It's only torture if you inhale?

[Moonbeam]

American's don't care what is going on and their apathy is killing the world. If we are ever defeated we will probably all be butchered and then torture will become a live issue, too late of course.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: manowar821
100% Government transparency, NOW.

365 days/year of 80 degrees and sun NOW.

Its just as realistic.

Well, we can't exactly control the weather and such (yet)... We could, however, control our government right now if we really wanted to.

I think the hurdle is that americans are apathetic or simply don't think they have any power, like you, for a perfect example.

We OWN them. We just don't know it, because we're told every day from birth that they "in-fact", own us.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: manowar821
100% Government transparency, NOW.

365 days/year of 80 degrees and sun NOW.

Its just as realistic.

Well, we can't exactly control the weather and such (yet)... We could, however, control our government right now if we really wanted to.

I think the hurdle is that americans are apathetic or simply don't think they have any power, like you, for a perfect example.

We OWN them. We just don't know it, because we're told every day from birth that they "in-fact", own us.

WTF. I guess you dont pay attention. I constantly rant about America's apathy, and how it's the voter's job to keep those they elect accountable, and to stop re-electing the same asshats they despise! But your idea of 100% transparency is so delusional. you understand if it's transparent to us, it's transparent to the world, right? Can you explain how this is a GOOD thing?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: manowar821
100% Government transparency, NOW.

365 days/year of 80 degrees and sun NOW.

Its just as realistic.

Well, we can't exactly control the weather and such (yet)... We could, however, control our government right now if we really wanted to.

I think the hurdle is that americans are apathetic or simply don't think they have any power, like you, for a perfect example.

We OWN them. We just don't know it, because we're told every day from birth that they "in-fact", own us.

WTF. I guess you dont pay attention. I constantly rant about America's apathy, and how it's the voter's job to keep those they elect accountable, and to stop re-electing the same asshats they despise! But your idea of 100% transparency is so delusional. you understand if it's transparent to us, it's transparent to the world, right? Can you explain how this is a GOOD thing?

You really think that the world can prosper indefinitely, running on the model that countries keep secrets from each-other and their people consistently?

Yes, I do think it would be a good thing. I'm not strictly speaking of the USA, either, I'm talking about all governments.

Tell me this. What exactly should we be hiding from the rest of the world? What exactly are we doing that's so horrible that it must be hidden from the world? Perhaps with government transparency around the world, the people wouldn't let governments get away with nasty shit like... Well, you know.

If that means that our current leadership is stripped completely and replaced with far more competent US citizens, then so be it.

It would be the ultimate oversight and "checks and balances" system.

When I say "100% government transparency, NOW", I mean for all nations, you're not the special little boy you think you are.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: techs We MUST make some rules.

agreed, but good luck getting congress to actually take some action and a stand for once. they'd rather just blame the bureaucrats they've left high and dry (or sunk, whichever is more appropriate).

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: techs We MUST make some rules.

agreed, but good luck getting congress to actually take some action and a stand for once. they'd rather just blame the bureaucrats they've left high and dry (or sunk, whichever is more appropriate).

What's the point? Congress already passed anti-torture legislation and while Bush signed it, he literally came out and said that he wouldn't be bound by it. Why bother passing more bills that a lawless executive has already decreed he won't follow?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What's the point? Congress already passed anti-torture legislation and while Bush signed it, he literally came out and said that he wouldn't be bound by it. Why bother passing more bills that a lawless executive has already decreed he won't follow?

Add it to the list of high crimes and misdemeanors, and IMPEACH BUSH and CHENEY, NOW!

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: manowar821
100% Government transparency, NOW.

365 days/year of 80 degrees and sun NOW.

Its just as realistic.

Well, we can't exactly control the weather and such (yet)... We could, however, control our government right now if we really wanted to.

I think the hurdle is that americans are apathetic or simply don't think they have any power, like you, for a perfect example.

We OWN them. We just don't know it, because we're told every day from birth that they "in-fact", own us.

WTF. I guess you dont pay attention. I constantly rant about America's apathy, and how it's the voter's job to keep those they elect accountable, and to stop re-electing the same asshats they despise! But your idea of 100% transparency is so delusional. you understand if it's transparent to us, it's transparent to the world, right? Can you explain how this is a GOOD thing?

You really think that the world can prosper indefinitely, running on the model that countries keep secrets from each-other and their people consistently?

Yes, I do think it would be a good thing. I'm not strictly speaking of the USA, either, I'm talking about all governments.

Tell me this. What exactly should we be hiding from the rest of the world? What exactly are we doing that's so horrible that it must be hidden from the world? Perhaps with government transparency around the world, the people wouldn't let governments get away with nasty shit like... Well, you know.

If that means that our current leadership is stripped completely and replaced with far more competent US citizens, then so be it.

It would be the ultimate oversight and "checks and balances" system.

When I say "100% government transparency, NOW", I mean for all nations, you're not the special little boy you think you are.

I think Im a special little boy? lol man take your meds.

As far as all governments around the world having transparency, well, you and I both know it will never happen. since you never indicated that, and we were talking about US government, I thought thats what you meant. But, the idea isnt practical. Unless every country had nearly identicle government models. But, like I said, Id like it to be 80 and sunny 365. And, as you say we cant control the weather, we cant control the human race. Nor can we Nice pipe dream though.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: techs We MUST make some rules.

agreed, but good luck getting congress to actually take some action and a stand for once. they'd rather just blame the bureaucrats they've left high and dry (or sunk, whichever is more appropriate).

What's the point? Congress already passed anti-torture legislation and while Bush signed it, he literally came out and said that he wouldn't be bound by it. Why bother passing more bills that a lawless executive has already decreed he won't follow?

Link?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What's the point? Congress already passed anti-torture legislation and while Bush signed it, he literally came out and said that he wouldn't be bound by it. Why bother passing more bills that a lawless executive has already decreed he won't follow?

Link?

Sure thing!

The relevant quote:

But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security.

The signing statement that Bush attached to the bill basically says he will follow the law until he thinks he needs to break it, and then it isn't binding on him. It's the same logic he used to bypass FISA.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: techs We MUST make some rules.

agreed, but good luck getting congress to actually take some action and a stand for once. they'd rather just blame the bureaucrats they've left high and dry (or sunk, whichever is more appropriate).

What's the point? Congress already passed anti-torture legislation and while Bush signed it, he literally came out and said that he wouldn't be bound by it. Why bother passing more bills that a lawless executive has already decreed he won't follow?

i'm sorry, where did it say that waterboarding is torture? oh, that's right, congress passes a fuzzy definition of 'torture' so that it doesn't have to make a hard decision, then when people who have to make hard decisions actually make them (the bureaucrats, not bush), they hold hearings post hoc. classic congress. take no action that could possibly make it responsible for anything.

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What's the point? Congress already passed anti-torture legislation and while Bush signed it, he literally came out and said that he wouldn't be bound by it. Why bother passing more bills that a lawless executive has already decreed he won't follow?

Add it to the list of high crimes and misdemeanors, and IMPEACH BUSH and CHENEY, NOW!

so, merely saying that you might violate a law in the future in order to prevent some worse disaster (which, btw, can be a defense in a criminal court) is a criminal act? i'm glad you're not high inquisitor anywhere

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What's the point? Congress already passed anti-torture legislation and while Bush signed it, he literally came out and said that he wouldn't be bound by it. Why bother passing more bills that a lawless executive has already decreed he won't follow?

i'm sorry, where did it say that waterboarding is torture? oh, that's right, congress passes a fuzzy definition of 'torture' so that it doesn't have to make a hard decision, then when people who have to make hard decisions actually make them (the bureaucrats, not bush), they hold hearings post hoc. classic congress. take no action that could possibly make it responsible for anything.

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What's the point? Congress already passed anti-torture legislation and while Bush signed it, he literally came out and said that he wouldn't be bound by it. Why bother passing more bills that a lawless executive has already decreed he won't follow?

Add it to the list of high crimes and misdemeanors, and IMPEACH BUSH and CHENEY, NOW!

so, merely saying that you might violate a law in the future in order to prevent some worse disaster (which, btw, can be a defense in a criminal court) is a criminal act? i'm glad you're not high inquisitor anywhere

Ugh, this point has already been covered in this thread. Established US legal precedent has determined waterboarding to be torture under the same guidelines that are currently used. They use those definitions for the same reason that the Geneva Conventions use similar definitions, because there is no limit to human ingenuity. Many of our laws are built around definitions that are somewhat fuzzy and have some sort of 'rational basis' test in them.

Strange that you would make the argument that the president saying he doesn't have to follow the law when he doesn't want to would NOT constitute something worthy of impeachment. The president doesn't get to choose what laws he follows... at least not in America. I'm sure his rationale of Saving Us All From The Terrorists sounds great, but who gets to decide when he has to follow the law or not? Oh yeah, HE does. That's the very definition of an unaccountable and lawless executive.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Strange that you would make the argument that the president saying he doesn't have to follow the law when he doesn't want to would NOT constitute something worthy of impeachment. The president doesn't get to choose what laws he follows... at least not in America. I'm sure his rationale of Saving Us All From The Terrorists sounds great, but who gets to decide when he has to follow the law or not? Oh yeah, HE does. That's the very definition of an unaccountable and lawless executive.

i don't count merely saying something and not doing it as being a criminal act. especially if such hypothetical situation bears a strong resemblance to acceptable affirmative defenses.

Ugh, this point has already been covered in this thread. Established US legal precedent has determined waterboarding to be torture under the same guidelines that are currently used. They use those definitions for the same reason that the Geneva Conventions use similar definitions, because there is no limit to human ingenuity. Many of our laws are built around definitions that are somewhat fuzzy and have some sort of 'rational basis' test in them.

yes, this is true. they are fuzzy because they can't predict everything. but they are also fuzzy because congress doesn't want to take responsibility for anything bad that could happen. they can merely look on in shocked horror and pretend that they didn't think anything like that could happen. then they hold some hearings. and then everything is back to normal in congress. pass crap legislation that doesn't tell anyone anything. ever read any of the shit that comes out of there?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Harvey

Add it to the list of high crimes and misdemeanors, and IMPEACH BUSH and CHENEY, NOW!

so, merely saying that you might violate a law in the future in order to prevent some worse disaster (which, btw, can be a defense in a criminal court) is a criminal act? i'm glad you're not high inquisitor anywhere

WTF are you talking about? Your Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush and his criminal cabal have already violated existing U.S. and interntional laws against torture and multiple other high crimes. In 1955, the United States of America signed the Geneva Conventions of 1949, making them an integral part of U.S. law. Since then, prohibitions of torture have been addressed more specifically in other U.S. statutes. Here's a summary of applicable laws:

Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody

Last Updated May 24, 2004

International and U.S. law prohibits torture and other ill-treatment of any person in custody in all circumstances. The prohibition applies to the United States during times of peace, armed conflict, or a state of emergency. Any person, whether a U.S. national or a non-citizen, is protected. It is irrelevant whether the detainee is determined to be a prisoner-of-war, a protected person, or a so-called "security detainee" or "unlawful combatant." And the prohibition is in effect within the territory of the United States or any place anywhere U.S. authorities have control over a person. In short, the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment is absolute.

The following summary sets out the major international legal obligations of the United States and various legal bases by which U.S. officials, military personnel and others could be prosecuted for torture or other mistreatment of persons held at U.S. military and intelligence detention facilities. Included are web links to the cited international conventions and federal statutes.

I. International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions

The primary source of international humanitarian law (also called the laws of war) is the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which the United States ratified in 1955. The Third Geneva Convention concerns prisoners-of-war; the Fourth Geneva Convention safeguards so-called "protected persons," most simply described as detained civilians. Detainees must at all times be humanely treated (Geneva III, art. 13, Geneva IV, art. 27). Detainees may be questioned, but any form of "physical or mental coercion" is prohibited (Geneva III, art. 17; Geneva IV, art. 31). Women shall be protected from rape and any form of indecent assault (Geneva IV, art. 27).

Torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners-of-war (Geneva III, arts. 17 & 87) or protected persons (Geneva IV, art. 32) are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and are considered war crimes (Geneva III, art. 130; Geneva IV, art. 147). War crimes create an obligation on any state to prosecute the alleged perpetrators or turn them over to another state for prosecution. This obligation applies regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator, the nationality of the victim or the place where the act of torture or inhuman treatment was committed (Geneva III, art.129; Geneva IV, art. 146).

Detainees in an armed conflict or military occupation are also protected by common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits "[v]iolence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; ?outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

Even persons who are not entitled to the protections of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (such as some detainees from third countries) are protected by the "fundamental guarantees" of article 75 of Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions. The United States has long considered article 75 to be part of customary international law (a widely supported state practice accepted as law). Article 75 prohibits murder, "torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental," "corporal punishment," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, ? and any form of indecent assault."

II. Human Rights Law

Torture and other mistreatment of persons in custody are also prohibited in all circumstances under international human rights law, which applies in both peacetime and wartime. Among the relevant treaties are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (arts. 7 & 10) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture), both of which the United States has ratified. The standard definition of torture can be found in article 1 of the Convention against Torture.

In its reservations to the Convention against Torture, the United States claims to be bound by the obligation to prevent "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" only insofar as the term means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, U.S. reservations say that mental pain or suffering only refers to prolonged mental harm from: (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the use or threat of mind altering substances; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) that another person will imminently be subjected to the above mistreatment.

Prohibitions on torture and other ill-treatment are also found in other international documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, and the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

Additionally, the prohibition on torture is considered a fundamental principle of customary international law that is binding on all states (what is known as a "peremptory norm" of international law because it preempts all other customary laws). All states are bound to respect the prohibition on torture and ill-treatment whether or not they are parties to treaties which expressly contain the prohibition. They are also obliged to prevent and to punish acts of torture, even if they are not parties to treaties that expressly require them to do so.

The widespread or systematic practice of torture constitutes a crime against humanity. (See, e.g., art. 5 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)

III. U.S. Law

The United States has incorporated international prohibitions against torture and mistreatment of persons in custody into its domestic law. The United States has reported to the Committee Against Torture that: "Every act of torture within the meaning of the Convention is illegal under existing federal and state law, and any individual who commits such an act is subject to penal sanctions as specified in criminal statutes. Such prosecutions do in fact occur in appropriate circumstances. Torture cannot be justified by exceptional circumstances, nor can it be excused on the basis of an order from a superior officer. "

Military personnel who mistreat prisoners can be prosecuted by a court-martial under various provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, arts. 77-134).

The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; ?outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an "act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control." A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim?s death.

Military contractors working for the Department of Defense might also be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-778), known as MEJA. MEJA permits the prosecution in federal court of U.S. civilians who, while employed by or accompanying U.S. forces abroad, commit certain crimes. Generally, the crimes covered are any federal criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. The MEJA remains untested because the Defense Department has yet to issue necessary implementing regulations required by the law.

The United States of America is NOT a monarchy or a dictatorship... at least yet, and NO President or other U.S. executive is exempt from U.S. law, PERIOD!

Your Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush and his criminal cabal are torturers, murderers and traitors. They should be tried and convicted for their crimes. If they don't think waterboarding is torture, they should all be sentenced to enjoy a round of it, daily, for the next twenty years.

If you still support the Bushwhackos' "right" to ignore our laws at will, you should join them.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: manowar821
100% Government transparency, NOW.

365 days/year of 80 degrees and sun NOW.

Its just as realistic.

Well, we can't exactly control the weather and such (yet)... We could, however, control our government right now if we really wanted to.

I think the hurdle is that americans are apathetic or simply don't think they have any power, like you, for a perfect example.

We OWN them. We just don't know it, because we're told every day from birth that they "in-fact", own us.

WTF. I guess you dont pay attention. I constantly rant about America's apathy, and how it's the voter's job to keep those they elect accountable, and to stop re-electing the same asshats they despise! But your idea of 100% transparency is so delusional. you understand if it's transparent to us, it's transparent to the world, right? Can you explain how this is a GOOD thing?

You really think that the world can prosper indefinitely, running on the model that countries keep secrets from each-other and their people consistently?

Yes, I do think it would be a good thing. I'm not strictly speaking of the USA, either, I'm talking about all governments.

Tell me this. What exactly should we be hiding from the rest of the world? What exactly are we doing that's so horrible that it must be hidden from the world? Perhaps with government transparency around the world, the people wouldn't let governments get away with nasty shit like... Well, you know.

If that means that our current leadership is stripped completely and replaced with far more competent US citizens, then so be it.

It would be the ultimate oversight and "checks and balances" system.

When I say "100% government transparency, NOW", I mean for all nations, you're not the special little boy you think you are.

I think Im a special little boy? lol man take your meds.

As far as all governments around the world having transparency, well, you and I both know it will never happen. since you never indicated that, and we were talking about US government, I thought thats what you meant. But, the idea isnt practical. Unless every country had nearly identicle government models. But, like I said, Id like it to be 80 and sunny 365. And, as you say we cant control the weather, we cant control the human race. Nor can we Nice pipe dream though.

Thanks, I liked the sound of it, too!

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What's the point? Congress already passed anti-torture legislation and while Bush signed it, he literally came out and said that he wouldn't be bound by it. Why bother passing more bills that a lawless executive has already decreed he won't follow?

Link?

Sure thing!

The relevant quote:

But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security.

The signing statement that Bush attached to the bill basically says he will follow the law until he thinks he needs to break it, and then it isn't binding on him. It's the same logic he used to bypass FISA.

And how is this different than any other president's executive power?

Nice spin though!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What's the point? Congress already passed anti-torture legislation and while Bush signed it, he literally came out and said that he wouldn't be bound by it. Why bother passing more bills that a lawless executive has already decreed he won't follow?

Link?

Sure thing!

The relevant quote:

But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security.

The signing statement that Bush attached to the bill basically says he will follow the law until he thinks he needs to break it, and then it isn't binding on him. It's the same logic he used to bypass FISA.

And how is this different than any other president's executive power?

Nice spin though!

It's different in that no other president has ever tried to claim this sort of imperial power. If you think that the president reserving the right to torture people in direct violation of an act of Congress that HE signed is not different then what other presidents have done, (well except for maybe Nixon I guess) then you are hopelessly blind.

Anyways though, if you want to argue for tyrannical presidential power that's fine (stupid, but fine)... but my original point was that there's no point for Congress to pass laws like this until they reign in an executive branch that is completely lawless and out of control, because the president had already stated that he didn't have to follow the law. You asked for a link, I provided it.

 

[blackangst1]

So in your mind, he literally came out and said that he wouldn't be bound by it is not literal, but rather is equal to a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security..

Last time I checked, literal means...well...literal. Interpratation has nothing to do with it. What he said and what you THINK he said are two very completely different things.

And, based on what he said, how is this more executive power than any other president has had?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
So in your mind, he literally came out and said that he wouldn't be bound by it is not literal, but rather is equal to a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security..

Last time I checked, literal means...well...literal. Interpratation has nothing to do with it. What he said and what you THINK he said are two very completely different things.

And, based on what he said, how is this more executive power than any other president has had?

When someone says "in this situation I won't follow the law" that is literally coming out and saying they won't follow the law. There is no interpretation there, I thought that would be obvious.

And based on what he said he is claiming the power to ignore lawfully enacted statutes that he has signed based on nothing more then his own personal interpretation of the Constitution. There might be other cases in which this has happened, but I'm not aware of them. He is stating that as long as he deems something to be a national security matter, laws don't apply to him. By this logic his power is limitless, he is in effect a king. This is a breathtaking assertion of tyrannical power, and one that I am not aware of any president making with the exception of Nixon. (ie. "If the president does it then it's not illegal")

 

[ElFenix]

uh oh i've pissed off the harveybot. so, harveybot, where in your post did you refute my claim that merely saying he might refuse to follow a law is a crime? i might refuse to follow the speed limit on my way home, should i be cited right now?

and why are you calling him 'my traitor in chief'? i didn't vote for the bastard.

Tom Smykowski: It was a "Jump to Conclusions" mat. You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor... and would have different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO.
Michael Bolton: That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom.
Samir: Yes, this is horrible, this idea.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
So in your mind, he literally came out and said that he wouldn't be bound by it is not literal, but rather is equal to a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security..

Last time I checked, literal means...well...literal. Interpratation has nothing to do with it. What he said and what you THINK he said are two very completely different things.

And, based on what he said, how is this more executive power than any other president has had?

When someone says "in this situation I won't follow the law" that is literally coming out and saying they won't follow the law. There is no interpretation there, I thought that would be obvious.

And based on what he said he is claiming the power to ignore lawfully enacted statutes that he has signed based on nothing more then his own personal interpretation of the Constitution. There might be other cases in which this has happened, but I'm not aware of them. He is stating that as long as he deems something to be a national security matter, laws don't apply to him. By this logic his power is limitless, he is in effect a king. This is a breathtaking assertion of tyrannical power, and one that I am not aware of any president making with the exception of Nixon. (ie. "If the president does it then it's not illegal")

Answer my question. How is this different than any other president? There are many executive priveledges that supercede the "law".

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Answer my question. How is this different than any other president? There are many executive priveledges that supercede the "law".

NO! There are not. The chief executive does NOT have the "privilege" to break the law.

Wikipedia

In the United States government, executive privilege is the power (reserve power) claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned in the United States Constitution, but some consider it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "'essential to the justice of the case.'"(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with the United States Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.

C-SPAN Congressional Glossary

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE refers to the assertion made by the President or other executive branch officials when they refuse to give Congress, the courts, or private parties information or records which have been requested or subpoenaed, or when they order government witnesses not to testify before Congress.

The assertion is based on the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, is always controversial, subject to interpretation, and often litigated.

FindLaw.com

What is Executive Privilege and Where Does it Come From?

The Constitution nowhere expressly mentions executive privilege. Presidents have long claimed, however, that the constitutional principle of separation of powers implies that the Executive Branch has a privilege to resist certain encroachments by Congress and the judiciary, including some requests for information.

Unlike "executive privilege," putting the words, "the law" in quotes doesn't change the fact that the words that define them are THE LAW. NOWHERE, NOHOW, NO WAY does any credible definition of executive privilege extend to violating U.S. criminal statutes against torture, murder and treason.

IMPEACH BUSH and CHENEY, NOW!

 

[blackangst1]

Is not refusing to give testimony, documents, or turn over witnesses violaion of the law? Sorry Harv youre really stretching here.

Nice cut and paste on Iraq though! Not that it applies, but...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Is not refusing to give testimony, documents, or turn over witnesses violaion of the law? Sorry Harv youre really stretching here.

WTF are you smoking? I've given you three separate sources for definitions of "executive privilege" which address the specific issue you raise. NOWHERE does ANY of them claim such a privilege exists to violate U.S. statutes against torture, which happens be the subject of the thread.

Nice cut and paste on Iraq though! Not that it applies, but...

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their entire administration are the worst criminals ever to hold the executive branch of the U.S. government. It's just too damned bad if you can't handle the truth... not that little things like the truth and the U.S. Constitution mean much to a brown nosed Bushwhacko neocon sycophant.

 

[blackangst1]

Wierd. I pulled up the original article and the words executive privelege dont appear anywhere!

edit: I see what article youre referring. The one posted above. I still dont see how its different than any other executive priveledge. The EP is by design made to bypass law.