Should we prosecute torture as a war crime?

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

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

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.

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

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

But no.

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.

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Being wrong about WMD's in Iaq is not lying about WMD's in Iraq.

Only in the feverish imaginings of the devout liberals.