Obama releasing torture memos. Change we can believe in.

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I think TLC's problem is that he doesn't understand the difference between OLC opinions that were drafted to support positions of the president, and actual binding law.

An OLC memo saying 'this doesn't break the law' means approximately shit as to whether or not the action ACTUALLY breaks the law or not. This is further complicated by the fact that the legal reasoning in these memos is so horrifically poor that Bush's own outgoing OLC chief repudiated Bybee's work. So not only are the memos not equivalent to actual court decisions and real statutory authority, they were so badly written that they have been disowned by the very administration that commissioned them.

What I understand is that OLC opinions are drafted by experts in this case to explain how to avoid breaking the law while doing what we needed to do to maintain valid interrorgation capabilities during a time of crisis. Nor has a single person in here, including you, argued how or where the contents of the memos are in violation of the law. It certainly skirts the edges, no doubt. But skirting the edge of the law doesn't imply a law is broken. But instead of discussing that all I get is a bunch of strawmen rebuttals, red herrings, and ad homs in return.

So prove that these memos broke the law. I'll be waiting.

This.

 

[Lemon law]

In some ways, we could say, Jack The Ripper never got caught so therefore killing must be legal. And in somewhat the same way, it may boil down to an unknowable question of if certain GWB&co officials will finally be hauled before various courts to determine their guilt regarding torture.

To some extent Obama has already said, forgive and forget, but Obama may not end up getting his way. In terms of international travel by some of the people in question, that could be very foolish on their part. As the authorities there could well arrest and try those miscreants the second they fall into their hands. Sadly, in terms of international war crimes, its often a decade or more between commission of the crime and the start of prosecution.

Time may indeed tell.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In some ways, we could say, Jack The Ripper never got caught so therefore killing must be legal. And in somewhat the same way, it may boil down to an unknowable question of if certain GWB&co officials will finally be hauled before various courts to determine their guilt regarding torture.

To some extent Obama has already said, forgive and forget, but Obama may not end up getting his way. In terms of international travel by some of the people in question, that could be very foolish on their part. As the authorities there could well arrest and try those miscreants the second they fall into their hands. Sadly, in terms of international war crimes, its often a decade or more between commission of the crime and the start of prosecution.

Time may indeed tell.

Your analogy falls apart in that we know for a fact Jack The Ripper broke the law, and in the case of the topic on hand, all we know is the law was skirted. See the difference? And, the case I made earlier which no one seems to want to comment on, is that the entire senate is guilty of aiding/abetting at the least. After all, they all KNEW what was going on and did NOTHING about it, and to this day are doing nothing about it. So, we have one of two scenarios. First, anyone and everyone who knows about the goings on should be tried for aiding/abetting for standing by and doing nothing, therefore as JUST as guilty as GWB, OR they KNOW no law was broken thus arent pursuing anything. You dont think the sitting Dems wouldnt love a shot at GWB? Please. Imprisoning him would be the Dems wet dream.

 

[palehorse]

Nazis? Rape? Jack the ripper? ... eating shit?!??

This debate has gone plaid...

Q: If all of a President's brightest and most powerful legal advisers tell said President that a certain action is, by their best educated analysis, legal; but those actions are further examined, after the fact, and it's determined that they're illegal instead, is said President still punishable for the crimes?

It's a valid legal question that very few people seem to be discussing... instead, all we have is one long string of red herring failure.

My opinion is that many of the practices, including waterboarding, are abhorrent and should be criminal now and in the future. However, given the fact that the only basis the President had for making these decisions was the advice of his best attorneys and closest advisers, it may be wrong to prosecute him for anything that may be deemed a crime only in hindsight. After all, the circumstances wherein these actions were taken were mostly without precedent, and the President at the time was completely dependent upon his legal advisers to ensure that he stayed within the letter of the laws and the U.S. Constitution with every action he took.

Had there been a 50/50 split in his advice, yet he still chose to err on the side of going forward with the actions, then I might agree that he should have known better, and that he should be prosecuted. However, since the vast majority -- if not all -- of his advisers told him that what he was doing was legal, then it's very tough to fault him for believing at the time that he was acting within the law.

We're talking about very complex circumstances and decisions being made at the Presidential level wherein none of the bullshit red herrings being posted in this thread are applicable, so don't even bother trying to go down that road again. Anyone who responds with "But.. but, if all my friends tell me that shooting my wife is OK, does that make it legal too?," or anything similar, is a fucking moron. Period.

Stick to a discussion of the unique facts, legal ambiguities, and the complex circumstances surrounding these actions when attempting to answer my question above.

Good luck.

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In some ways, we could say, Jack The Ripper never got caught so therefore killing must be legal. And in somewhat the same way, it may boil down to an unknowable question of if certain GWB&co officials will finally be hauled before various courts to determine their guilt regarding torture.

To some extent Obama has already said, forgive and forget, but Obama may not end up getting his way. In terms of international travel by some of the people in question, that could be very foolish on their part. As the authorities there could well arrest and try those miscreants the second they fall into their hands. Sadly, in terms of international war crimes, its often a decade or more between commission of the crime and the start of prosecution.

Time may indeed tell.

Your analogy falls apart in that we know for a fact Jack The Ripper broke the law, and in the case of the topic on hand, all we know is the law was skirted. See the difference? And, the case I made earlier which no one seems to want to comment on, is that the entire senate is guilty of aiding/abetting at the least. After all, they all KNEW what was going on and did NOTHING about it, and to this day are doing nothing about it. So, we have one of two scenarios. First, anyone and everyone who knows about the goings on should be tried for aiding/abetting for standing by and doing nothing, therefore as JUST as guilty as GWB, OR they KNOW no law was broken thus arent pursuing anything. You dont think the sitting Dems wouldnt love a shot at GWB? Please. Imprisoning him would be the Dems wet dream.

Exactly. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone when Obama says there is no need to pursue or even suggest legal action for any of this. The last thing he would do is suggest anything that could bust certain high-profile Dems...ahem...Pelosi...who didn't seem to mind for the first couple years but suddenly had a change of tune when everyone else was yelling about it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In some ways, we could say, Jack The Ripper never got caught so therefore killing must be legal. And in somewhat the same way, it may boil down to an unknowable question of if certain GWB&co officials will finally be hauled before various courts to determine their guilt regarding torture.

To some extent Obama has already said, forgive and forget, but Obama may not end up getting his way. In terms of international travel by some of the people in question, that could be very foolish on their part. As the authorities there could well arrest and try those miscreants the second they fall into their hands. Sadly, in terms of international war crimes, its often a decade or more between commission of the crime and the start of prosecution.

Time may indeed tell.

Your analogy falls apart in that we know for a fact Jack The Ripper broke the law, and in the case of the topic on hand, all we know is the law was skirted. See the difference? And, the case I made earlier which no one seems to want to comment on, is that the entire senate is guilty of aiding/abetting at the least. After all, they all KNEW what was going on and did NOTHING about it, and to this day are doing nothing about it. So, we have one of two scenarios. First, anyone and everyone who knows about the goings on should be tried for aiding/abetting for standing by and doing nothing, therefore as JUST as guilty as GWB, OR they KNOW no law was broken thus arent pursuing anything. You dont think the sitting Dems wouldnt love a shot at GWB? Please. Imprisoning him would be the Dems wet dream.

Your first scenario is precisely why the Democrats will never go after Bush. Quite a few of them, and prominent Dems at that, would be just as guilty.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...8/AR2007120801664.html

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

 

[Lemon law]

Excuse me, even if we concede the TLC allegation as valid, and by the way something I will concede as valid, prosecution for war crimes is not quite even binary as you get prosecuted or not. Even if someone like Dick Cheney is somehow lucky enough to somehow escape being prosecuted during his lifetime, Dick Cheney is almost certain to go down in world history as someone that is one of the greatest villains and sadists in history.

Ask yourself, would you sell your soul to the devil if ratfink is to be the ultimate judgment of your life in all history books? And the object lesson of your life, in your own nation ends up, whatever you do, don't be like Dick Cheney or GWB&co. Its all well and fine to point out that some demorats somewhat enabled Cheney, but at the end of the day, while history may be written by the victors, history always dumps on ratfink #1.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Nazis? Rape? Jack the ripper? ... eating shit?!??

This debate has gone plaid...

Q: If all of a President's brightest and most powerful legal advisers tell said President that a certain action is, by their best educated analysis, legal; but those actions are further examined, after the fact, and it's determined that they're illegal instead, is said President still punishable for the crimes?

It's a valid legal question that very few people seem to be discussing... instead, all we have is one long string of red herring failure.

My opinion is that many of the practices, including waterboarding, are abhorrent and should be criminal now and in the future. However, given the fact that the only basis the President had for making these decisions was the advice of his best attorneys and closest advisers, it may be wrong to prosecute him for anything that may be deemed a crime only in hindsight. After all, the circumstances wherein these actions were taken were mostly without precedent, and the President at the time was completely dependent upon his legal advisers to ensure that he stayed within the letter of the laws and the U.S. Constitution with every action he took.

Had there been a 50/50 split in his advice, yet he still chose to err on the side of going forward with the actions, then I might agree that he should have known better, and that he should be prosecuted. However, since the vast majority -- if not all -- of his advisers told him that what he was doing was legal, then it's very tough to fault him for believing at the time that he was acting within the law.

We're talking about very complex circumstances and decisions being made at the Presidential level wherein none of the bullshit red herrings being posted in this thread are applicable, so don't even bother trying to go down that road again. Anyone who responds with "But.. but, if all my friends tell me that shooting my wife is OK, does that make it legal too?," or anything similar, is a fucking moron. Period.

Stick to a discussion of the unique facts, legal ambiguities, and the complex circumstances surrounding these actions when attempting to answer my question above.

Good luck.

Many here don't care about the legal opinion, the whole point of this is that they are trying to criminalize political decisions they disagree with. Which, if it happens, will effectively bring any serious work in government to a grinding halt - who will want to go out on a limb to do anything where there might be political blowback, when the opposition will try to prosecute you for after the next election? This time it could be "torture," in the future it could be prosecutions for decisions made that expand abortion rights being spun as "facilitating murder." It may sound far-fetched, but basically the left is trying to make it impossible for anyone in government to rely on a legal opinion, regardless whether or not that opinion was provided in good faith.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Excuse me, even if we concede the TLC allegation as valid, and by the way something I will concede as valid, prosecution for war crimes is not quite even binary as you get prosecuted or not. Even if someone like Dick Cheney is somehow lucky enough to somehow escape being prosecuted during his lifetime, Dick Cheney is almost certain to go down in world history as someone that is one of the greatest villains and sadists in history.

Umm yeah, right up there with Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler.

You're listening to KZLL, where the hyperbolic hits keep playing, 24/7.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: glenn1
[Many here don't care about the legal opinion, the whole point of this is that they are trying to criminalize political decisions they disagree with. Which, if it happens, will effectively bring any serious work in government to a grinding halt - who will want to go out on a limb to do anything where there might be political blowback, when the opposition will try to prosecute you for after the next election? This time it could be "torture," in the future it could be prosecutions for decisions made that expand abortion rights being spun as "facilitating murder." It may sound far-fetched, but basically the left is trying to make it impossible for anyone in government to rely on a legal opinion, regardless whether or not that opinion was provided in good faith.

Two textbook fallacies, straw man (the liberals are wanting to prosecute 'political decisions', not 'torture'), and slippery slope ('today torture, tomorrow abortion').

I could expoain why you are making fallacious arguments in detail, but I'm pretty sure that there are two groups, those who arleady know and those who wouldn't get it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Eating shit, drinking piss, rape and all the rest of the bullshit are fucking red herrings in this dicussion. We don't do those so they have no place in this dicussion. The discussion is about "no lasting harm" in regard to the techniques we do use. So please stop with your indulgently idiotic line of reasoning. Got it?

I was going to just copy and paste my previous comments to make the point, but I'll say the same thing yet another way.

Let's make the standard "they can do anything they want, including torturing their children to death in front of them." It's ok, since we don't do that. Right?

If not, when you are you going to get a clue that the standard should not include things we should not do - it should not include them even if 'we don't do them now'.

 

[jackschmittusa]

There was ample national and international legal precedent that water boarding was a crime. The example of the Japanese War Crimes Trials alone is evidence of that. The CIA was acutely aware of that and begged the Administration to concoct some semblance of legal cover. The Administration, seemingly reluctantly, did just that by arranging for legal opinions using smoke and mirrors that magically made what was previously agreed to be illegal just jimdandy all of a sudden. They created a situation of plausibly denying they were breaking laws out of thin air.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Eating shit, drinking piss, rape and all the rest of the bullshit are fucking red herrings in this dicussion. We don't do those so they have no place in this dicussion. The discussion is about "no lasting harm" in regard to the techniques we do use. So please stop with your indulgently idiotic line of reasoning. Got it?

I was going to just copy and paste my previous comments to make the point, but I'll say the same thing yet another way.

Let's make the standard "they can do anything they want, including torturing their children to death in front of them." It's ok, since we don't do that. Right?

If not, when you are you going to get a clue that the standard should not include things we should not do - it should not include them even if 'we don't do them now'.

There goes the hyperbole again. Let's equate controlled interrogation techniques designed to comply with our laws with "torturing their children to death in front of them." Do you NOT realize that you and everyone else in here that trots out that sort of emotionally-charged tripe looks foolish doing it? How can you not recognize how pathetic your argument is?

Here's a clue for you, Craig. Try explaining how the techniques we actually used were illegal. Please explain.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
There was ample national and international legal precedent that water boarding was a crime. The example of the Japanese War Crimes Trials alone is evidence of that. The CIA was acutely aware of that and begged the Administration to concoct some semblance of legal cover. The Administration, seemingly reluctantly, did just that by arranging for legal opinions using smoke and mirrors that magically made what was previously agreed to be illegal just jimdandy all of a sudden. They created a situation of plausibly denying they were breaking laws out of thin air.

Sorry, but that's a distortion of the facts surrounding the Japanese trials. The officers were found guilty of using a vast number torture techniques, some really hideous, then murdering and burying their prisoners. The trials were never for waterboarding alone and I seriously doubt you could make a case that they would have been convicted for war crimes had waterboarding been their worst offense.

iow, it's another case of trying to equate that which is not equal.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
There was ample national and international legal precedent that water boarding was a crime. The example of the Japanese War Crimes Trials alone is evidence of that. The CIA was acutely aware of that and begged the Administration to concoct some semblance of legal cover. The Administration, seemingly reluctantly, did just that by arranging for legal opinions using smoke and mirrors that magically made what was previously agreed to be illegal just jimdandy all of a sudden. They created a situation of plausibly denying they were breaking laws out of thin air.

Then why will no one be prosecuted for it? Can you explain? Some have mentioned the Hague. Why arent countries lining up to drag GWB & Co into international court?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Nazis? Rape? Jack the ripper? ... eating shit?!??

This debate has gone plaid...

Q: If all of a President's brightest and most powerful legal advisers tell said President that a certain action is, by their best educated analysis, legal; but those actions are further examined, after the fact, and it's determined that they're illegal instead, is said President still punishable for the crimes?

It's a valid legal question that very few people seem to be discussing... instead, all we have is one long string of red herring failure.

My opinion is that many of the practices, including waterboarding, are abhorrent and should be criminal now and in the future. However, given the fact that the only basis the President had for making these decisions was the advice of his best attorneys and closest advisers, it may be wrong to prosecute him for anything that may be deemed a crime only in hindsight. After all, the circumstances wherein these actions were taken were mostly without precedent, and the President at the time was completely dependent upon his legal advisers to ensure that he stayed within the letter of the laws and the U.S. Constitution with every action he took.

Had there been a 50/50 split in his advice, yet he still chose to err on the side of going forward with the actions, then I might agree that he should have known better, and that he should be prosecuted. However, since the vast majority -- if not all -- of his advisers told him that what he was doing was legal, then it's very tough to fault him for believing at the time that he was acting within the law.

We're talking about very complex circumstances and decisions being made at the Presidential level wherein none of the bullshit red herrings being posted in this thread are applicable, so don't even bother trying to go down that road again. Anyone who responds with "But.. but, if all my friends tell me that shooting my wife is OK, does that make it legal too?," or anything similar, is a fucking moron. Period.

Stick to a discussion of the unique facts, legal ambiguities, and the complex circumstances surrounding these actions when attempting to answer my question above.

Good luck.

My understanding is that it was a select group of "advisors" whose opinion were asked? Kind of like the cherry picked "facts" that supported Iraq having WMD's.

Face it, Bush's credibility has been shoot to hell from WMD's to Alberto Gonzalez. From who outed Valerie Plume to stacking the Justice Dept. with graduates from that second rate law school.

You can't fool all the people all the time.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Nazis? Rape? Jack the ripper? ... eating shit?!??

This debate has gone plaid...

Q: If all of a President's brightest and most powerful legal advisers tell said President that a certain action is, by their best educated analysis, legal; but those actions are further examined, after the fact, and it's determined that they're illegal instead, is said President still punishable for the crimes?

It's a valid legal question that very few people seem to be discussing... instead, all we have is one long string of red herring failure.

IANAL, but that would (should?) be no different if a regular person's lawyer gave him/her wrong advice about illegality. If a CEO gets advice from his corporate lawyers saying that XYZ is OK, and the government arrests/charges the CEO with a crime for doing XYZ, the CEO can not use as a defense "my lawyer said it was legal". Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and all of that...

So I would think that doesn't provide any excuse to Bush. Especially since these are Bush appointees, pretty much guaranteed to agree with him. So his lawyers aren't even impartial, but will do whatever he wants, as they did in this case. Spin some BS to try and make it look good. That is like a defense lawyer getting to be a judge in his own case, it kinda defeats the purpose of being un-biased.

And in this case (waterboarding/torture/etc) this isn't really a brand new technology, action, or anything like that. With the exception of a few people like TLC, Cheney, and Yoo, the rest of the world has recognized that this is illegal, and it has been for 100+ years. We, along with other countries have arrested and convicted citizens for doing this. It's been condemned by us when done in other countries. This isn't anything new, so I don't see how this could be a deliberate attempt to ignore the laws of our country.

If this were about some new technology, say like reading email, is it considered like mail (protected from search) or a phone call (able to be wiretapped?). At least i areas like that , tech advances can render laws obsolete, or make laws mean totally different things. But waterboarding is none of that, it's an action that has gone on for 300+ years.

So in the end, yes, he's responsible and an investigation should happen and trials should occur. We need to stop this "president is above the law" nonsense right now, before anyone else pushes the envelope even further and causes even more harm to this country.

As several bloggers have noted, we actually have a legal obligation to investigate and try anyone under several treaties that the Senate ratified. So if we don't, we would be breaking another law as well.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
My understanding is that it was a select group of "advisors" whose opinion were asked? Kind of like the cherry picked "facts" that supported Iraq having WMD's.

Face it, Bush's credibility has been shoot to hell from WMD's to Alberto Gonzalez. From who outed Valerie Plume to stacking the Justice Dept. with graduates from that second rate law school.

You can't fool all the people all the time.

Obama's advisors will tend to be more to the left in their interpretation of the law as well, at least in some cases. Doesn't seem to be a stretch to expect them of that either.

Of course each side will interpret the law according to their own vision. That doesn't imply illegality though because the law, inherently, does have some flexibility to it. If it didn't we wouldn't need the Judicial branch in the first place. Legal issues would be cut and dried with no discussion.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
TLC, torture does not need to cause lasting harm for it to be torture. And that is where you lose the argument.

By law it does, LL, and that's where you lose.

I think the left is deflated after reading the actual content of these memos. They thought they'd be some sort of smoking gun and a huge indictment of the Bush admin. Bummer for them, but overstatement born of partisanism is not an unknown quantity from either side when it comes to politics. It always leaves both sides looking like idiots.

Want to quote a real law where it says that?

It's already in the memos. Read them first, then post.

Memos are memos, not law. Please post an actual law before posting.

One of the memos specifically mentions that there is no case law, and they can't guarantee that this is indeed OK.

So post some facts next time you post please.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Proof that Bush told them what to say? Your vivid, partisan imagination does not make for truth. It makes for nothing more pure, unfounded speculation.

I don't need proof....they are *not* an un-biased group when they are appointed by the President. They are his lawyers.

Anyway, as usual, you ignored what you cannot argue, namely that *judges* rule on the law, and not presidential appointees, no matter how many memos they write. Do you dispute this? Bush can line up 1000 lawyers that write opinions saying it's legal and it doesn't mean shit, it's the one judge at the trial that decides guilt. Come on, this is basic stuff TLC, you don't even know these simple things?

So again, tell us in detail how this isn't illegal, when like I posted, doing these actions to anyone would get me arrested in about 10sec flat. And please show us how people that have been arrested and convicted by the US for waterboarding are somehow magically "innocent", despite being convicted. We all stand in awe of your ability to twist facts and believe only what you want.

Be careful, we don't want you to blow a gasket with the contortions you are twisting your brain into try and defend the indefensible.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
There was ample national and international legal precedent that water boarding was a crime. The example of the Japanese War Crimes Trials alone is evidence of that. The CIA was acutely aware of that and begged the Administration to concoct some semblance of legal cover. The Administration, seemingly reluctantly, did just that by arranging for legal opinions using smoke and mirrors that magically made what was previously agreed to be illegal just jimdandy all of a sudden. They created a situation of plausibly denying they were breaking laws out of thin air.

Then why will no one be prosecuted for it? Can you explain? Some have mentioned the Hague. Why arent countries lining up to drag GWB & Co into international court?

You know the answer, it's politics. After Bush politicized 9/11, no one dares to vote/do anything that is "weak on terror" because of ignorant citizens.


To quote Hermann Goering, his infamous quote is approriate to this mess:

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Sound familiar? It's what we have heard for the last 7 years.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Do you know anything about the War Crimes Trials after WWII? The greatest of care was taken to only include acts that there was no reasonable defense against. If water boarding had been questionable, they would have left it out. You pointed out already that they had enough without it to convict, so why bother to include it if it wasn't rock-solid.

Even the UCMJ has been re-written to specify that a soldier must only follow LAWFUL ORDERS. It only seems reasonable that all government employees should be similarly bound. The CIA had enough of a problem with it that they demanded something from on high to cover their asses.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
TLC, torture does not need to cause lasting harm for it to be torture. And that is where you lose the argument.

By law it does, LL, and that's where you lose.

I think the left is deflated after reading the actual content of these memos. They thought they'd be some sort of smoking gun and a huge indictment of the Bush admin. Bummer for them, but overstatement born of partisanism is not an unknown quantity from either side when it comes to politics. It always leaves both sides looking like idiots.

Want to quote a real law where it says that?

It's already in the memos. Read them first, then post.

Memos are memos, not law. Please post an actual law before posting.

One of the memos specifically mentions that there is no case law, and they can't guarantee that this is indeed OK.

So post some facts next time you post please.

Uh huh.

You asked about the law. The memos cite the relevant law, including specific case law. Did you happen to notice all the footnotes? Go to the endpages.

D'oh!

What was that again about posting facts?

:roll:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
There was ample national and international legal precedent that water boarding was a crime. The example of the Japanese War Crimes Trials alone is evidence of that. The CIA was acutely aware of that and begged the Administration to concoct some semblance of legal cover. The Administration, seemingly reluctantly, did just that by arranging for legal opinions using smoke and mirrors that magically made what was previously agreed to be illegal just jimdandy all of a sudden. They created a situation of plausibly denying they were breaking laws out of thin air.

Then why will no one be prosecuted for it? Can you explain? Some have mentioned the Hague. Why arent countries lining up to drag GWB & Co into international court?

You know the answer, it's politics. After Bush politicized 9/11, no one dares to vote/do anything that is "weak on terror" because of ignorant citizens.


To quote Hermann Goering, his infamous quote is approriate to this mess:

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Sound familiar? It's what we have heard for the last 7 years.

Thats not the answer, IMO.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Proof that Bush told them what to say? Your vivid, partisan imagination does not make for truth. It makes for nothing more pure, unfounded speculation.

I don't need proof....they are *not* an un-biased group when they are appointed by the President. They are his lawyers.

And you are unbiased?

lol

Yes, you DO need proof of such a bold assertion. In fact, considering your known position concerning Bush, you need extraordinary proof that leaves no doubt as to your claims.

Let's see it.