22
   

Should we prosecute torture as a war crime?

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 09:34 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Doesn't change the fact that he deliberately lied. Nice attempt at deflection, though.

Well... not really.


Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying

Quote:
Summary
The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

* A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
* A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
* Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
* Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said " that Iraq sought uranium " is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.


Huh. I guess that goes back to repeating a lie long enough, you will eventually believe it...


You have to have a brain to decode what went on here, McG, so I don't really blame you for your idiocy. Mostly.

Quote:

* A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”


Britain was backing us in the war, this was a political document released to cover their and our asses.

Quote:

* A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.


US Senate committee controlled by Republicans, same thing. This is not a determiner of truth in any way.

Quote:

* Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.


Once again, the CIA ran by Tenet and fully in bed with starting this war with Bush. This is the same group that helped fake up the evidence for the war in the first place, with Mr. Curveball.

Quote:
* Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.


As both of those 'investigations' were conducted by the people/polticial parties being investigated, they aren't worth ****.

The Fact-check article relies on a list of assertions and then uses them to declare a 'fact.' This is extremely poor logic on their part - and yours, for not recognizing that.

You may want to review the fact that Condi Rice had to publicly apologize for her fear-mongering on this issue, one of the only times the Bush admin EVER apologized for anything. You don't do that when you really thought you were right, you do that when you KNOW the information was bullshit and got caught using it anyway.

Cycloptichorn
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 09:44 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:


I believe that torture was authorized by senior persons in government agencies, but I doubt that Mr. Bush knowingly authorized anything that I would consider torture.

In order for an act to be prosecutable, you also need to state which law it violates.


This is a good start. Who in the Bush admin authorized this, if it wasn't Bush himself? Why didn't the president know about this?

As for the laws,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/reports-statements-and-issue-briefs/torture-and-the-law/page.do?id=1107981

The acts which make up torture are all clearly illegal, and we are signatories to anti-torture international laws; those laws legally bind us from engaging in torture.

Cycloptichorn

First of all, you cannot prosecute crimes based on saying "it must have been him." To ask who authorized it if it wasn't Mr. Bush is equivalent to saying that you have no evidence that it was him. This is pretty much "game over" all by itself, even if you can prove that the acts were illegal. To prosecute him in court, you have to be able to show that he committed them, that is, authorized them in writing.

Secondly, the eighth amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishments for crimes, and torture for interrogation is not a punishment for a crime. I do not mean this to imply that I personally condone torture. I'm talking about the law.

Finally, the US is certainly not bound to obey Amnesty International, and I doubt that everything the UN passes has the force of law for the US courts.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 09:45 am
@McGentrix,
Bush stated a fact, because he cited "British intelligence".

What makes it a lie, an attempt to deceive, is that he ignored American intelligence to the contrary. His administration was notified multiple times, months before that speech, that the CIA disagreed with British intelligence.

I suppose you believed the Tobacco industry all those years, too.....
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 09:48 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Yeah, I am sure you believe that factcheck.org is wrong. I mean how DARE they disagree with liberal dogma, those bastards.

You sound like one of those 9-11 guys now. Damn any thing that shows that you might be wrong!
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 09:49 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:


First of all, you cannot prosecute crimes based on saying "it must have been him." To ask who authorized it if it wasn't Mr. Bush is equivalent to saying that you have no evidence that it was him. This is pretty much "game over" all by itself, even if you can prove that the acts were illegal. To prosecute him in court, you have to be able to show that he committed them, that is, authorized them in writing.


This is why I asked whether or not you think the Buck stops at the top. It clearly does. Mr. Bush was responsible for all actions officially sanctioned by the executive branch. As the leader of the Exec branch, he cannot push responsibility onto his subordinates; at the end of the day, it is he who told them what to do and they who did it. That is how the Exec branch works and how the responsibility chain works.

What you're suggesting is akin to saying Mob Bosses cannot be tried for murders their subordinates carried out, because hey - they didn't do it themselves. Right?

Quote:

Secondly, the eighth amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishments for crimes, and torture for interrogation is not a punishment for a crime. I do not mean this to imply that I personally condone torture. I'm talking about the law.


This is immaterial. If we are detaining people illegally and subjecting them to torture without a trial, we are still engaging in the same behaviors which are prohibited. The fact that we have chosen to ignore the law by not trying these people does not give us license to ignore other areas of the law; what you are talking about is a legal dodge that wouldn't last 5 seconds in front of a court.

Quote:
Finally, the US is certainly not bound to obey Amnesty International, and I doubt that everything the UN passes has the force of law for the US courts.


We most certainly are bound to follow the international treaties on torture that we have signed.

I suggest you actually read the AI link I provided, specifically -

Quote:
47. In 1994, Congress enacted a new federal law to implement the requirements of the Convention against Torture relating to acts of torture committed outside United States territory. This law, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2340 et seq., extends United States criminal jurisdiction over any act of (or attempt to commit) torture outside the United States by a United States national or by an alleged offender present in the United States regardless of his or her nationality. The statute adopts the Convention?s definition of torture, consistent with the terms of United States ratification. It permits the criminal prosecution of alleged torturers in federal courts in specified circumstances. [p. 13]


Go look up the law if you don't believe me.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 09:49 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Yeah, I am sure you believe that factcheck.org is wrong. I mean how DARE they disagree with liberal dogma, those bastards.

You sound like one of those 9-11 guys now. Damn any thing that shows that you might be wrong!


Nothing they have listed is backed up with fact, but only assertions from various groups. Can you present any actual facts? Or is it assertion only to support your case?

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 09:52 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
What you're suggesting is akin to saying Mob Bosses cannot be tried for murders their subordinates carried out, because hey - they didn't do it themselves. Right?

Are we discussing moral responsibility, or are we talking about what can be successfully prosecuted?

Successful prosecutions of mob bosses generally rely on tax evasion or RICO. Proving that they gave the order to have someone whacked is pretty difficult.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 09:55 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
What you're suggesting is akin to saying Mob Bosses cannot be tried for murders their subordinates carried out, because hey - they didn't do it themselves. Right?

Are we discussing moral responsibility, or are we talking about what can be successfully prosecuted?

Successful prosecutions of mob bosses generally rely on tax evasion or RICO. Proving that they gave the order to have someone whacked is pretty difficult.


Moral responsibility; of course, getting the actual evidence to prove it in court is as much of a challenge when dealing with the Bush administration as it is when dealing with any crime family.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 10:09 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Yeah, I am sure you believe that factcheck.org is wrong. I mean how DARE they disagree with liberal dogma, those bastards.

You sound like one of those 9-11 guys now. Damn any thing that shows that you might be wrong!


Nothing they have listed is backed up with fact, but only assertions from various groups. Can you present any actual facts? Or is it assertion only to support your case?

Cycloptichorn


You don't find it all odd that you have presented no facts and are using assertion only to dispute what you are arguing against?

My assertions are better then yours, so nyah! Razz

Did you actually follow the link where they discuss the actual facts?

Imagine factcheck.org not actually using any facts... What's the group consensus on factcheck.org these days?
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 10:11 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Yeah, I am sure you believe that factcheck.org is wrong. I mean how DARE they disagree with liberal dogma, those bastards.

You sound like one of those 9-11 guys now. Damn any thing that shows that you might be wrong!


Nothing they have listed is backed up with fact, but only assertions from various groups. Can you present any actual facts? Or is it assertion only to support your case?

Cycloptichorn


You don't find it all odd that you have presented no facts and are using assertion only to dispute what you are arguing against?

My assertions are better then yours, so nyah! Razz


I have presented facts; see my post to Brandon with links.

Quote:
Imagine factcheck.org not actually using any facts... What's the group consensus on factcheck.org these days?


Why don't you point to the part of the Factcheck.org post you linked to and tell us which piece of evidence they gave was, indeed, a fact, and not an assertion. I'd be really interested to see if you have the capability of correctly identifying a fact when asked to do so.

Cycloptichorn
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 10:17 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why don't you point to the part of the Factcheck.org post you linked to and tell us which piece of evidence they gave was, indeed, a fact, and not an assertion. I'd be really interested to see if you have the capability of correctly identifying a fact when asked to do so.

Cycloptichorn


Why should I bother? You will only say something to the effect of "Oh sure, you mean the same people that backed Bush into the illegal war and are just covering their asses?" or some other nonsense.

I do not believe that you have either the desire nor integrity to believe anything that I would post rebutting the fact that you believe Bush lied. It wouldn't matter to you as you have it firmly ingrained into your grey matter that Bush lied.

You are quite able to read the link for yourself and determine what the facts are. But, I doubt they get through the **** colored glasses, or monocle in your case I suppose, you see the world through though.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 10:22 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why don't you point to the part of the Factcheck.org post you linked to and tell us which piece of evidence they gave was, indeed, a fact, and not an assertion. I'd be really interested to see if you have the capability of correctly identifying a fact when asked to do so.

Cycloptichorn


Why should I bother? You will only say something to the effect of "Oh sure, you mean the same people that backed Bush into the illegal war and are just covering their asses?" or some other nonsense.


Yes, that's what an assertion is. When a group asserts something is true, and they are intrinsically linked to the 'defendant,' it isn't a fact.

Quote:
I do not believe that you have either the desire nor integrity to believe anything that I would post rebutting the fact that you believe Bush lied. It wouldn't matter to you as you have it firmly ingrained into your grey matter that Bush lied.


A convenient dodge to avoid having to admit that there were no facts in the article you listed. I expected something much like this, because you surely wouldn't ever admit the truth about it; it's the Cog Dissonance again.

Quote:
You are quite able to read the link for yourself and determine what the facts are.


And I did, and there was no factual evidence, only assertion. The fact that you are dancing rather than simply pointing to the facts is confirmation of this. Your rebuttal to me would be much stronger by doing this; but you can't b/c there are no facts to point to, which was my original contention.

Quote:
But, I doubt they get through the **** colored glasses, or monocle in your case I suppose, you see the world through though.


This coming from perhaps the biggest Bush cheerleader on A2k? Your reputation around here is pretty trashed because of that, yaknow. You were one of the last to wake up to reality.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 11:52 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:


First of all, you cannot prosecute crimes based on saying "it must have been him." To ask who authorized it if it wasn't Mr. Bush is equivalent to saying that you have no evidence that it was him. This is pretty much "game over" all by itself, even if you can prove that the acts were illegal. To prosecute him in court, you have to be able to show that he committed them, that is, authorized them in writing.


This is why I asked whether or not you think the Buck stops at the top. It clearly does. Mr. Bush was responsible for all actions officially sanctioned by the executive branch. As the leader of the Exec branch, he cannot push responsibility onto his subordinates; at the end of the day, it is he who told them what to do and they who did it. That is how the Exec branch works and how the responsibility chain works.

What you're suggesting is akin to saying Mob Bosses cannot be tried for murders their subordinates carried out, because hey - they didn't do it themselves. Right?

In fact mob bosses cannot be tried for murders that occurred in their organizations, but that they didn't authorize or participate in.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Secondly, the eighth amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishments for crimes, and torture for interrogation is not a punishment for a crime. I do not mean this to imply that I personally condone torture. I'm talking about the law.


This is immaterial. If we are detaining people illegally and subjecting them to torture without a trial, we are still engaging in the same behaviors which are prohibited. The fact that we have chosen to ignore the law by not trying these people does not give us license to ignore other areas of the law; what you are talking about is a legal dodge that wouldn't last 5 seconds in front of a court.

It seems to me that the eight amendment forbids court sentences which are cruel or unusual. This has nothing to do with torture for purposes of questioning. Like most people on the left, you are willing to torture the law any way you can to try to prevail.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Finally, the US is certainly not bound to obey Amnesty International, and I doubt that everything the UN passes has the force of law for the US courts.


We most certainly are bound to follow the international treaties on torture that we have signed.

I suggest you actually read the AI link I provided, specifically -

Quote:
47. In 1994, Congress enacted a new federal law to implement the requirements of the Convention against Torture relating to acts of torture committed outside United States territory. This law, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2340 et seq., extends United States criminal jurisdiction over any act of (or attempt to commit) torture outside the United States by a United States national or by an alleged offender present in the United States regardless of his or her nationality. The statute adopts the Convention?s definition of torture, consistent with the terms of United States ratification. It permits the criminal prosecution of alleged torturers in federal courts in specified circumstances. [p. 13]


Go look up the law if you don't believe me.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, here I agree. It looks like torture committed off US land and property is prosectuable. I'm not sure if Guantanamo Bay is considered US territory or not. Therefore, it may be true that authorizing this, even if the authorization occurs on US soil, is prosecutable. However, you'd still have to prove that Mr. Bush authorized it.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 12:03 pm
@Brandon9000,
Your argument basically boils down to:

Quote:
Well, despite the evidence and the logic, you can't prove that Bush authorized torture, so he categorically did not do so.


This is fallacious. Either Bush or those in his cabinet - Cheney - authorized torture. Bush either did it himself personally or authorized others to make executive decisions for him. Either way, those responsible should be investigated, tried, and if found guilty, punished, for breaking the law.

There is ample evidence that the administration knew they were engaging in torture - in some of their memos they forgot to use the EI dodge and plainly called it that. See:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/bush-memo-footnotes-defin_n_188008.html

As for the jurisdiction issue, I would remind you that the same treaty Congress extended to cover non-US sites in 1994 already prohibited torture on US sites. The location of the torture was immaterial.

Additionally, evidence has emerged which strongly suggests that Cheney ordered the torture to take place in large part to attempt to establish a link between AQ and Iraq and justify the war; NOT to stop a 'ticking time bomb' or any of that bullshit. See:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/21/cheney_and_the_iraq-torture_link_96602.html

Quote:
May 21, 2009
Cheney and the Iraq-Torture Link

By Joe Conason

Defending their record in office these past eight years, figures from the last administration seem especially touchy on the subject of torture. Led by the former vice president, Dick Cheney, they have argued that there was no torture, preferring more vague and delicate terms such as "enhanced interrogation" or simply "the program." They have insisted that any harsh tactics were used only to extract "actionable intelligence" from recalcitrant terrorists in order to save "thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands" of innocent lives.

But now we are learning that those methods, long banned as torture in our own laws and treaties, may well have been employed for a very different and deeply nefarious purpose: to justify the dubious invasion of Iraq by falsely connecting Saddam Hussein's regime to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks.

Even as Republicans in Congress and conservative commentators seek to distract public attention by demanding to know when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi first learned about waterboarding, the disturbing evidence of serious criminality continues to emerge.

A former top aide to Colin Powell recently revealed that a Libyan prisoner was brutalized by Egyptian intelligence agents, at the behest of the Bush White House, until he talked about a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. (That man, who later recanted those statements, which he said had been made under torture, has supposedly killed himself in a prison cell in his homeland, so he is no longer around to offer any inconvenient testimony.)

A pair of retired senior intelligence officials told former NBC News investigative producer Robert Windrem that in April 2003 the vice president's office itself suggested the waterboarding of a former Iraqi intelligence official captured in Baghdad, in order to make him talk about the mythical ties between his government and Al Qaeda. A series of reports have indicated that torture was used to elicit the same false testimony from Abu Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda operative subjected to waterboarding literally dozens of times -- even though he had begun to cooperate with FBI interrogators.

Despite the expected denials of such gross misconduct emanating from the intelligence community, some of the most damning evidence came from Mr. Cheney's own mouth. Back in 2004, according to the McClatchy Newspapers, he boasted to the Rocky Mountain News (a Denver daily that has since ceased publishing) that the fruits of interrogation had vindicated him.

When a Rocky Mountain News reporter asked whether he still stood by earlier statements linking Saddam to the terrorist perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, despite demurrals from Mr. Powell, Mr. Cheney replied: "We know for example from interrogating detainees in Guantanamo that Al Qaeda sent individuals to Baghdad to be trained in C.W. and B.W. technology, chemical and biological weapons technology." He went on to predict that when all of the Saddam regime's records were examined, there would be "ample evidence confirming the link."


Cheney has since admitted that there was no link. But there is little doubt that he tortured people to try and establish one.

I will accept your premise that it is difficult to prove Bush's complicity in this, though he doubtlessly was complicit, due to his protected role as President. Cheney, however; I think you would have a much harder time making the case that Cheney did not personally know of and approve torture of prisoners in US custody. And he should be investigated, tried, and if found guilty, punished for this, no matter what he claims the reasons were.

Cycloptichorn
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 05:45 pm
@DrewDad,
If the advice of counsel defense was applicable only when that advice was correct, it wouldn't be much of a defense.

Follow your counsel's correct advice and you won't break any laws and therefore not need any defenses.

It is precisely when counsel's advice may be wrong that the defense comes into play.

The argument that is being made against the Bush Administration's use of the Advice of Counsel defense is not that the advice was wrong (although those making the argument certainly think it was), but that it was fraudulently obtained; that the process the White House lawyers went through to arrive at their opinions was rigged by Bush/Cheney to obtain a pre-determined opinion that the actions they intended to take all along were legal.

Advice of Counsel will not operate if the matter is not of sufficient complexity to require the expert opinion of a professional attorney, nor if the defendant clearly knew or should have known the advice was wrong.

If your attorney renders an opinion for you that it is legal to kill your wife, after you do the deed and are charged with murder you are not going to be allowed to maintain a defense of Advice of Counsel.

It may be that the rendering of the "torture opinions" was a legal sham and that Bush/Cheney believed all along that the methods they sought to use were illegal, but unless or until that is proven the Advice of Counsel defense should, if needed, serve them well.

I doubt anyone believes that our legal system should be driven by the opinion of a mob.

Because there are tens of thousands of Americans who believe Bush/Cheney are guilty of having broken one or more of our laws doesn't mean we need or should launch an investigation and prosecution.

There are plenty of facts available to the Justice Department upon which they can reach a determination of whether or not Bush and/or Cheney should be charged. If they believe they need to investigate further, they can, however charges should only be brought if there is a reasonable chance that the prosecution may be successful. Federal attorneys can't go before a DC Grand Jury and hope to secure an indictment simply because a lot of the political opponents of Bush and Cheney want to believe they committed crimes.

If the professionals at the Justice Department truly believe that members of the prior administration are guilty of crimes and that there is a reasonable chance to prove that belief they should move forward.

What we do not need is the sort of political witch hunt that takes place from time to time in DC. Millions of dollars are spent, lives and careers are ruined, and in the end we are generally left with the only crimes being prosecuted involving perjury or obstruction of justice; entirely dependent upon the process of the witch hunt itself. This is not self-cleansing, it is self-mutilation.









0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 06:27 pm
@dlowan,
Quote:
Is the only important thing to do to hierarchize who is worst?


Obviously not, but it is important to hold a rational perspective.

If you live in a town in which murder, rape and robbery is being committed on a daily basis, you might not expect to be taken seriously if you turn a blind eye towards those crimes and launch a campaign to throw the mayor in jail for passing a stopped school bus.

Quote:
Since I do not expect evidence of the contrary to affect your obsessions or your ravings, I doubt any rational debate with you re this is possible...so I guess you will just have to continue with your paranoid beliefs.


I guess I will. It's such a shame that you've given up on your attempts to disabuse me of my obsessions. I thought we were making such good progress.

Quote:
People from other countries are quite entitled to comment on a super power which invades countries it thinks cannot resist illegally and acts as a global bully.


Yes they are, just as people from that country are quite entitled to challenge their comments. I think this is the part of the exchange that you dismiss as obsessive paranoia.










JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 10:01 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
to throw the mayor in jail ...


That would have been much much too high an office for the jerkwad, but assholes like you, Finn, elected him twice. How could you have been so dumb?

[rhetorical question]

"rational perspective", what utter bullshit. Have you no idea of the numbers of innocents who have died because of that miserable crew of excrement?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 06:00 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
It clearly does. Mr. Bush was responsible for all actions officially sanctioned by the executive branch.


Will you agree that the same thing holds true for the Obama admin?
Is Obama responsible for all actions officially sanctioned by the executive branch?
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 06:47 am
@mysteryman,
Quote:
Will you agree that the same thing holds true for the Obama admin?
Is Obama responsible for all actions officially sanctioned by the executive branch?


Well, yea.
Always Eleven to him
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 07:49 am
@mysteryman,
Quote:
The US has violated the Geneva Convention and committed war crimes at least as far back as WW2, so if nobody was prosecuted then, why should anyone be prosecuted now?


Unfortunately, US personnel weren't prosecuted because they were the "victors." <sigh>
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 07:42:18