Who will turn the dark and painful page ?

[WhoWee]

Waterboarding (apparently) invokes the sense of imminent drowning, thus whilst it may not be life threatening in that sense, it is certainly perceived by the torturee as being life threatening. This would be classed as severe mental suffering and, as per the UN convention, be illegal.




Please, where is your proof that such aggressive methods saved you from being attacked post 9/11? Correlation does not imply causation (that's stats 101)!

First, 183/30 is roughly 6 times per day...don't you think (after the first day) the "torturee" would have figured out he wasn't going to drown?

As for specific proof...read the Cheney transcript...he's asking for those details to be released...it's my entire point.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't buy the argument that Bush/Cheney and their tactics "kept the US safe". To the contrary, they have polarized much of the Muslim world against the US and made it easier for radical groups to recruit. There were NO radical fundamentalist Muslim groups operating in Iraq prior to the US invasion - Saddam wouldn't tolerate their existence. It is indisputable that there were Shi'ite groups in Iraq that were aligned with Iran, but they were kept under check by the Sunni-dominated government and were not much of a threat. Under Saddam, women in Iraq were able to pursue higher education, hold positions of responsibility, and live in a society that is far more secular and free of religious repression than most of the arab world.

And releasing this information somehow will reduce this anger?

Obama might have just thrown fuel on the fire...and at the same time thrown away his only "firefighting gear".

 

[cristo]

First, 183/30 is roughly 6 times per day...don't you think (after the first day) the "torturee" would have figured out he wasn't going to drown?

You're trolling, right? How about I stab you in the arm 6 times a day. Don't be worried though, you won't die!

As for specific proof...read the Cheney transcript...he's asking for those details to be released...it's my entire point.

It's very convenient, isn't it? He knows those documents will never be declassified (since if they do, they prove the CIA tortured people!) so he can basically say whatever he likes!


Anyway, whether this torture worked or not is irrelevant to the main point that this all brings up. RootX got it spot on: is the law only meant for your enemies to abide by?

 

[drankin]

I think the CIA torture methods should be allowed in cases of foreign threats against our national security. Weren't these approved methods at the time?

 

[WhoWee]

Are you suggesting that laws are meant for your enemies only ?

Do you live in a port city? Are you safer now...or where you safer 2 years ago?

Do you really believe that if we know a terrorist act is underway that we should wait until the "crime" takes place before we take action? Compare your answer to the Blago situation...why didn't the prosecutor let that situation play out...to see if a crime would actually take place...because it would do harm?

As for care of prisoners, we've certainly done worse... consider Andersonville
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/classics/andersonville/1.html

Should Obama also denounce and apologize for Lincoln?

Obama said he wants to move forward...he should keep his word and focus on continuing to protect us from the REAL EVILS in this world.

 

[WhoWee]

You're trolling, right? How about I stab you in the arm 6 times a day. Don't be worried though, you won't die!



It's very convenient, isn't it? He knows those documents will never be declassified (since if they do, they prove the CIA tortured people!) so he can basically say whatever he likes!


Anyway, whether this torture worked or not is irrelevant to the main point that this all brings up. RootX got it spot on: is the law only meant for your enemies to abide by?

Apparently, YOU can say whatever you like...by the way, did you threaten me?

 

[WhoWee]

It's very convenient, isn't it? He knows those documents will never be declassified (since if they do, they prove the CIA tortured people!) so he can basically say whatever he likes!

By your logic, it's very convenient for Obama.

 

[humanino]

did you threaten me?

Look it's easy. I suggest you experience it by yourself and then come back to describe how it feels. You know it has been done right ? The videos one can find never claim it is acceptable. It feels like drowning, and only by lengthy exercise can one accept the pain and the stress to make it less horrible. It does not make the pain disappear either.

 

[turbo]

Do you live in a port city? Are you safer now...or where you safer 2 years ago?

Nobody in a port city is any safer than they were a decade ago. If you live in a port city that handles a lot of containers, you should know that exporters sending containers to the US are still not required to have the contents of those containers inspected, certified and sealed prior to shipment. The cost (and delay) of inspection are borne by the US and the companies buying the imported goods, which is absolutely wrong. Free trade should not be "reckless trade" in which foreign entities are allowed to ship uninspected cargo to the US and make us pay for the security needed to screen them. Security should be mandated at the port of origin, and the costs should be bundled into the cost of the imported products. US workers are at a disadvantage to low-wage workers in other countries already - we shouldn't have to pay more for reasonable security.

We have heard a lot about radiation monitors and dirty bombs - how about biological agents, nerve agents, or even conventional explosives? BTW, if your port city has a LNG terminal, you should know that any nut with an RPG can give everybody for miles around a VERY bad day.

 

[Proton Soup]

Our system of government is designed such that even Presidents can be held liable for crimes. No one is above the law and politics is not a shield against legal review.

What you fail to understand is that the previous admin was a severe aberration in our system. Our legal system, which is the practical implentation of our Constitution, is designed to deal with these situations.

If anyone is convicted of a crime, it will be because, beyond any reasonable doubt, they are guilty.

no, you have to impeach the president. through congress. a political process. you can drag the president before a civil court, but not a criminal one.

 

[LowlyPion]

Cheney formally asked the CIA?? Someone needs to inform the CIA that Cheney can no longer formally ask for anything.

This was apparently another Cheney lie. The CIA according to an Andrea Mitchell report has received no such request from Cheney.

My guess is the Cheney would call for the release of such information that he knows neither exists nor would be released if it did, because it most likely would qualify as Classified.

It looks to me like more of the same from Cheney.

The weasel in the field that stands up gets shot at. The one that stays low may escape the interest of the hunter. (Apparently Bush's strategy.) For someone that hunts, even though he hunts badly if you've the misfortune to be in his hunting party, apparently he hasn't learned much in the great outdoors.

If he wants to prance about in the open inviting fire, his pelt may become an object lesson for the future of the Republic, rather than any icon of public admiration.

 

[LowlyPion]

Weren't these approved methods at the time?

It's the authors of these decisions - the bogus legal foundation on which they were predicated and conducted, which they are now considering prosecuting.

Here is Obama's statements from earlier today.

Obama Open to Inquiry in Interrogation Abuses

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22intel.html?hp

 

[LowlyPion]

no, you have to impeach the president. through congress. a political process. you can drag the president before a civil court, but not a criminal one.

When he is in office this is true.

But Bush no longer has the protection of that clause of the Constitution now that he is no longer an office holder.

 

[Proton Soup]

When he is in office this is true.

But Bush no longer has the protection of that clause of the Constitution now that he is no longer an office holder.

bull****.

 

[LowlyPion]

bull****.

Since you seem so certain on the issue, I'd want to see a citation supporting your point of view.

 

[drankin]

When he is in office this is true.

But Bush no longer has the protection of that clause of the Constitution now that he is no longer an office holder.

But he was an office holder when the alleged "crimes" were committed.

 

[Proton Soup]

Since you seem so certain on the issue, I'd want to see a citation supporting your point of view.

better yet, you show me a criminal indictment against any former president for crimes committed during office.

 

[LowlyPion]

But he was an office holder when the alleged "crimes" were committed.

And what law then is the authority that would grant any President perpetual immunity for any acts of malfeasance, or high crimes and misdemeanors, when they are in office, regardless of whether they were not impeached?

 

[LowlyPion]

better yet, you show me a criminal indictment against any former president for crimes committed during office.

It's your assertion. I'm looking for the authority under which you think ex-Presidents enjoy perpetual immunity. I don't recall ever seeing such an authority. Surely you wouldn't rely on the fact that it may never have happened as proof of anything but that it hadn't happened.

 

[drankin]

And what law then is the authority that would grant any President perpetual immunity for any acts of malfeasance, or high crimes and misdemeanors, when they are in office, regardless of whether they were not impeached?

It's a legal battle that would take a loooong time I'm sure. It would probably have to go to the SC. Meanwhile, many of us don't believe there was a crime in the first place. If it does happen as you would like, then we could start digging up stuff on Clinton. That would be fun.

 

[Coin]

better yet, you show me a criminal indictment against any former president for crimes committed during office.

Nixon escaped indictment essentially only because of the blanket pardon he was granted by Ford. Jaworski's team tried very hard to find some way to avoid indicting Nixon, pushing off the decision as long as possible, but ultimately were convinced they had no choice but to; Ford then took the decision out of their hands.

Exactly under what terms and whether an ex-President can be charged for crimes while in office is to some extent an open constitutional question. But the question I'd ask here is, if it is not constitutionally possible to indict an ex-President, then why did Ford need to pardon Nixon?

 

[LowlyPion]

It's a legal battle that would take a loooong time I'm sure. It would probably have to go to the SC. Meanwhile, many of us don't believe there was a crime in the first place. If it does happen as you would like, then we could start digging up stuff on Clinton. That would be fun.

So long as we are agreed then that Cheney or Bush could in fact still be prosecuted for crimes committed in office ... I'll leave it to the particulars of any indictment as to what could or could not be accomplished in a criminal proceeding.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's a legal battle that would take a loooong time I'm sure. It would probably have to go to the SC. Meanwhile, many of us don't believe there was a crime in the first place. If it does happen as you would like, then we could start digging up stuff on Clinton. That would be fun.

I believe that it would first go before Congress or a congressional committee. Then, if it is a crime linked to the office of president, to a federal court. Since there seems to be little in the way of legal precident for prosecuting the president in a criminal court it will likely land in the supreme court eventually. You may be right that the likelihood of the occurance is slim but that it can not happen is just flat out wrong.

 

[Proton Soup]

Nixon escaped indictment essentially only because of the blanket pardon he was granted by Ford. Jaworski's team tried very hard to find some way to avoid indicting Nixon, pushing off the decision as long as possible, but ultimately were convinced they had no choice but to; Ford then took the decision out of their hands.

Exactly under what terms and whether an ex-President can be charged for crimes while in office is to some extent an open constitutional question. But the question I'd ask here is, if it is not constitutionally possible to indict an ex-President, then why did Ford need to pardon Nixon?

well, Nixon resigned under the knowledge that impeachment was imminent. that certainly complicates things.

if it is an open question whether an ex-president can be charged for crimes while in office, then it's an equally open question whether Ford's pardon had any effect legally beyond keeping the question open.

 

[WhoWee]

Nixon escaped indictment essentially only because of the blanket pardon he was granted by Ford. Jaworski's team tried very hard to find some way to avoid indicting Nixon, pushing off the decision as long as possible, but ultimately were convinced they had no choice but to; Ford then took the decision out of their hands.

Exactly under what terms and whether an ex-President can be charged for crimes while in office is to some extent an open constitutional question. But the question I'd ask here is, if it is not constitutionally possible to indict an ex-President, then why did Ford need to pardon Nixon?

To avoid further disgrace to our Nation...Obama needs to end this nonsense!

What next, a civil suit with damages to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad? I'm sure he'd accept 183 nuclear warheads as payment...might find them useful to complete his plan.

 

[WhoWee]

I believe that it would first go before Congress or a congressional committee. Then, if it is a crime linked to the office of president, to a federal court. Since there seems to be little in the way of legal precident for prosecuting the president in a criminal court it will likely land in the supreme court eventually. You may be right that the likelihood of the occurance is slim but that it can not happen is just flat out wrong.

When are we going to question the (Democratic) Congress role in this...who knew what and when, etc.?

 

[cristo]

I think the CIA torture methods should be allowed in cases of foreign threats against our national security.

And you would allow any other nation in the world to torture US citizens if they were deemed a threat against the other nation's national security? ... Didn't think so!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Movie_poster_team_america.jpg

 

[LowlyPion]

What next, a civil suit with damages to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?

Not a bad idea.

I'd give him Cheney's ranch in Wyoming as compensation for the indignities he was made to suffer at the hands of Cheney's henchmen.

 

[drankin]

And you would allow any other nation in the world to torture US citizens if they were deemed a threat against the other nation's national security? ... Didn't think so!



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Movie_poster_team_america.jpg

[/URL]

Of course we wouldn't allow it to be done to us! LOL

 

[Proton Soup]

eh, i don't get it. the crimes committed in vietnam were far and away worse than anything alleged here.

 

[WhoWee]

Not a bad idea.

I'd give him Cheney's ranch in Wyoming as compensation for the indignities he was made to suffer at the hands of Cheney's henchmen.

Really?

And what should Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (and his henchmen) pay to the families of people killed on September 11, 2001?

Remember, if you (they) destroy the United States of America...you will lose your rights.

There is a limit to radical left cheering...you are clearly there.

 

[LowlyPion]

And what should Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (and his henchmen) pay to the families of people killed on September 11, 2001?

You've got a point.

OK Seize the ranch he just got from Cheney and sell it to give to the victim's families.

 

[WhoWee]

You've got a point.

OK Seize the ranch he just got from Cheney and sell it to give to the victim's families.

I'm sorry for the tone LP...this is an emotional topic...just as decision making immediately after 9-11 was emotional.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And what should Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (and his henchmen) pay to the families of people killed on September 11, 2001?

I'm sure that if they weren't turnips they'd be bled already.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm sure that if they weren't turnips they'd be bled already.

Can you please explain what that means?