Bush claimed right to waive torture laws
- Thread starter galperi1
- Start date
took me 2 clicks to get to the actual article
Only congress can do that.
interesting trivia (usc 50-1541, war powers act, this is the whole thing - history)
public law 107-243 (granting the president the right to use millitary force in IRAQ):
So even the resolution congress passed was a lie. He's trying to use case 3 falsely to push this into a case 2 to go to war.
By the way, neither act mentions anything about the president gaining the right to suspend treaties.
EDIT: it's fvcking hard to find a specific law if you don't know the code.
Only congress can do that.
interesting trivia (usc 50-1541, war powers act, this is the whole thing - history)
public law 107-243 (granting the president the right to use millitary force in IRAQ):
So even the resolution congress passed was a lie. He's trying to use case 3 falsely to push this into a case 2 to go to war.
By the way, neither act mentions anything about the president gaining the right to suspend treaties.
EDIT: it's fvcking hard to find a specific law if you don't know the code.
You're right, gaard. I would personally rather have a president that will kill wounded men himself.
it takes an exceptionally paritsan moron to spin this into the utter crap that is being offered up here.
a lawyer rendered an opinion that when fighting terrorists, the Geneva conventions did not apply.
Bush accepted the lawyers conclusion, but decided to apply the Geneva conventions anyhow.
you boys all have fun stroking each other...
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
That's all well and good, but I don't want a President who passively receives unsolicited legal opinions that basically says "torture is okay by us" and tells everyone in turn "my lawyers say I can order torture, but I've chosen not to exercise my perogative to do so." I want the President to say straight up and in no uncertain terms that torture isn't a unexercised perogative, it's absolutely out of the question and that he'll have the person who does so court martialled. He should have also demanded the person that wrote the legal opinion that he had the right to do so, have their resignation on his desk by the end of the day for having even suggested such. In America, people in our government need to realize in no uncertain terms, that when the question is about torture, the answer is always NO. And not only no, HELL NO.
Yeah, like you. The constitution grants the power to form treaties (and thus dissolve them) to the congress (Article 1, Section 10). This is mirrored in article 2, section 3 where the president, as commander and chief is allowed to enter into treaties with the consent of 2/3 of congress.
Where does it say 1) In the Constitution, 2) In the War Powers Act 3) in the resolution to use millitary force in Iraq, that says the commander and chief has the right to withdraw from treaties?
What are you talking about? There are NO treaties involved here. The detainees are/were not fighting for a country, and had they been, they WOULD have been covered under the Geneva Convention, but they are NOT fighting for a country, rather, a cause, and therefore, they have NO RIGHTS under the Geneva convention.
Personally, if you have to cut off the nuts of one if these clowns to keep me and my family safe, then so be it.
Listen to this garbage. You people on the far left amaze me. You want facts? Here you go.
PRESIDENT CARTER, DEMOCRAT
In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.
Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.
PRESIDENT REAGAN, REPUBLICAN
The day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.
In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.
President Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Beirut.
In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.
Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops ? bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.
In 1985, an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.
Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after "the allies" promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians ? who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq.
On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.
Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Gadhafi's residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy "by mistake."
Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.
PRESIDENT BUSH I, MODERATE REPUBLICAN
In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.
President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan's policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.
In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn't "finish off the job" with Saddam.
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRAT
In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.
Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."
In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.
In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.
On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.
Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.
On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.
Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."
The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 ? when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.
In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, REPUBLICAN
Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" ? he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.
On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.
Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all ? except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.
--Anne Coulter
Rebut that...
BS, enemy combatants are covered by the geneva conventions, regardless of their nationality or lack of it.
The prooblem is that you want their nuts cut off and they want your nuts cut off, yet you think you are somehow better than they are.
Oh? How do you explain the fact that 70-90% of the prisoners were wrongly arrested Iraqi civilians? Others were members of the insurgency and very much so do fall under the Geneva Conventions.
How do explain the fact that a judge, in a recent court martial, commented that the defendant had violated the Geneva Conventions? You think you know more about it than the judge?
I'm sure they feel the same about you. Esp. the innocents that have been beaten, raped, humiliated, etc.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Why did he wait roughly 7 months after taking office, until after an attack on the united states to begin his quest to do this?
I think Anne forgot to add 'barely' in front of "functioning".
Anyone can present a one-sided view of history as AC has done here. Such an endeavor is hardly the benchmark for accuracy or completeness.
No. They are not.
There are four key prerequisites. First is being part of a fighting force that adheres to an organized structure of command, so someone can be held responsible. Second is wearing a distinctive military uniform or insignia -- so that the other side can spare civilians without fearing counterattack by disguised fighters. Third is carrying arms openly. And fourth is reciprocal respect for the laws of war. To claim the protection of the law, a side must generally conduct its own military operations in accordance with the laws of war.
Al Qaeda has violated these laws at every turn, and certainly in the Sept. 11 attacks. In protecting and harboring Osama bin Laden and his operatives, the Taliban leadership has also become party to the violations.
The traditional fate of unlawful combatants has been nasty, brutish and short, in tribute to their chosen form of warfare. Francis Lieber, a Columbia University professor and founder of the modern law of armed conflict in America, bluntly advised the Union Army in 1863 that guerrillas, spies and saboteurs could be summarily shot.
Where do you get your facts?
"70-90% of the prisoners were wrongly arrested Iraqi civilians" - I am sure we just arrested them because they were playing soccer in the streets and for no other reason. Stop being so damn naive and open your eyes...d0y
Oh, I dunno... To PLAN something? It's Bush's fault 9/11 happened...OH, I FORGOT....
That last paragraph is a load of bull. If it that were true, our troops would be here now, the deaths would've ended, and Iraq would be thanking us with rose petals. Making more enemies than we started with and dedicating less than a quarter of our war funds towards the man responsible for 3000 deaths is little different from doing nothing at all.
Why do the idiots keep posting in here without doing at least the tiniest bit of research??
:roll:
Ok, dumbass, read this (the whole thing) and educate yourself so you won't be a dumbass anymore:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1305083&enterthread=y
Exactly! These people were not tortured just for the hell of it. If it means we have to torture people associated with groups that blow up American's so be it, if even a singleinnocent life can be saved, in my eyes it'd be worth it.
Yeah especially after we flew planes into their civilians and killed thousands of them, o wait! I'm sorry that was them! But I guess we did kidnap civilians and hold them hostage, tell them they are going to be kill, and then decpaitate and video tape it and show to our friend. Wait, sorry that was them again.
Rape? What are you talking about?
I don't know what it will take for you to realize these people are evil. They would kill you, they would kill me simply because we were born in a different country then them. Will they have to kill your neighbor? You mom? Then you will understand. Maybe you've forgotten as you Liberals so often do with things(Carter, Clinton ring a bell?) but 2 1/2 years ago some men got on planes are flew them into civilians. A geography teacher and several of his students blew up with everyone else on the plane. These kids hadn't even got a chance to grow up. Get it now?
If it can prevent another 9/11 or anything even near the scale of 9/11 and means a few "innocents" get humilated or roughed up I think it's more than fair.
Your point, Conjur the dumb ass? So that somewhat relates to this thread.
What are you? Some sort of forum god? vzz14 vzz1s
dunce.
What are you? Some sort of forum god? vzz14 vzz1s
dunce.
Thank's for cutting off that Ann Coulter garbage.
The greater point is where the president is granted the right to dissolve treaties in the first place. If a specific power is not listed in the constitution, then it does not exist. All mention of treaties require the extensive involvement of congress, which would have to approve of where he applies treaties, and where he does not. The War Powers Act seems to open up the possibility of the president not honoring a treaty, pursuant to the legislative action of congress. The problem is, the resolution the congress passed granting the president the right to use millitary force in Iraq does NOT give him the right to suspend the geneva convetions, because it is not in the language of the bill.
There is always the possibility that they slimed it onto a completely unrelated bill though.
You have no clue...
No rights of the geneva convention were suspended! They simply, DO NOT APPLY! Sheesh.... ENEMY COMBATANT
No rights of the geneva convention were suspended! They simply, DO NOT APPLY! Sheesh.... ENEMY COMBATANT
All these references to the Constitution is a waste. All that matters is that President Bush is the executive, legislation and judiciary. All he needs to do is justify anything he does by saying that he needs to do it as commander in chief to fight the war on terror. When he claims national security or war on terror, that's basically a blank check for him to do whatever he wants.
:roll:
http://www.indystar.com/articles/7/148095-3247-010.html
Again, I think the judge knows more than you.
Red cross estimates states 70-90% over 40% have been released within 4 weeks, some were beaten to death though, i dunno what you call that, i call that murder.
Basically they rounded up entire villages and put them in jail the torture and humiliation wasn't to extract information, it was for punishment and for fun.
How about i round your village up, shove a broomstick up your arse, rape your sister, force your father to perform sexual acts on your gf's father and beat your mother to death, all for laughs, would that be ok with you?
This has been covered here in at least 20 threads, search for it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter