22
   

Should we prosecute torture as a war crime?

 
 
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 11:53 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Interesting that illegal invasions, torture, kidnap don't raise a Starr chamber.

Almost enough to maske even Finn think, you'd think.

But no.


DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 12:33 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

Interesting that illegal invasions, torture, kidnap don't raise a Starr chamber.

Almost enough to maske even Finn think, you'd think....But no.


a lot of people here are still dragging all of that plymouth rock crap around.

oh, and another thing; you guys really need to sort out yer bogs down there. when you flush 'em, the water goes in the wrong direction.

that's pretty darned un-american there, fella. Very Happy
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 04:47 am
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

dlowan wrote:

Interesting that illegal invasions, torture, kidnap don't raise a Starr chamber.

Almost enough to maske even Finn think, you'd think....But no.


a lot of people here are still dragging all of that plymouth rock crap around.

oh, and another thing; you guys really need to sort out yer bogs down there. when you flush 'em, the water goes in the wrong direction.

that's pretty darned un-american there, fella. Very Happy



So, vilify and demonize us, make us appear a threat, and then invade us....to make us free.


Easy peasy.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 11:41 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

Interesting that illegal invasions, torture, kidnap don't raise a Starr chamber.

Almost enough to maske even Finn think, you'd think.

But no.


Name one crime that George Bush committed. State which law he violated.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 11:59 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

dlowan wrote:

Interesting that illegal invasions, torture, kidnap don't raise a Starr chamber.

Almost enough to maske even Finn think, you'd think.

But no.


Name one crime that George Bush committed. State which law he violated.


Bush authorized the use of torture in violation of US law; he authorized spying on Americans with no warrant in violation of the 4th amendment. His administration lied us into a war in Iraq, which could be considered treason.

Cycloptichorn
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 12:36 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

dlowan wrote:

Interesting that illegal invasions, torture, kidnap don't raise a Starr chamber.

Almost enough to maske even Finn think, you'd think.

But no.


Name one crime that George Bush committed. State which law he violated.


Bush authorized the use of torture in violation of US law; he authorized spying on Americans with no warrant in violation of the 4th amendment. His administration lied us into a war in Iraq, which could be considered treason.

Cycloptichorn


Bush authorized the use of enhanced interrogation techniques with in the bounds of US law as stipulated by the White House staff of lawyers and the Attorney General of the US. Bush authorized tapping telephone calls between America and foreign countries under the protection of the AUMF. Wikipedia has a good breakdown of this whole mess. Bush and his administration did not lie the US into war in Iraq and it was not treason.

Further more, you seem to not understand what treason is, let me help.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavor.

Treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 12:41 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:


Bush authorized the use of enhanced interrogation techniques with in the bounds of US law as stipulated by the White House staff of lawyers


First, there's no such thing as 'enhanced interrogation.' That's just a cute word for torture. It's a politically correct term for torture.

Second, the WH lawyers do not have the authority to contravene the law. The fact that they gave advice to authorize this is meaningless. You can't break the law simply b/c a lawyer tells you you can.

Third, the WH has been tapping purely domestic calls for some time now. This isn't even a question. You really ought to get with the facts instead of peddling nonsense like this.

Quote:
Bush and his administration did not lie the US into war in Iraq and it was not treason.


Of course they did, don't be a ******* dolt. The whole thing was a carefully constructed narrative based on little reality. This was proven by the collapse of the original war rationale and the substitute of a new one after the invasion.

You really buy every line they give you, don't you? I understand that you have built up an image of your former leaders that would be painful to knock down, b/c it would admit that you have been an idiot, for years. That is the case however and accepting it would be a good first step.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 12:42 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:



First, there's no such thing as 'enhanced interrogation.'


There is now!
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 01:50 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

dlowan wrote:

Interesting that illegal invasions, torture, kidnap don't raise a Starr chamber.

Almost enough to maske even Finn think, you'd think.

But no.


Name one crime that George Bush committed. State which law he violated.


Bush authorized the use of torture in violation of US law; he authorized spying on Americans with no warrant in violation of the 4th amendment. His administration lied us into a war in Iraq, which could be considered treason.

Cycloptichorn

There is a reason why I asked dlowan to state one violation. Sometimes people try to dilute an argument with many separate questions to cloud an invalid defense of their thesis. I'll arbitrarily pick one alleged crime from your list. The one most consistent with this thread is the authorization of torture. When and in what law or written policy did Mr. Bush authorize torture?
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 01:57 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

dlowan wrote:

Interesting that illegal invasions, torture, kidnap don't raise a Starr chamber.

Almost enough to maske even Finn think, you'd think.

But no.


Name one crime that George Bush committed. State which law he violated.


Bush authorized the use of torture in violation of US law; he authorized spying on Americans with no warrant in violation of the 4th amendment. His administration lied us into a war in Iraq, which could be considered treason.

Cycloptichorn

There is a reason why I asked dlowan to state one violation. Sometimes people try to dilute an argument with many separate questions to cloud an invalid defense of their thesis. I'll arbitrarily pick one alleged crime from your list. The one most consistent with this thread is the authorization of torture. When and in what law or written policy did Mr. Bush authorize torture?


Do you contend that the buck does not, in fact, start at the top?

We know for a fact that the Bush WH authorized torture, though they used the false title 'enhanced interrogation' so they would not have to actually write out the words 'torture.' Do you contend that the Bush WH did not authorize this?

Cycloptichorn
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 07:07 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

First, there's no such thing as 'enhanced interrogation.' That's just a cute word for torture. It's a politically correct term for torture.


No. Actually torture has a very specific definition. That's why we use words. They have meanings. When you dilute those words, they cease to have their original meaning and make them useless. The whole debate on what constitutes torture is a good example.

Quote:
Second, the WH lawyers do not have the authority to contravene the law. The fact that they gave advice to authorize this is meaningless. You can't break the law simply b/c a lawyer tells you you can.


The WH lawyers have the authority to interpret the law, which is what they did. The 2002 memo lays out that interpretation which was changed in a 2004 memo that further interpreted the lawfulness and definition of torture.

Quote:
Third, the WH has been tapping purely domestic calls for some time now. This isn't even a question. You really ought to get with the facts instead of peddling nonsense like this.


On September 28, 2006 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (H.R. 5825) which changed the law regarding domestic spying for some time now as well. Even Obama has recognized the need for it and has not changed the program.

Quote:
Quote:
Bush and his administration did not lie the US into war in Iraq and it was not treason.


Of course they did, don't be a ******* dolt. The whole thing was a carefully constructed narrative based on little reality. This was proven by the collapse of the original war rationale and the substitute of a new one after the invasion.


Once again, if you repeat a lie long enough, you will believe it to be the truth. Being wrong about WMD's in Iaq is not lying about WMD's in Iraq. There have been enough posts on A2K showing quotes from several members of the Clinton administration and other world leaders and governments agreeing with the idea that Iraq had WMD's that I do not need to repeat them here. If Bush wanted to lie about WMD's, it would have been very easy for our forces to simply plant some and show them as evidence. There were no lies as to why we invaded Iraq beyond the very partisan hatred of Bush and the excuses they make to be offended by him.

Quote:
You really buy every line they give you, don't you? I understand that you have built up an image of your former leaders that would be painful to knock down, b/c it would admit that you have been an idiot, for years. That is the case however and accepting it would be a good first step.

Cycloptichorn


Nope.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 07:52 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
The WH lawyers have the authority to interpret the law, which is what they did. The 2002 memo lays out that interpretation which was changed in a 2004 memo that further interpreted the lawfulness and definition of torture.

White House lawyers have the authority to interpret the law in the same manner as anybody has the authority to interpret the law. That doesn't mean, however, that the WH lawyers' interpretation is correct or authoritative or entitled to any deference or weight.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 07:55 am
My recollection is also that even if you consult a lawyer as to something's legality, it does not shield you from prosecution if the lawyer turns out to be wrong.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 08:02 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

First, there's no such thing as 'enhanced interrogation.' That's just a cute word for torture. It's a politically correct term for torture.


No. Actually torture has a very specific definition. That's why we use words. They have meanings. When you dilute those words, they cease to have their original meaning and make them useless. The whole debate on what constitutes torture is a good example.

"Enhanced" has a meaning.

"Interrogation" has a meaning.

"Enhanced interrogation" is a marketing term, like "drinkability" or "imagineers".

"Enhanced interrogation" is simply a code word for "torture". Because if they said "torture" it'd be a little hard to say "we don't torture".

"Reeducation camps" didn't educate anyone, either.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 08:03 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
The WH lawyers have the authority to interpret the law, which is what they did. The 2002 memo lays out that interpretation which was changed in a 2004 memo that further interpreted the lawfulness and definition of torture.

White House lawyers have the authority to interpret the law in the same manner as anybody has the authority to interpret the law. That doesn't mean, however, that the WH lawyers' interpretation is correct or authoritative or entitled to any deference or weight.


True, but I, and others most likely, would lend more weight to their interpretation then most others. Especially people hell bent on hating anything that Bush or any Republican would do or say.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 08:04 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

My recollection is also that even if you consult a lawyer as to something's legality, it does not shield you from prosecution if the lawyer turns out to be wrong.


Seems to be a good shield thus far considering the legal actions in regard to the various cases brought forth. Refresh my memory here, how many have gone to trial so far?
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 08:05 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

"Enhanced" has a meaning.

"Interrogation" has a meaning.

"Enhanced interrogation" is a marketing term, like "drinkability" or "imagineers".

"Enhanced interrogation" is simply a code word for "torture". Because if they said "torture" it'd be a little hard to say "we don't torture".

"Reeducation camps" didn't educate anyone, either.



Only in the feverish imaginings of the devout liberals.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 08:05 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Being wrong about WMD's in Iaq is not lying about WMD's in Iraq.

But quoting a foreign intelligence service after American intelligence services tell you that the information is wrong kinda sounds like lying to me.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 08:09 am
@McGentrix,
So, if a lawyer in the WH decided something he should be given deference?

So, when Bill Clinton, a lawyer in the WH, decided he could say something to the court and it wouldn't be perjury, why was he not given deference McG? Oh.. that's right. He wasn't a Republican lawyer.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 08:09 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Only in the feverish imaginings of the devout liberals.

Whereas Bush apologists are firmly grounded in reality, eh?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 07:50:04