22
   

Should we prosecute torture as a war crime?

 
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 02:27 pm
@parados,
He may have been blamed, but guess who did not lose his White House job.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 02:42 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Woiyo9 wrote:

If it will make you feel better, just arrest Bush and hang him, just like the Iraqis did to Hussein. Rolling Eyes

Why yes, that would make me feel better.
Shocked Well that's not something I expected to read.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 03:35 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Woiyo9 wrote:

If it will make you feel better, just arrest Bush and hang him, just like the Iraqis did to Hussein. Rolling Eyes

Why yes, that would make me feel better.
Shocked Well that's not something I expected to read.


You must not read enough of his posts.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 04:12 pm
@McGentrix,
On the contrary; I’ve read more than enough to know he is adamantly opposed to capital punishment… usually.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 05:06 pm
@Brandon9000,
Giving sanction to torture is as bad as torturing yourself. The administration found ways to make torture legal by just claiming the techniques they employed in interrogations were harsh but not torture. Previously we prosecuted others of war crimes for using water-boarding. But the administration decided it wasn't torture anymore, so walla it ain't.

Now we have this Russian Roulette discovery which seems to following the same patterns.

If those interrogators who played Russian Roulette went beyond what they were authorized to do, if that turns out to be truly the case, then the past administration is not responsible.

But if it follows the pattern to date, then the previous administration is responsible. So far it appears to be following the same old game with this lame made up memo re-defining the definition of when a person feels like he is about to be killed. Apparently it has to be prolonged.

Quote:
The IG's report, written in 2004, offers new details about Nashiri's interrogation, including the incidents in which the detainee reportedly was threatened with death or grave injury if he refused to cooperate, one current and one former U.S. official told The Post. Both officials have seen classified versions of the report.

In one instance, an interrogator showed Nashiri a gun and sought to frighten the detainee into thinking he would be shot, the sources said. In a separate encounter, a power drill was held near Nashiri's body and repeatedly turned on and off, said the officials, who spoke about the report on the condition of anonymity because it remains classified.

The federal torture statute prohibits a U.S. national from threatening anyone in his or her custody with imminent death.

Three months before Nashiri's capture, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel -- Jay S. Bybee, now a federal judge -- advised the CIA in an August 2002 memo that threats of "imminent death" were not illegal unless they deliberately produced prolonged mental harm. Independent legal experts have called that interpretation too hedged and thus too lax.






source
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 05:48 pm
@revel,
Quote:
CI said this on 7/25...The president cannot control everything that happens under his/her watch.


So therefore...

Quote:
But if it follows the pattern to date, then the previous administration is responsible. So far it appears to be following the same old game with this lame made up memo re-defining the definition of when a person feels like he is about to be killed. Apparently it has to be prolonged.


That statement is meaningless.
Bush cannot be prosecuted for anything, because all he has to do is say he didnt know about it.
And since the esteemed lefty CI seems to think that the President isnt responsible, how can any of you?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 07:33 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
Bush cannot be prosecuted for anything, because all he has to do is say he didnt know about it.


I suspect that any prosecutor worth their salt would expect perjury from low lifes like Bush et al.

Lying didn't do much for Nixon.

But it's not surprising that you think it's okay, MM.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 07:35 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Y'all might want to take note of Joe's italicized 'would'.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 08:17 am
@mysteryman,
Even if what you say is true myteryman, President Bush should have known at some point after these tactics were put into practice and put a stop to them and gotten rid of those who first wrote memos saying those tactics were not illegal and then gotten rid of all those who sanctioned them. Like Obama did with the incident you were referring to.

However, since the administration had defended those actions (not the newest because it just now came to light) it stands to reason he knew about them or at least approved after the fact thereby making him culpable in the act himself.
0 Replies
 
blueprince
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 02:40 pm
@Brandon9000,
There's no evidence he didn't, so he did.
Simple reversal.
And, the point is, he may well have committed it, but we just can't prove it. This isn't a court; and you can't hold court against the President, easily.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 09:33 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Really?

The Left has a unique take on life.

Someone comes to an Obama Town Hall Meeting with legally accepted guns and all holy hell breaks loose (read Sunday Times' Frank Rich column), but joefromchicago makes a joke about Bush getting hanged and it's all good fun.

You see they appreciate irony; they are clever and sophisticated; when they say something entirely inappropriate it is simply funny.

On the other hand when someone gores their ox, it's despicable violence.

Perfect example: At one of the McCain rallies some wag yelled "Off With His Head!" at the mention of Obama's name.

Anyone with a modicum of a sense of humor would appreciate that such a call was funny, and yet we continuously see it represented by Leftist pundits and know-it-alls as an example of right-wing violence.

"Off With His Head!"

Hardly the equivalent of "Kill the f*ckin n*gger," and yet clowns like Frank Rich would have us believe it is.

Part of the problem is that leftists, like Rich, can't imagine that conservatives have anything like a clever sense of humor. How could they? They are all Deliverance styled Hillbillies who only find brutality as a source of humor.

However, the Frank Riches, joefromchicago, and blathams of the world will insist that anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy cannot possibly appreciate subtle humor, because such nuance is the sole possesion of liberals.

Ha!
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 10:06 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Consider returning to your meds, Finn, or slow down on the tippling.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 10:12 pm
@JTT,
I have had you on ignore for some time now and this response of yours validates my reasoning.

Can you be more insipid?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2009 05:06 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

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.

Fine. Tell me the error in the argument I'm making here.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2009 05:09 am
@revel,
revel wrote:

Giving sanction to torture is as bad as torturing yourself. The administration found ways to make torture legal by just claiming the techniques they employed in interrogations were harsh but not torture. Previously we prosecuted others of war crimes for using water-boarding. But the administration decided it wasn't torture anymore, so walla it ain't.

Now we have this Russian Roulette discovery which seems to following the same patterns.

If those interrogators who played Russian Roulette went beyond what they were authorized to do, if that turns out to be truly the case, then the past administration is not responsible.

But if it follows the pattern to date, then the previous administration is responsible. So far it appears to be following the same old game with this lame made up memo re-defining the definition of when a person feels like he is about to be killed. Apparently it has to be prolonged.

Quote:
The IG's report, written in 2004, offers new details about Nashiri's interrogation, including the incidents in which the detainee reportedly was threatened with death or grave injury if he refused to cooperate, one current and one former U.S. official told The Post. Both officials have seen classified versions of the report.

In one instance, an interrogator showed Nashiri a gun and sought to frighten the detainee into thinking he would be shot, the sources said. In a separate encounter, a power drill was held near Nashiri's body and repeatedly turned on and off, said the officials, who spoke about the report on the condition of anonymity because it remains classified.

The federal torture statute prohibits a U.S. national from threatening anyone in his or her custody with imminent death.

Three months before Nashiri's capture, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel -- Jay S. Bybee, now a federal judge -- advised the CIA in an August 2002 memo that threats of "imminent death" were not illegal unless they deliberately produced prolonged mental harm. Independent legal experts have called that interpretation too hedged and thus too lax.






source

How in God's name does this contradict my statement that former president Bush cannot be prosecuted in court for acts there is no admissible evidence he sanctioned? That is the reasoning you called pathetic.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2009 05:10 am
@blueprince,
blueprince wrote:

There's no evidence he didn't, so he did.
Simple reversal.
And, the point is, he may well have committed it, but we just can't prove it. This isn't a court; and you can't hold court against the President, easily.

This isn't a court, but we were talking about whether Mr. Bush could be prosecuted in court.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2009 07:03 am
@Brandon9000,
Actually I didn't read back a few pages to find out you didn't meant the following as it appears to read:

post

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?


I thought you were saying since Bush wasn't there to participate in the acts most consider torture, then he couldn't be tried for any crimes (if those acts do in fact constitute torture from a court of law; guess that would have to be established first)even if he sanctioned those acts. I didn't realize you meant participate and/or sanctioned war crimes.

The Bush administration redefined and just made up their own minds of what constituted torture and had lawyers to back them up, however, those findings are not settled and could be challenged in the courts. If the ruling rules that those tactics went outside established anti-torture laws then as head of the executive branch and the commander in chief who used those memos to sanction those tactics to be used by interrogators then Bush and all the rest could be tried for war crimes just like any other leader who makes up their own laws and thinks they can get away with it. I am not saying it would happen or even be easy or successful, but it could.

Clearly the tactic of using guns to think someone is going to die is outside US anti-torture laws. At least it is clear to most reasonable people. But we are not dealing with normal people, they had a judge to say it is only illegal if the detainees thinks he is going to die for a "prolonged" time. This was a memo that was passed around giving those interrogators permission to use that tactic. If it comes out that the Bush administration had no clue the memo was passed around and the tactic was used, then I guess they were just the most incompetent administration ever to draw breath, they should have known at some point during the last eight years.

And now there is another example of so called "harsh interrogation."

Quote:
The Obama administration is setting strict new standards for treatment of terror suspects, as the Justice Department launches a criminal probe of past interrogation tactics during President George W. Bush's war on terrorism.

A newly declassified version of a CIA report revealed Monday that CIA interrogators once threatened to kill a Sept. 11 suspect's children and suggested another would be forced to watch his mother sexually assaulted




source
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2009 07:19 am
Actually I was reading the source further after my last post and it does appear that some of those officers went beyond even what was sanctioned in those now discredited and discarded memos.

Quote:
Obama has said interrogators would not face charges if they followed legal guidelines, but the report by the CIA's inspector general said they went too far - even beyond what was authorized under Bush era Justice Department legal memos that have since been withdrawn and discredited. The report also suggested some questioners knew they were crossing a line.

"Ten years from now we're going to be sorry we're doing this (but) it has to be done," one unidentified CIA officer was quoted as saying, predicting the questioners would someday have to appear in court to answer for such tactics.

The report concluded the CIA used "unauthorized, improvised, inhumane" practices in questioning "high-value" terror suspects.

In one instance cited in the new documents, Abd al-Nashiri, the man accused of being behind the 2000 USS Cole bombing, was hooded, handcuffed and threatened with an unloaded gun and a power drill. The unidentified interrogator also threatened al-Nashiri's mother and family, implying they would be sexually abused in front of him, according to the report.

The interrogator denied making a direct threat.

Another interrogator told alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, "if anything else happens in the United States, 'We're going to kill your children,'" one veteran officer said in the report.

Death threats violate anti-torture laws.


I am not sure how they went beyond the memo when the memo said unless the threat of death is prolonged it is not illegal. Perhaps they did it more than once over a series of days.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2009 07:49 am
@FreeDuck,
The people in question have clearly prevented second, third, fourth, and fifth recurrences of **** like 9-11. Dems should only prosecute them if their goal is to start a second civil war.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2009 07:56 am
@gungasnake,
So in your view any previous anti-torture laws we had prior to the attack on 9/11 was automatically thrown out the window and therefore any tactics used in the cause of preventing another attack was legal? We had laws to operate even under extreme circumstances, in fact it is only under extreme circumstances that we even need those laws to keep us civilized even under extreme circumstances having no reason to use torture in other circumstances.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 07:34:41