’t supposed to be) within the President’s power to do “whatever is necessary.” The Constitution (the supreme law of the land, btw) lays out what his powers are. Those powers are further clarified by subordinate laws.
If you believe he can do X despite X [not*] being within his authority, you have subjected us to the rule of men when this country was designed to be ruled by law. That is un-American.
And how old are you that you thought name-calling would help your argument?
I suppose I should have been more clear, but I was just using the same sentence structure that Rush used.
Liberals believe that we are targets of evil corporations and we need to be protected from them. Liberals believe that we are targets of evil racism and we must be protected from it. And so on and so on.
Conservatives believe we are the targets of evil Muslims and must be protected from them. Conservatives believe we need to be protected from the evils of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine, just to name a few. There are all sorts of evil that conservatives believe we must be protected from.
I say, go ahead and do all of the above if you wish, but make damn sure you do it within the confines of the Constitution. My family and I will handle it from there.
I’ll gladly put my comprehension of the Constitution up against yours, but kerwin raised the “cruel and unusual” clause, so I’ll let him handle that one.
No, I’m not. My guess is that Kerwin isn’t either.
In fact, make sure you get the one with the grenade launcher attached. If we keep electing people who will brazenly usurp authority, it’s only a matter of time before we’ll need them.
*-edited for clarification per commenter request – Editing Dept.
Dear Editing Dept,
Would you mind tossing a “not” in after the second X?
You know what. Where was The Constitution when are troops was beheaded and dismembered. These terrorists have changed the rules and if we keep playing by the rules we are going to die by it. So if i could torture a terrorists to save 1 human i would so be it. Because if they had us we would be died. These left a holes don’t have any balls and are scared if they do something to make the terorist made at them they will come for them. Liberal Democrats are spineless and will do anything they can to save there own ass even shield them selfs with there kids. Liberals always run and hide or fight unfair just as a terorist does.
The life of the many out wieghs the life of the one.
Mike, if only you could understand the irony in your rant….
You accuse me of being spineless and running and hiding, yet it is I that have acknowledged and accepted the risk of living in a free society. I may be killed by madmen. My son may be killed by madmen.
Yet, I accept that risk because I cherish freedom. You are willing to trade your freedom for (the illusion of) security.
If that makes me a coward in your book, I need to buy you a dictionary for Christmas.