• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Osama Bin Laden Raid Wasn't Based On CIA Torture Interrogations, Senators Say

So then, do you agree that under US law, waterboarding is an illegal act?

Didn't say it was or wasn't. In order to determine it, the actual facts (not just the label "waterboarding") must be put up against the relevant law.

Myself, I have a hard time seeing where what actually occurred inflicts "severe pain or suffering." Others disagree. That's why there are 12 on a jury.
 
Didn't say it was or wasn't.
Really? Because you just got done raking me over the coals over your interpretation, and now when you question me on it being illegal, you were not questioning the illegality of it? The basis of your question was that it was not illegal.

In order to determine it, the actual facts (not just the label "waterboarding") must be put up against the relevant law.
I have already cited the laws, there is no doubt that the act is illegal under US law. Again, you refuse to accept that it is an illegal act and now want to parse it by going off on another flight of fancy where you have to "examine it on a case by case basis". I wasn't asking you to examine any case, to determine what the specifics of any theoretical case was, I am asking you the straight up question: "Do you understand the waterboarding is an illegal act under US law"?
 
Really? Because you just got done raking me over the coals over your interpretation, and now when you question me on it being illegal, you were not questioning the illegality of it? The basis of your question was that it was not illegal.

I asked you if it was. It doesn't mean I took a position on it.


I have already cited the laws, there is no doubt that the act is illegal under US law. Again, you refuse to accept that it is an illegal act and now want to parse it by going off on another flight of fancy where you have to "examine it on a case by case basis". I wasn't asking you to examine any case, to determine what the specifics of any theoretical case was, I am asking you the straight up question: "Do you understand the waterboarding is an illegal act under US law"?

No, you asked me if I agreed it was illegal.

I told you what needs to happen in order to determine that, and it is aboslutely NOT "hypothetical." Does the due process of law and the court system mean nothing to you? Apparently not. So much for being some kind of stalwart defender of the law. You appear to want to conflict on slogans, not fact.

And I told you which part of the relevant law I had "doubts" over, and it's a reasonable position to take. Now, truth be told, I knew while I was typing it you'd never be able to handle the subtlety of the point, and surprise surprise, you couldn't.
 
I asked you if it was. It doesn't mean I took a position on it.
Looks like you are trying to take some position, but it appears to be very awkward.




No, you asked me if I agreed it was illegal.

I told you what needs to happen in order to determine that, and it is aboslutely NOT "hypothetical." Does the due process of law and the court system mean nothing to you? Apparently not. So much for being some kind of stalwart defender of the law. You appear to want to conflict on slogans, not fact.

And I told you which part of the relevant law I had "doubts" over, and it's a reasonable position to take. Now, truth be told, I knew while I was typing it you'd never be able to handle the subtlety of the point, and surprise surprise, you couldn't.
Again, I am not asking you to examine a case or example. I am asking you, do you agree that under US law, waterboarding is illegal?

Of course in a court, it would be determined if the act committed was or was not waterboarding, but once that is determined the law takes over.

You continue to avoid by arguing over the application, I am not talking about any specific application, or case. If I asked you whether theft of property is illegal, would you have the same trouble in responding?

And just to note, this is again part of your MO, you just can't be reasonable.
 
Last edited:
Looks like you are trying to take some position, but it appears to be very awkward.

Dude. I asked you back up your assertion. This does not require me to take any position.


Again, I am not asking you to examine a case or example. I am asking you, do you agree that under US law, waterboarding is illegal?

Dude. Look.

In order to determine whether or not something is illegal, you have to examine it. Why is this so hard to understand?

You continue to avoid by arguing over the application, I am not talking about any specific application, or case. If I asked you whether theft of property is illegal, would you have the same trouble in responding?

Considering "theft" has a legal definition, and "waterboarding" does not, this is a very poor analogy.

But hey, if you want an answer to the literal question, "is waterboarding illegal under US law," without examining any facts, then the answer is a definitive "no." Because "waterboarding" is not mentioned IN US law.

I have no doubt that you don't understand what I'm getting at here, but hey. It takes all kinds.


And just to note, this is again part of your MO, you just can't be reasonable.

You're asking poor questions and making silly demands, and you can't even keep track of what you say, not only from post to post, but even within the same post, at times.
 
OK, *I* didn't do anything you're saying here. But on these points, fine; I shouldn't have agreed so quickly.

I meant to aim it to Dana.
 
Dude. Look.

In order to determine whether or not something is illegal, you have to examine it. Why is this so hard to understand?
Again, I not asking you to determine that any specific instance is illegal, I am asking you if you understand that there are laws in the US banning waterboarding. Why are you being so obtuse?



Considering "theft" has a legal definition, and "waterboarding" does not, this is a very poor analogy.

But hey, if you want an answer to the literal question, "is waterboarding illegal under US law," without examining any facts, then the answer is a definitive "no." Because "waterboarding" is not mentioned IN US law.

I have no doubt that you don't understand what I'm getting at here, but hey. It takes all kinds.
It doesn't have to be since torture is illegal and waterboarding has been found to be a form of torture, ie, waterboarding is an illegal act under US law.



You're asking poor questions and making silly demands, and you can't even keep track of what you say, not only from post to post, but even within the same post, at times.
All you have are very silly semantic games that are totally pointless.
 
Last edited:
Again, I not asking you to determine that any specific act is illegal, I am asking you if you understand that there are laws in the US banning waterboarding? Why are you being so obtuse?

It doesn't have to be since torture is illegal and waterboarding has been found to be a form of torture, ie, waterboarding is an illegal act under US law.

It is almost certain that you do not understand you just contradicted yourself. (Again.)


All you have are very silly semantic games that are totally pointless.

Yes, silly "semantic" games like discussing things under the terms of how "illegality" is actually determined. :lamo
 
Yes, silly "semantic" games like discussing things under the terms of how "illegality" is actually determined.
Again, it wasn't a question of determining its illegality, that is already a fact in case law.

The question was whether or not you understand those laws exists in the US.
 
Last edited:
Again, it wasn't a question of determining its illegality, that is already a fact in case law.

No, it isn't. (Your law review article doesn't even claim this.) This is what you simply don't follow. And if something called "waterboarding" had been found to be torture, it does not mean that what happened in 2003 fits the same description.

This is why you have to apply law to actual fact.

:2brickwal


The question was whether or not you understand that law exists in the US.

I understand that you're incompetent to be discussing this with any sense of authority.
 
No, it isn't. (Your law review article doesn't even claim this.) This is what you simply don't follow. And if something called "waterboarding" had been found to be torture, it does not mean that what happened in 2003 fits the same description.
What in the world are you talking about? In US v Lee (1984) the act was recognized as waterboarding, it was found to be a violation of the "Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore it would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000dd and 2000dd-0 prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment."

It is an illegal act under US law.




This is why you have to apply law to actual fact.
You are still going in circles on the instance. You are trying to say the law forbidding an act does not exist because the offense has not happened. This is such a bizarro viewpoint. The laws against torture exist, waterboarding has been determined to be torture under US civil, criminal and military law, under international laws that we are a party to.






I understand that you're incompetent to be discussing this with any sense of authority.
Nice English, but the personal insults won't get you anywhere other than a banning.
 
Last edited:
What in the world are you talking about? In US v Lee (1984) the act was recognized as waterboarding, it was found to be a violation of the "Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore it would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000dd and 2000dd-0 prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment."

It is an illegal act under US law.

Really?

Here's the highest US v. Lee got:

744 F.2d 1124

One circuit court, nothing involving "torture" was affirmed.

The word "waterboarding" is nowhere in the district court case being affirmed, and best you can say about it is that for one single district in Texas, some form of pouring water on a suspect was called, though not legally found to be, torture.

This is by no means the same as saying "waterboarding is torture under US law." Violating the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments does not establish this.

The ways to distinguish this case from anything we're discussing here are legion.


You are still going in circles on the instance.

Only because you're going there first.


You are trying to say the law forbidding an act does not exist because the offense has not happened.

No, I'm trying to sat that the law forbidding an act does not exist because the law forbidding the act does not exist.


This is such a bizarro viewpoint.

That's because you have no idea what you're talking about.


The laws against torture exist

:2brickwal

To which you have to apply facts in order to determine if something fits it.


waterboarding has been determined to be torture under US civil, criminal

Show me where.


and military law, under international laws that we are a party to.

Both of which are inapplicable in this discussion.


Nice English, but the personal insults won't get you anywhere other than a banning.

Whatever. It still doesn't make it incorrect. You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
That is the APPEAL, and even it mentioned the charges.
Lee was indicted along with two other deputies, Floyd Baker and James Glover, and the County Sheriff, James Parker, based on a number of incidents in which prisoners were subjected to a "water torture" in order to prompt confessions to various crimes.

The fact that one cannot comprehend the laws presented, the cases presented citing the laws, or understanding the cases they bring up.....is not my problem.
 
Last edited:
That is the APPEAL, and even it mentioned the charges.

The fact that one cannot comprehend the laws presented, the cases presented citing the laws, or understanding the cases they bring up.....is not my problem.

The actual "fact" is that you do not "comprehend" anything I said in my post.

This is 100% legally accurate:

One circuit court, nothing involving "torture" was affirmed.

The word "waterboarding" is nowhere in the district court case being affirmed, and best you can say about it is that for one single district in Texas, some form of pouring water on a suspect was called, though not legally found to be, torture.

This is by no means the same as saying "waterboarding is torture under US law." Violating the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments does not establish this.

The ways to distinguish this case from anything we're discussing here are legion.

Your poor understanding of how caselaw actually works NOTwithstanding.
 
I do, because it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of neoconservatism, no matter how many times I have tried to tell Dan correctly over the years.

1) Neoconservatism is partly a left-wing concept, and partly a liberal one, and recently a conservative one. Not exclusively leftist.
2) Irving Kristol was a member of neoconservatism, but not necessarily a pillar of how to understand it. The most famous neoconservative, to be sure, but using him as the neoconservative to be looked at is idiotic at best. Not only is it difficult to figure out where he stood on the recent Iraq War, but you are carrying his intellectual and professional experiences to that of a diverse group of people. A pillar would be what form of neoconservatism it was: domestic, foreign policy from the 1960s-1980s, or foreign policy from the 1990s-2000s.
3) Irving Kristol was not a "card-carrying member of the Communist Party." Had Dan ever read or watched interviews with many of that young group of New York Intellectuals he would have quickly realized it was the Trostkyists who continuously were ignored by the Communist party, because the young men of the party were forbidden to talk to anyone who was not a Stalinist. They were the enemies of the Communist Party, not friends, let alone the same.
4) Leo Strauss' students and informal followers represents one wing out of many of the neoconservative persuasion.
5) Why did you pick Irving Kristol and Leo Struass? Why not Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz? Why not Irving Kristol and Robert Kagan? Leo Strauss is to neoconservatism as Sidney Hook, Lionel Trilling, and Henry Scoop Jackson are to Neoconservatism.
6) That is a highly debatable position of Leo Strauss's work that he promoted the "noble lie," especially in the manner you perceive. Further, I find it odd you are wrapping Hitler with a guy that left Germany because he was Jewish during Hitler's reign and wrote at length about the Nazi menace.
7) You falsely connect Leo Strauss to the neoconservative impulse for the war in Iraq. Not only does it presume that they purposely lied, rather than cherry picked information to suit their preconceived notions for Saddam's guilt, you also presume Leo Strauss had a hold on the neoconservative movement as a whole, and further, that his ideas were actually used to conduct the war. You ignore the work of Fukuyama who suggested that if anything, neoconservatives had not listened to Strauss, who was arguably highly skeptical of such enterprises to begin with.

I strongly disagree.

1) Trotskyists WERE Communists. They happened to adhere to the purist Lenninist line of Communism, and were against Stalinism, for its abandonment of Communist principles and embracing of dictatorship. But make no mistake. Trotskyists WERE Communists.

2) As for Leo Strauss, it cannot be denied that it was he who brought the concept of Noble Lies into the Neoconservative movement. He taught Noble Lies in at least one of his courses for years at the University of Chicago.
 
Last edited:
The actual "fact" is that you do not "comprehend" anything I said in my post.

This is 100% legally accurate:



Your poor understanding of how caselaw actually works NOTwithstanding.
Har, the appeal wasn't a retrial of the convictions, it only concerned whether Lee was due his severance pay. If you really believe that original trial did not convict the accused of violating the civil rights of the 6 prisoners by waterboarding, dig it up and prove me wrong, go ahead.
 
Last edited:
In 1983, the Department of Justice affirmed that the use of water torture techniques was
indeed criminal conduct under U.S. law. Sheriff James Parker of San Jacinto County, Texas, was
charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over
their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be
confessions. The officers were charged with violations of the prisoners’ civil rights.

Count One of the Indictment asserted that the defendants conspired to:
...subject prisoners to a suffocating “water torture” ordeal in order to coerce
confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and
mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner
began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or
drowning.

The Sheriff and his deputies were all convicted by a jury under Count One, (as well as
under other counts alleging constitutional violations for the same conduct), resulting in at least
a four year sentence on that Count. The trial included testimony of another former deputy that
the Sheriff and the other Defendants “gave [a prisoner] the water treatment:”
A towel was draped over his head. He was pulled back in the chair and water was
poured over the towel.

"Ex-Deputy Tells Jury of Jail Water Torture, New York Times, 1 September, 1983".

The victims’ testimony was strikingly familiar to other instances of water torture at other
times and places :
Q: Were you frightened?
A: Yes.
Q: What were you afraid of?
A: Afraid of drowning; it was hard to breath.

Testimony of former inmate Kevin Coffman.

...My hands was handcuffed up under the table and water was poured into the face of the
towel until I started suffering a state of suffocation and I felt that my life was in danger.

Testimony of former inmate Craig Punch.

“I thought I was going to drown”
Testimony of former inmate James Hicks.

On an appeal by one of the deputies the Fifth Circuit described the trial below:

Lee was indicted along with two other deputies, Floyd Baker and James Glover,
and the County Sheriff, James Parker, based on a number of incidents in which
prisoners were subjected to a “water torture” in order to prompt confessions to
various crimes. On the morning trial was to begin, Floyd Baker's counsel
informed the court and his co-defendants that Baker intended to admit the
government's allegations were true but would argue that he did not have the “state
of mind” required for criminal liability. Lee, Glover and Parker each intended to
defend on the ground that they did not participate in any torture incidents and
were unaware that any such incidents were taking place. Counsel for the other
defendants immediately moved for severance. The district court deferred a ruling
on these motions pending some clarification of exactly what Baker's defense and
testimony would be.
At trial, Baker's defense as developed by his counsel and his testimony rested on
two points. The first was that he actively participated in only a single torture
episode, and then only because ordered to do so by his superiors-a “Nuremberg
defense.” The second was that while he believed the torture of prisoners immoral,
he did not at the time think it was illegal. In the course of Baker's testimony, he
identified Lee as a participant in the torture of several prisoners. Seven other
witnesses also connected Lee with various torture incidents. At the close of the
evidence, the district judge severed Baker, and put the case of the remaining
defendants to the jury. Lee was convicted on three counts.

Lee’s conviction was affirmed on appeal, and all the defendants received substantial
prison sentences. United States District Judge James DeAnda’s comments at sentencing were
telling. He told the former Sheriff that he had allowed law enforcement to “...fall into the hands
of a bunch of thugs....The operation down there would embarrass the dictator of a country.”

ExSheriff Given Ten Year Sentence, New York Times, 27 October, 1983 (emphasis added)

http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/wallach_drop_by_drop_draft_20061016.pdf
 
I strongly disagree.

1) Trotskyists WERE Communists. They happened to adhere to the purist Lenninist line of Communism, and were against Stalinism, for its abandonment of Communist principles and embracing of dictatorship. But make no mistake. Trotskyists WERE Communists.

2) As for Leo Strauss, it cannot be denied that it was he who brought the concept of Noble Lies into the Neoconservative movement. He taught Noble Lies in at least one of his courses for years at the University of Chicago.

You strongly disagree, but you only put two points up?

1) Not a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. You stated it, you were incorrect. Furthermore, a select number of people were Trotskyists or other Socialists, and they had been almost unilaterally removed from their left-wing radicalism. You conveniently ignore the many others in the neoconservative movement, including the foreign policy ranks that had no background either in Strauss or Socialism.

2) So what? That's his job as a philosophy professor when teaching Plato. The noble lie does not usually carry over into the meaning you meant it to. There are plenty of scholars who have put out texts on Strauss if you want a peak. What is amusing is you don't even follow the normal line of the conspiracy theory. The theory is supposed to be that Strauss talked to certain promising students outside of class, something which has incredibly little proof to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Har, the appeal wasn't a retrial of the convictions, it only concerned whether Lee was due his severance pay. If you really believe that original trial did not convict the accused of violating the civil rights of the 6 prisoners by waterboarding, dig it up and prove me wrong, go ahead.

:roll: I never made that claim.
 
Well, see, some of us actually hold the opinion that dropping a nuclear weapon on a civilian city is a monstrous thing to do under any circumstances.

Say, when someone deliberately targets civilians with an explosive device to compel some sort of action on part of their government, what do they call it these days?

The same thing it was called then. We just looked the other way because victory was forgiven. We, as a convenient people, always find time to criticize the behaviors and actions of the past after we have far removed ourselves from the event. Our convenience is pathetic. Given the scenario, we would slaughter and slaughter today. And our great grandchildren would later condemn us for it because now they are conceniently removed.

I believe in human nature. Not the ideal fantasy of what that is.
 
Har, the appeal wasn't a retrial of the convictions, it only concerned whether Lee was due his severance pay. If you really believe that original trial did not convict the accused of violating the civil rights of the 6 prisoners by waterboarding, dig it up and prove me wrong, go ahead.
:roll: I never made that claim.
Yes you did, right here:
One circuit court, nothing involving "torture" was affirmed.

The word "waterboarding" is nowhere in the district court case being affirmed, and best you can say about it is that for one single district in Texas, some form of pouring water on a suspect was called, though not legally found to be, torture.

This is by no means the same as saying "waterboarding is torture under US law."
What part of "water torture" is not "torture", what part of "water torture" is not waterboarding? What part of "water torture" is not a legal violation of ones civil rights?

Carl Lee was jointly tried with three fellow San Jacinto County, Texas law enforcement officers on charges of violating and conspiring to violate the civil rights of prisoners in their custody. The sole issue Lee presses in this appeal is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying him a severance. Finding no abuse, we affirm.

I.

2
Lee was indicted along with two other deputies, Floyd Baker and James Glover, and the County Sheriff, James Parker, based on a number of incidents in which prisoners were subjected to a "water torture" in order to prompt confessions to various crimes. On the morning trial was to begin, Floyd Baker's counsel informed the court and his co-defendants that Baker intended to admit the government's allegations were true but would argue that he did not have the "state of mind" required for criminal liability. Lee, Glover and Parker each intended to defend on the ground that they did not participate in any torture incidents and were unaware that any such incidents were taking place. Counsel for the other defendants immediately moved for severance. The district court deferred a ruling on these motions pending some clarification of exactly what Baker's defense and testimony would be.

3
At trial, Baker's defense as developed by his counsel and his testimony rested on two points. The first was that he actively participated in only a single torture episode, and then only because ordered to do so by his superiors--a "Nuremberg defense." The second was that while he believed the torture of prisoners immoral, he did not at the time think it was illegal. In the course of Baker's testimony, he identified Lee as a participant in the torture of several prisoners. Seven other witnesses also connected Lee with various torture incidents. At the close of the evidence, the district judge severed Baker, and put the case of the remaining defendants to the jury. Lee was convicted on three counts.744 F.2d 1124

Again, that is one page from a multipage appeal, the original case was United States v. Parker et al, CR-H-83-66 (S.D. Tex., 1983), but so far I can only find the NYT articles about it, not the actual transcript.

If a jury is presented with a case where the civil rights of those detained were violated by the "water torture", it seems as though they recognized that water torture is torture and a violation of US law.

I guess what you are grasping at is the specious argument that "waterboarding" is not specifically spelled out as a method of torture in US law (but then neither has putting bamboo shoot under finger nails, or the removal of finger nails), even tough many courts have found that it does meet the criteria.
 
Ugh. This simply did not happen. Everyone who was executed was executed for a stack of heinous crimes, well above and beyond "waterboarding."

Cutting heads off. Starvation. Cruel and unusual punishment. "Waterboarding."

After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents.
Paul Begala: Yes, National Review, We Did Execute Japanese for Waterboarding

I don't understand why people run from their histories. Are we Europeans now? We get to pretend that the past didn't happen? This simply did happen. Own it. I do...and shrug.
 
Last edited:
I think it was Cheney or a Bush advisor that claimed the Arab spring was due to the Iraqi invasion.

There is truth to this. There have been three occassions where Arab countries all followed each other down the same path in just the last century. The first occassion was directly after World War I when they all rose up against their leaderships, one after another, and demanded democracy and freedoms against their European colonizers. The second occassion was after World War II during the Age of Independence when they led coups against their colonizers and local leaderships, one after another, and the desert sprang forth all militant dictators. The third is this new "Arab Spring," which kicked off because of a man in Tunisia. But, obviously, a single man's anger isn't enough to erupt an entire Arab community. This was brewing and boiling ever since Arabs in Iraq voted for the laws that would govern them in 2003 (a first in history, mind you). That famous picture of Iraqis with purple fingers has been mimicked in other pictures in Tunisia, Egypt and a few days ago, in Syria. The man in Tunisia that set himself on fire was the "Arch Duke Ferdinand" event of the Middle East that sparked the powder keg.

Is it such a far cry to suggest that the entire Arab world has been watching Iraq unfold? Is it a far cry to suggest that Arab governments around Iraq was more than happy to see their Sunni fighters cross Iraqi borders to slaughter Shia and disrupt any sense of demoratic progress?

The Islamic Arab world is one. It is one community. They have shown enough times that imaginary borders, drawn in by outsiders, do not define the Arab people.
 
Last edited:
I do, because it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of neoconservatism, no matter how many times I have tried to tell Dan correctly over the years.

1) Neoconservatism is partly a left-wing concept, and partly a liberal one, and recently a conservative one. Not exclusively leftist.
2) Irving Kristol was a member of neoconservatism, but not necessarily a pillar of how to understand it. The most famous neoconservative, to be sure, but using him as the neoconservative to be looked at is idiotic at best. Not only is it difficult to figure out where he stood on the recent Iraq War, but you are carrying his intellectual and professional experiences to that of a diverse group of people. A pillar would be what form of neoconservatism it was: domestic, foreign policy from the 1960s-1980s, or foreign policy from the 1990s-2000s.
3) Irving Kristol was not a "card-carrying member of the Communist Party." Had Dan ever read or watched interviews with many of that young group of New York Intellectuals he would have quickly realized it was the Trostkyists who continuously were ignored by the Communist party, because the young men of the party were forbidden to talk to anyone who was not a Stalinist. They were the enemies of the Communist Party, not friends, let alone the same.
4) Leo Strauss' students and informal followers represents one wing out of many of the neoconservative persuasion.
5) Why did you pick Irving Kristol and Leo Struass? Why not Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz? Why not Irving Kristol and Robert Kagan? Leo Strauss is to neoconservatism as Sidney Hook, Lionel Trilling, and Henry Scoop Jackson are to Neoconservatism.
6) That is a highly debatable position of Leo Strauss's work that he promoted the "noble lie," especially in the manner you perceive. Further, I find it odd you are wrapping Hitler with a guy that left Germany because he was Jewish during Hitler's reign and wrote at length about the Nazi menace.
7) You falsely connect Leo Strauss to the neoconservative impulse for the war in Iraq. Not only does it presume that they purposely lied, rather than cherry picked information to suit their preconceived notions for Saddam's guilt, you also presume Leo Strauss had a hold on the neoconservative movement as a whole, and further, that his ideas were actually used to conduct the war. You ignore the work of Fukuyama who suggested that if anything, neoconservatives had not listened to Strauss, who was arguably highly skeptical of such enterprises to begin with.

Neocon, today is the code word for the old term of "Dirty Jew." I guess some of it truely does have to do with antisemitism for some, but personally it probably has more to do with the left not liking those who left their camp. They are no longer fellow travelers and hence are attacked.
 
Back
Top Bottom