Reply With Quote
They should be prosecuted.
Sen. Lindsey Graham said the Abu Ghraib tapes contain evidence of serious crimes like rape and murder.
They should be prosecuted.
Torture is a crime. Shouldn't it be prosecuted?
Who's parsing now?
How adorable. You think war crimes can be parsed away by lawyers.
You've yet to prove any of the interrogation techniques cons ute torture.
A bunch of Democrats running around calling them torture doesn't make it so.
Depends on who's definition of torture you're using.
Should we prosecute the trainers at SERE for doing to our military soldiers the same thing we did to KSM and he terrorist buddies?
There's a difference between being willingly waterboarded and involuntarily having it done to you.
The 1996 law and Geneva suffice.
The suggestion that there is an equivalence between our treatment of SERE trainees and unlawful enemy combatants strains credulity. Poor, pitiful Yoni. Another threadbare comparison.
It doesn't seem there's much legal hazard for the trainers yet. That's as it should be IMO, unless the case should prove otherwise. If we trained people how to torture, that would clearly be beyond all bounds.
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-10-2009 at 03:18 PM.
We have.
Several times over.
Your counterargument is to deny existence of international treaties and the American justice system.
Pretty weak.
I've never seen the evidence. You believe others? Show me!
Jesus, do I have to do this every time?
Here's a synopsis of everything iu have already posted on the matter:
Waterboarding has been established as a punishable offense by the military in the Filipino insurgency after the Spanish-American War (where it was used against "unlawful combatants"), World War II (also declared a war crime at this time) and the Vietnam War. It has been repeatedly declared to be torture by federal courts in a criminal trial by the Reagan Department of Justice and in civil suits brought against the Marcos regime.
In order to make a legal argument for waterboarding -- each of these legal precedents must be addressed and shown why they do not apply. Had Yoo and Bybee even attempted this, it might not be so easy to declare them ty, dishonest lawyers. Instead, they tried to make an excuse for waterboarding using one treaty (not all the other treaties in effect at the time) and tried to define what torture is using a statute regarding Medicare benefits.
Medicare benefits.
Would some of the great legal minds here tell me what Medicare has to do with defining what torture is?
Where's the evidence?
Where's the proof that the technique used in the enhanced interrogations was the same as the waterboarding in any of the cases you go on about?
Seriously, just because it shares a name doesn't make it the same thing.
Maybe the cases you talk about weren't cited by the Bush administratio because the techniques are different.
So, tell me...why is this Democrat Congress not bringing criminal charges against anyone? Why is this Democrat President promising not to pursue charges against anyone but political appointees?
Why? Because what they did isn't a crime...anymore than doing it to soldiers going through SERE is a crime.
Have fun whining about this until your teeth rot out.
Here's a rather obvious point made by former Vice President Cheney on Meet the Press or Face the Nation, whichever one is hosted by Bob Schiffer,
So, if the Bush administration were just a bunch of torturers, why bother seeking counsel? Why not just let the CIA and the NSA do their thing? You, know, with the whole plausible deniability and all?
I think that's a fair question.
It's all there. You just saw it and ran away like the coward you are.
Your attempts at denial are cute, but useless.
That's not evidence that the enhanced interrogation technique, known as waterboarding, and used against KSM and the other two guys, is torture.
Where's the evidence these three men underwent torture?
What do you have -- other than the name, waterboarding?
Because, there are several variations of that particular event.
Of course they wanted to cover their asses -- after they already approved of the torture, mind you -- so who else would one go to for cover but your own lawyers tasked to write memos saying it isn't torture?If we had been about torture, we wouldn't have wasted our time going to the Justice Department.
Sorry, I already went over this.
You were too stupid to understand.
It's really all been done.
Seriously, the comparisons and contrasts at which you are failing miserably are exactly the kind of things that should have been addressed in any memo trying to legally define what waterboarding is.
The fact that Yoo and Bybee didn't is the worst indictment on them as lawyers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
