Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label nuremburg trials

Comments On A Speech Delivered By Senator Chris Dodd To The Council On Foreign Relations, October 16, 2006

Dodd’s speech , a little outdated since he has modified his opinions several times since, was titled, “Moral Authority in the 21st Century: Lessons from Nuremberg.” During the past few weeks, Dodd's position on Iraq has evolved to meet changes in president Bush's strategy. He has, variously, agreed to increases in troop levels, and most recently proposed a bill that would restrict the president from increasing troop levels in Iraq. “In a time of war, I have come to our Council today to speak about peace. “Not the kind of peace that is merely the absence of armed conflict. “Not the uneasy and uncertain peace of adversaries warily eying each other over material and philosophical barricades. “Certainly not the false peace of slogans emblazoned on naval warships.” NB But it was precisely the naval warships of World War II, some of which were emblazoned with slogans, and aircraft also emblazoned with war-talk that brought a lasting peace to Europe. “Rather, I speak of a peace th...

Chris Dodd Is No Tom Dodd

You can tell a lot about a person by their either/or’s. “Mr. President,” U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd said in his floor speech before the congress voted to accept a Military Tribunals bill, “the Administration and Republican leadership would have the American people believe that the War on Terrorism requires a choice -- a choice that they seem to showcase every election cycle -- according to them, the United States government can either protect America or uphold the basic tenets upon which our country was founded -- but not both. I fully reject that reasoning.” He is not alone in rejecting this reasoning. Many Republicans, and some Democrats who voted for the bill, would find fault with the either/or Dodd attributes to the Republican Administration and its leadership alone. Most often “enemy combatants” are not US citizens, though they may be. The question at issue is: Should non-US citizens be afforded the protections of the US Constitution, when they have pledged themselves to destroy both t...