[quote]orion wrote:
So now that we hopefully have established that torturing as well as ordering torture is indeed against US law and since we have a new time line that makes it very likely that Bush ordered torture after the US Supreme Court has made it clear that the detainees at Guantanamo were protected by the Geneva Convention, what now?
This is not about whether he should have done it or not, whether is was ok or not, or whether you think water boarding is even torture or not.
This is about an administration knowingly violating US laws in an area that should be very near and dear to all of us, detaining and at least humiliating if not torturing people while ignoring the limits set by the Supreme Court.
So, what is more important, partisanship or the rule of law?
[/quote]
Well let’s see. Who would you indite? His legal advisors that told him it was legal? Everyone that was breifed on the use and legality? Those that actually did the waterboarding? All the way up the chain of command? According to the UN treaty we signed orders from a superior do not protect one from prosecution.
[quote]tme wrote:
No, sorry fool. I posted the source in another thread. Search, or use google and find it for yourself. I don’t have to post it again any time some random jackass demands proof. If you’re flat out too stubborn or just plain stupid to look it up on your own then you simply aren’t worth my time.
And the way I reacted is mostly out of frustration with fucking idiot demands of proof that water boarding is torture, or that the US signed fucking treaties banning torture, or that torture is illegal and on and on, and then refusing to read the proofs that are posted. Go fucking read it yourself.
Water boarding is considered torture by the United States.
The United States has signed and ratified the UN CAT Treaty.
The United States is guilty of torturing detainees.
The people responsible should be identified and punished, otherwise the United States as a whole is guilty.
[/quote]
Maybe you haven’t read it. Go back and read it and then tell us who should be prosecuted for waterboarding.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
tme wrote:
No, sorry fool. I posted the source in another thread. Search, or use google and find it for yourself. I don’t have to post it again any time some random jackass demands proof. If you’re flat out too stubborn or just plain stupid to look it up on your own then you simply aren’t worth my time.
And the way I reacted is mostly out of frustration with fucking idiot demands of proof that water boarding is torture, or that the US signed fucking treaties banning torture, or that torture is illegal and on and on, and then refusing to read the proofs that are posted. Go fucking read it yourself.
Water boarding is considered torture by the United States.
The United States has signed and ratified the UN CAT Treaty.
The United States is guilty of torturing detainees.
The people responsible should be identified and punished, otherwise the United States as a whole is guilty.
Yeah, I demand proof. I know in your world that makes me a jackass. Fortunately, the world (you know, that place you can see dimly, that exists outside your precious little bubble) sees things otherwise. [/quote]
You still don’t get it. The proof has been posted already, what makes you a jackass is demanding to have it posted over and over again and stating that it doesn’t exist if it isn’t posted per your demand. I don’t really give a shit if you believe it or not, you know the proof is there, you just don’t want to acknowledge anything that might conflict with your Jack Bauer fantasy.
katzenjammer, you know what he’s talking about though, right? You’re just doing this to be a jackass, not to actually try to understand something, right?
I mean, that’s cool. I’m a dick on this site all the time. But why are you trying to dress up your jackassery rather than 1) just arguing from knowledge? or 2) being a jackass from knowledge? At a minimum attack his source. I don’t think demanding a certain level of understanding of an argument is too much to ask. The bar you refuse to jump over is pretty low.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
It will never happen, although it would make me happy if it did. We all know that there are 2 sets of rules, and Bush is held to those less strict. Bush, Cheney, or any of those cronies will never ever see a day of disciplinary action whatsoever.
oh hell - if we are going to punish the Bush Administration let’s punish them for something they actually did wrong - like not being true economic Republicans - seems holding office under false pretenses should be more punishable than this asinine discussion regarding whether or not a technique used on 3 terrorists was actually definable as torture or not (prior to the change in the laws). Let’s try every politician who has not kept every campaign promise for false advertising - there’s at least some kind of legal precedence for that rather than some Ex Post Facto shenanigans. . .[/quote]
Dude, do you realize that there are guys in prison spending YEARS of their life locked away for selling a tiny sized amount of a powder without any violence associated with it. Just simple possession. I have personally seen guys spend 10-20 yrs of their life for having a drug on them so small, the prosecutor had to hold the vial up to the ceiling light just to see it! Yet you have people who are responsible for the mass destruction of economy and society who have not and will not spend a day in jail. People responsible for BILLIONS of dollars lost in greed and lies that will not go punished. There are people in government who’s shortcomings have led to the death and destruction of thousands of people and their cities. You really think that this type of shit should be so easily let off the hook without any discipline at all?
On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a front-page photograph of a U.S. soldier supervising the questioning of a captured North Vietnamese soldier who is being held down as water was poured on his face while his nose and mouth were covered by a cloth. The picture, taken four days earlier near Da Nang, had a caption that said the technique induced “a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk.”
The article said the practice was “fairly common” in part because “those who practice it say it combines the advantages of being unpleasant enough to make people talk while still not causing permanent injury.”
The picture reportedly led to an Army investigation.
[quote]orion wrote:
So now that we hopefully have established that torturing as well as ordering torture is indeed against US law and since we have a new time line that makes it very likely that Bush ordered torture after the US Supreme Court has made it clear that the detainees at Guantanamo were protected by the Geneva Convention, what now?
This is not about whether he should have done it or not, whether is was ok or not, or whether you think water boarding is even torture or not.
This is about an administration knowingly violating US laws in an area that should be very near and dear to all of us, detaining and at least humiliating if not torturing people while ignoring the limits set by the Supreme Court.
So, what is more important, partisanship or the rule of law?
[/quote]
Why don’t you ask Nancy Pelosi? She knew about the so called torture too.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Panetta is now tuning out Pelosi, and investigating her involvement in CIA briefings…BUT…what the hell is Obama doing to him here??[/quote]
Either giving him a reach around, or putting from the rough.
[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
Yeah that’s going to happen. President Cheney did the what was in the best interest of himself and the American public. May it all burn down. [/quote]
