22
   

Should we prosecute torture as a war crime?

 
 
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 07:53 am
@revel,
So then you do agree that Obama was responsible for the decision to buzz New York City with AF1, just to get some pictures.

After all, the person who OK'ed it was part of the executive branch.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 07:58 am
@mysteryman,
Gee... Are you arguing that flying a plane around NYC is the same thing as torture?

Obama WAS blamed for the decision. The person that claims to have authorized it no longer works at the WH.

Now.... about that torture....
Do you think Bush should be blamed? Do you see anyone taking responsibility for authorizing it?
Always Eleven to him
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 08:11 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
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.


That's especially true when the WH lawyers are working backwards from the result they want (torture is okay). They perverted the law in those memos. They went back to the Nixonian if-the-president-says-it's-okay-it's-not-illegal.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 08:21 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
So then you do agree that Obama was responsible for the decision to buzz New York City with AF1, just to get some pictures.

After all, the person who OK'ed it was part of the executive branch.


I'd say that Obama was responsible for the flyover in the same sense that Reagan was responsible for the Iran-Contra scandal...
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 09:19 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

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

...


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

There is no reason why anyone who wishes to shouldn't try to obtain proof that Mr. Bush authorized torture, but there would actually have to be something that he signed, and clearly you don't have it. Frankly, I doubt that he did authorize torture. You say, "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," but I don't have to prove that and neither do Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney. If no one can prove that they authorized it, then they cannot be tried in a real court of law. I agree, though, that if anyone, no matter who, authorized torture (not agressive interrogation), and if, in fact, it violates a law, they should be prosecuted. If torture (not agressive questioning) is not illegal, it should be made illegal. However, to my way of thinking, this is simply more of slinging around unsubstantiated accusations about everything under the sun against the former president . When you have some evidence, then you, or those who think like you, can go to court. Right now you do not.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 09:20 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

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?

Possibly morally responsible, but certainly not legally responsible.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 09:53 am
@Brandon9000,


You are saying GW Bush is certainly not legally responsible for any/all actions officially sanctioned by the executive branch.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 09:58 am
@parados,
But Obama said he didnt know about it.
If he was responsible, then he had to know about it.

IF torture was authorized by someone in the executive branch, then Bush should be held responsible.
As of yet I havent seen conclusive evidence that it was authorized by anyone in the WH.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 10:40 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

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?


Yes, he is. He bears responsibility for actions taken by the Exec. branch. That's how responsibility works.

And yes, he is responsible for the NYC plane flyover. Once again, that is how responsibility works.

Cycloptichorn
revel
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 10:47 am
@mysteryman,
Quote:
So then you do agree that Obama was responsible for the decision to buzz New York City with AF1, just to get some pictures.

After all, the person who OK'ed it was part of the executive branch.


Yes, that is what I am saying. It is good to know that the person who authorized it is no longer there.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 02:33 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



You are saying GW Bush is certainly not legally responsible for any/all actions officially sanctioned by the executive branch.

Only in an unofficial sense. He cannot be prosecuted in court for crimes which there is no admissible evidence he participated in himself. Is this not obvious?
blueprince
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 06:15 pm
@Brandon9000,
So: there's no evidence he did, so he didn't.

Right, just to let you know, there is a flying gorilla called Wilburforce who pushes the moon around the Earth, except he's invisible and can become insubstantial whenever he's being detected. You can't prove it isn't true, so it must be true.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 07:44 am
Quote:
WASHINGTON " As the Justice Department considers whether to investigate alleged harsh interrogation practices sanctioned by the Bush administration, sources say a soon-to-be-released report by the CIA's inspector general reveals that agency interrogators conducted mock executions of terror suspects.

These latest allegations are contained in a 2004 report that has been kept secret and is to be released next week, two congressional officials told The Associated Press. They spoke late Friday on condition of anonymity because the report has not yet been cleared for release.

Threatening a prisoner with death violates U.S. anti-torture laws.

In one case, interrogators brought a gun and power drill into a session with suspected Cole bomber Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, the report says. The suicide bombing of the warship USS Cole killed 17 U.S. sailors in Yemen in 2000.


source
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 07:48 am
Quote:
Only in an unofficial sense. He cannot be prosecuted in court for crimes which there is no admissible evidence he participated in himself. Is this not obvious?


This has to be the most pathetic argument to defend Bush I have read in all the years I have been here in a2k and there have been some doozies.

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 09:38 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

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?


Yes, he is. He bears responsibility for actions taken by the Exec. branch. That's how responsibility works.

And yes, he is responsible for the NYC plane flyover. Once again, that is how responsibility works.

Cycloptichorn

No one, including a president, is criminally responsible in court for actions committed without his participation or approval.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 09:39 am
@blueprince,
blueprince wrote:

So: there's no evidence he did, so he didn't.

Right, just to let you know, there is a flying gorilla called Wilburforce who pushes the moon around the Earth, except he's invisible and can become insubstantial whenever he's being detected. You can't prove it isn't true, so it must be true.

You cannot convict a person in a court of law if you cannot prove he committed a crime, even if he did, in fact, commit it. This is elementary.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 09:41 am
@revel,
revel wrote:

Quote:
Only in an unofficial sense. He cannot be prosecuted in court for crimes which there is no admissible evidence he participated in himself. Is this not obvious?


This has to be the most pathetic argument to defend Bush I have read in all the years I have been here in a2k and there have been some doozies.

It's beyond argument that a person cannot be convicted in court if it cannot be proven that he committed the crime. You actually challenge this? Okay, tell me how to find someone guilty in court without proof. I'm listening.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 09:46 am
@blueprince,
blueprince wrote:
So: there's no evidence he did, so he didn't.

Right, just to let you know, there is a flying gorilla called Wilburforce who pushes the moon around the Earth, except he's invisible and can become insubstantial whenever he's being detected. You can't prove it isn't true, so it must be true.


i don't know where you get your information, but he can't fly, and his name is montgomery the magnificent
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 09:48 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

So then you do agree that Obama was responsible for the decision to buzz New York City with AF1, just to get some pictures.

After all, the person who OK'ed it was part of the executive branch.


further more, everyone involved, should be charged with war crimes, just, you know, for something to do
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 02:09 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
I'm listening.


I'm sure that you've listened a lot, B but you never hear. That's what the thrumming of propaganda does to young minds.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/03/2020 at 09:54:28