Really?
So wouldn't kick up a stink if those evil Arabs wrongly abused, or tortured an Israeli?
10 'torture' techniques blessed by Bush
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
Really?
So wouldn't kick up a stink if those evil Arabs wrongly abused, or tortured an Israeli?
I am pro torture.
See what you got out of me with a little duress??
You've said enough for anyone to know your position on this matter little man.
Probably has something to do with your childhood.
Bullied at school where you?
Poor lamb.
Of course I would.
Violence to protect democracy that affords us the platform to debate this is far more acceptable than the violent regimes that would torture you for just debating.
.
An excellent personal attack. Perhaps you should work for the CIA.
The level of civility seems to be going down in this thread. You know who you are. Kindly stop it.
It seems to be working in israel also.
how can they fire rockets after we tortured them....this is blasphemy lets carpet bomb the civilians now. That'll teach them.
When did they carpet bomb civilians ?
they would if fearless was in charge. nevertheless they did kill thousands of civilians.
Sultan,
You're asking a rational question... these clowns don't digest reason.
Asking them to consider the horrors committed against middle-eastern people is beyond their conceptual boundaries because it's all done in the goal of 'Freedom'.
By the way... when is this thread going to get back on the origonal principals of 'Lawful' and 'Unlawful' or 'War Crime' vs. 'Legal Interigation'
I'm disturbed by some of what has come to light.
I'm also extremely amused by some of what the media is focusing on instead of actually dealing with the actual "torture" questions.
For example, this repeated reference to "using insects". As I understand, this was a person who is afraid of caterpillars, and they put a sealed box with a caterpillar in his cell and told him what was in it. Beware the Evil Butterfly?
Focus on the actual issues.
And for the record, "rendition" and "coerced interrogation techniques" were all initially approved by the greatest Democratic president of the century - William Jefferson Clinton.
If you want to go after the one, you need to go after the other.
Except that we know that intellectual honesty has nothing at all to do with the deep rooted desire for blood here.
I'm also extremely amused by some of what the media is focusing on instead of actually dealing with the actual "torture" questions.
For example, this repeated reference to "using insects". As I understand, this was a person who is afraid of caterpillars, and they put a sealed box with a caterpillar in his cell and told him what was in it. Beware the Evil Butterfly?
Focus on the actual issues.
And for the record, "rendition" and "coerced interrogation techniques" were all initially approved by the greatest Democratic president of the century - William Jefferson Clinton.
If you want to go after the one, you need to go after the other.
Except that we know that intellectual honesty has nothing at all to do with the deep rooted desire for blood here.
The torture memos as fact are being discussed ad infinitum (rightly so), but there is something no one seems to be noticing here that bothers me a lot.
From a lawyer's/democrat's point of view I am beyond the beyond of frightened and disgusted at the idea of prosecuting (persecuting) attorneys who give legal opinions which a later administration or the media does not agree with.
My wife is a public defender. She represents drug dealers, murderers and all sorts of lovely folk. All of her papers are in the possession of the government, so they could attempt to release them to the media at any time. No doubt there are unpopular or controversial legal arguments in there. Mrs. Rh for the Hague?
Want to end all basic legal freedoms in this country? Want to guarantee there are no attorneys to ever work for the Executive Branch except pimply-faced inexperienced political yes men of either party?
Just try it.
That's why I'm sure Obama will never do it. I'm just disturbed that a free press and the McCarthyist witch-burners in Congress would seriously continually beat the drum about seeking to jail attorneys who happen to have given legal opinions contrary to their own in confidential communications with a client whose papers were later released by a third party.
That's the kind of thing that totalitarian fascists do.
From a lawyer's/democrat's point of view I am beyond the beyond of frightened and disgusted at the idea of prosecuting (persecuting) attorneys who give legal opinions which a later administration or the media does not agree with.
My wife is a public defender. She represents drug dealers, murderers and all sorts of lovely folk. All of her papers are in the possession of the government, so they could attempt to release them to the media at any time. No doubt there are unpopular or controversial legal arguments in there. Mrs. Rh for the Hague?
Want to end all basic legal freedoms in this country? Want to guarantee there are no attorneys to ever work for the Executive Branch except pimply-faced inexperienced political yes men of either party?
Just try it.
That's why I'm sure Obama will never do it. I'm just disturbed that a free press and the McCarthyist witch-burners in Congress would seriously continually beat the drum about seeking to jail attorneys who happen to have given legal opinions contrary to their own in confidential communications with a client whose papers were later released by a third party.
That's the kind of thing that totalitarian fascists do.
Facts don't matter.
Jews are evil.
Everyone ever killed by a Jew is a civilian small child with a limp - like Tiny Tim in 'A Christmas Carol'.
Scrooge - that even sounds like a name-changing Jewish thing.
It sounded like the only reason you opposed what happened was on the basis that he was "one of your own", but I presume you meant someone was "wrongly" tortured, and you were implying Fearless only didn't care because they were Arabs.
To be fair to Fearless though, I've never seen you go on a rant about Jews getting murdered and attacked, just like he's never gone on a rant about Muslims being murdered and attacked.
Both of you have a propensity for only looking after "one of your own".
yes, clearly the totalitarian fascists aren't the one who believed themselves above the constitution and the rule of law by authorizing torture.
the totalitarian fascists are the ones who want to hold the law breakers accountable.
clearly.
Most definately, scoop up Slick Willy, as well. I'm sure you wouldn't get much of an argument from Hillary. I'm sure she's been looking for a reason to get out of that relationship, for years.
It was 3 and of those 3 there shouldn't be 1 tear shed.
Wht is not to get? It sounds like putting one of these dogs on a board and sprinkling some water on his face got information that stopped a Twin Toweresque attack in Los Angeles. Well worth it in my opinion. I'd bet if you asked anyone that works in the intended target they'd agree.
If it's about lawful and unlawful then this thread is over right? It was deemed legal at the time and everyday we're hearing as this was being discussed several politicians on both sides were aware of wht was going to happen. Unless Nancy Pelosi can say she wasn't paying attention. Not that hard to believe.
How dare you utter the words Cl*nt*n without the sacred symbols and chants. You must be attempting to divert attention away from the real issues.
Lets have a vote here... how many would be willing to let one innocent die so that five innocents don't get waterboarded?
Lots of typos today, CR.
Another one too many Tangeray and Tonics at the Grill, maybe?
Just noticed the time, you either woke up late or had an early liquid lunch, which is it?
Another one too many Tangeray and Tonics at the Grill, maybe?
Just noticed the time, you either woke up late or had an early liquid lunch, which is it?
Someone order up some drinks because it doesn't look like we are going to be discussing the topic, on this day.
How many times are we going to have to say it... asking if it was 'worth it' does not negate the fact that crimes could have been committed.
Essentially, you are asking people to choose ignorance.
Bottom line, correct?
i cry for our country when so many are willing to embrace torture and unchecked, unconstitutional executive power
this did not happen. the library tower plot was abandoned years before it was supposedly foiled by our heroic waterboarderers.
if nancy pelosi was briefed on torture and approved it, she should be thrown in a cell with the rest of the war criminals.
link me to where clinton authorized torture. clinton, of course, was impeached by the republicans for committing perjury in a civil trial. for violating the precious rule of law republicans hold so dear. bush, cheney, et al, illegally authorized torture, violating the constitution and multiple international agreements, not to mention two hundred plus years of american policy. to punish them is now is to apparently criminalize political differences. priceless.
Jailing lawyers for expressing legal opinions you do not share.
Get the pitchforks and the red armbands.
if only hitler had his lawyer draw up a legal opinion authorizing genocide, he could have spent his twilight years sipping mai tai on a beach somewhere.
this cocksucker bybee is a federal judge right now. the man should not be working in any capacity requiring legal judgement.
Just shoot everyone expressing a different opinion to you.
It is the only possible way forward.
Oh i'm happy to take this court... with the proviso that if it can be proven to a judge and jury that the techniques on the list managed to save even one life, all prosecution be immediately abandoned.
On the other hand, if they are unable to provide even one piece of intelligence that turned out useful (there must be a few that could be declassified without endangering national security), then the entire approach stands condemned, we stop it immediately and decide what we do about prosecution.
yes, authorizing torture is an opinion. obviously. not criminal in any way.
Legal opinions by lawyers=hate crimes.
Murder them all in their sleep.
Who needs contrary opinion? We have Kevrockcity.
Lots of typos today, CR.
Another one too many Tangeray and Tonics at the Grill, maybe?
Just noticed the time, you either woke up late or had an early liquid lunch, which is it?
I'll admit it......I'm the worst typer on the face of the planet.
Also, I get to enjoy so much time on here because not even the party of the environment could save my green job.
The plant closed about a month ago. Good thing for me I'm one of those greedy fiscal conservatives (note I didn't repub )so I saved some of the earnings that the gov't hasn't found away to take from me yet.who should be prosecuted for authorizing torture, jason?
the torture techniques we copies were developed to elicit fake confessions, not real intel. predictably, the extensive waterboarding of ksm was likely to "unearth" a connection between al qaeda and iraq that the bush administration was sure existed.
why do you want to give the executive unchecked extra-constitutional powers to torture people at his discretion?
Certainly not lawyers who had the nerve to act as "lawyers".
Do we know anything was definitively "torture" even?
Clinton initially authorised the vast majority of these things - like water boarding. But that's not the person who the McCarthyists want the blood of, is it?
Do we prosecute previous administrations because we disagree with them? You say it is all "torture" as if it is a definite definitive written-in-stone crime against humanity fact. It isn't.
It is all about trying to jail your political enemies.
That is extremely frightening and illustrates the disturbing lengths to which some will now go to "get" those who they don't want to win elections.
That is what happens in totalitarian states.
I adore the way you throw around the idea of prosecuting people for having an opinion contrary to your own, and then claim in your next post to be somehow some gate-keeper for the Constitution and a free society.
You're so cute when you do that.
so no one. got it.
Waterboarding is torture. Even Mccain has said there is no two ways about it. And according to the latest reports, Cheney and Rice authorised it.
Can someone supporting these prosecutions of attorneys show me where in the USC giving a legal opinion to the Executive Branch is a crime?
Also, can someone show me the Constitutional authority under which the President acting in good faith as President can be charged with a crime by a successor administration for his acts as President?
Thanks in advance.
Also, can someone show me the Constitutional authority under which the President acting in good faith as President can be charged with a crime by a successor administration for his acts as President?
Thanks in advance.
authorizing torture is not an opinion. i'm not sure what is so hard to understand about that. seems you'd rather be obtuse and cry fascism while having no problem with an executive who feels he is above the constitution and the rule of law. get some perspective.
investigating and prosecuting those that authorized torture is not jailing people for having a different opinion. how orwellian - this banal, semantical re-categorization of torture as "a contrary opinion." holding people responsible for violating the constitution, domestic, and international law is "mccarthyist" and "getting those who they don't want to win elections."
show me where clinton authorized waterboarding.
Better no one than "round up everyone KevRockCity disagrees with and jail them", which is pretty much your argument.
There is a disagreement between one administration and another.
You disagree with the opinions of lawyers.
You want to jail everyone who you disagree with, in your capacity as gatekeeper of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Now you are being obtuse on purpose.
For starters, a lawyer can not advise his clients to do something illegal. Ignorance is not an excuse.
And President or any head of the state is still bound by normal laws like other people. If by authorising torture, he broke laws of the state, he should rightly be prosecuted.
article four of the un convention against torture, of which the united states is a signatory states:
"1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature."
article vi of the u.s. constitution states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
not only can obama investigate bush et al for torture, he is required by law to do so.
you're welcome.
when one administration commits a grave criminal act, it is not a political disagreement. this is not hard. really.
No, Jase. That's not what's frightening.
Impeaching of political enemies is nothing new. It's what happened to Andrew Johnson. It's what would have happened to Nixon had he not resigned in time. It's what happened to Clinton when he bullshitted about a blow-job. That was purely political, but although it hamstrung a sitting President, it didn't destroy American democracy, because it happened within the rule of law.
What is frightening is your argument above, as well as this:
Jason said:
- not least because this seems to be the line the Obama administration is taking - that trying those involved would seem like spiteful tribalism, undermine his rhetoric of bipartisanship, and make it more likely that incoming administrations would begin a tradition of impeaching the previous incumbents.
This is genuinely frightening, because it suggests - as your top post above does - that a President or administration is above the law.
You're a lawyer and an intelligent man, you must know how dangerous that is?
Let's set an outlier here. We can all agree, surely, that if a President authorises, say, forced scientific experimentation on human beings - in good faith, say, because he believes it's necessary to stop an epidemic that could kill a million people - and if lawyers advise him that this is legal, they must be brought to trial.
Nothing about the situation saves them from impeachment - not the gravity of the emergency, not the dignity of the office of President or lawyer, and not the need to prevent malicious political use of the law. They have to stand trial, because we all agree that human experimentation is beyond the pale.
The same conditions hold regarding torture. Now that it is clear that water-boarding etc. were authorised both by and to the Vice-President, the decision whether to impeach has to be based on how water-boarding is regarded in society and law - not on any of the above conditions.
Anything else is a significant danger to the rule of law in your country. (Not to mention, given your country's power and military range, the safety of people around the world).
Since water-boarding is agreed by a significant proportion of states to be torture, I would argue that all those involved - the agents who practiced it, the lawyers who green-lighted it, the politicians who authorised it - have to stand trial.
I suspect if you had never heard of water-boarding until it transpired that it had been done 183 times in a month to a captured US serviceman in Iraq, you would agree that it was torture, and that those who did it should be brought to book. Perhaps I'm wrong - perhaps you have good arguments for considering it a reasonable interrogation technique. But that is the ground of the argument - not rhetoric about partisanship and fascism, or reduction of the question of torture to a difference of opinion - as if the strength of those opinions ought not to be examined in court.