Torture, It's What's For Breakfast (and Lunch and Supper)

It seems you don't know ****,

give a **** about their country when authorizing torture.

You're wasting your time

British Interrogators Banned From Shouting at Terrorists

Other moonbats are pushing the envelope further still. Now even raising your voice to a terrorist constitutes torture. I’m serious:

British soldiers have “lost their capability” to interrogate terrorist insurgents because of strict new rules on questioning that even ban shouting in captives’ ears, military chiefs have warned.

The rules — detailed in court papers obtained by The Telegraph — also prevent military intelligence officers from banging their fists on tables or walls, or using “insulting words” when interrogating a suspect.

You could hardly ask if a terrorist slept well without violating the rules. Consequently, there is

concern that the rules can be so easily breached — especially given the pressure under which soldiers are operating — that military personnel will be left exposed to legal claims and possible disciplinary action.

No interrogation that is likely to be effective is permitted.

“There must be no intimidation of any kind,” state the rules.

Under International law if a country doesn't prosecute such acts then the International Court can bring charges.

oralloy wrote:

Actually I think it's about time Congress adjusted the statute of limitations and appointed another special prosecutor for Bill Clinton.

I guess if the US Constitution means nothing to you then you could propose that. However under our system of government attempting to do such a thing would be invalidated by the courts.

Note also that I'm only proposing that the Republicans go after Clinton IF the Democrats go after the Bush Administration over torture.

As though there is any comparison.

They have no jurisdiction over the US.

If you knew that there was a hidden nuclear time bomb planted somewhere in New York City — set to go off today — and you had a captured terrorist who knew where and when, would you not do anything whatever to make him tell you where and when? Would you pause to look up the definition of "torture"? Would you even care what the definition of "torture" was, when the alternative was seeing millions of innocent people murdered?

As though there is any comparison.

I do not believe that would violate the Constitution. I also don't believe that the courts would invalidate such a move.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

You clearly don't know much about it.

It clearly would violate the US Constitution. Making or changing a law after the fact in order to punish someone is strictly prohibited in Section 1 Article 9.

Quote:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Maybe you should spend some time reading and trying to understand the Constitution. You clearly don't know much about it.

An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the facts") is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.

Perhaps you could post your definition of ex post facto.

Here is the one I think applies

Quote:

An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the facts") is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.