"The Justice Department responded they were not."
dubya's justice department was corrupt, compromised political house, giving any legal opinion the WH wanted. Gonzalez, Wu, the US AGs told to go after (non-existent) voter fraud, the US AG who was fired for imprisoning corrupt Repug Duke Cunningham, etc, etc.
stain after stain after stain from the dubya era Exec.
"The Justice Department responded they were not."
dubya's justice department was corrupt, compromised political house, giving any legal opinion the WH wanted. Gonzalez, Wu, the US AGs told to go after (non-existent) voter fraud, the US AG who was fired for imprisoning corrupt Repug Duke Cunningham, etc, etc.
stain after stain after stain from the dubya era Exec.
"The Justice Department responded they were not."
Yoni referencing the dubya DoJ as some kind of legal reference!
ashcroft (who didn't want anybody to see aluminum s on Lady Justice), house-lawyer-as-AG gonzalez, corrupt wu, corrupt US AGs ordered to go after non-existent voter fraud (fired if when they didn't), the US AG fired because she imprisoned corrupt Repug Duke Cunningham.
stain after stain after stain after stain from the dubya/ head Exec.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-15-2011 at 05:20 PM.
Can't say what I'd do in that situation being how irrational I'd be if I saw them kill my sister. But assumming all my senses were in order no I wouldn't, you're wrong. I don't believe in capital punishment it achieves nothing.
What if in order to find your sister, you had to kill one of them?
And what if there was a 50/50 chance she was already dead?
How the does killing someone relate to waterboarding? Theres no relation to the question you ask and waterboarding.
The kind of waterboarding that would be used to extract information.
Have you really ever been waterboarded by someone trying to get information out of you?
he was hypothetically waterboarded by two guys trying to find out why he killed his sister. keep up.
That's an overly broad definition. The enhanced interrogation technique -- labeled waterboarding -- has a specific definition. It was specifically designed to stop short of being able to be legally defined -- in any body of law having jurisdiction -- as torture. Because there are people unable to differentiate the various types of waterboarding, employed over the centuries, and choose to characterize this specific variety as torture does not change the fact it isn't.
Nope.
Please present the exact definition. Also please describe what did the torturers did to ensure they were not violating said definition. Furthermore, since you seem to be so acquainted with the legality of this procedure, explain how such definition avoid the various international human rights treaties the US is a signatory of.
Thanks.
Definition from the CIA memo ins uting the practice:
The administration then made its case, in several memoranda, the technique did not cons ute torture.In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth... During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths... The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout... You have... informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application.
Yes, I know Yoo and Bybee have been demonized over their opinions. When asked to revise the standards in 2004, Acting Asst AG Daniel Levin noted (about the Yoo memorandum):
I believe the administration did due diligence in ensuring the techniques were within the law. The worst consequence -- other than the vilification of President Bush and his administration over the issue led to four years of an Obama administration -- is that Yoo was found to have used poor judgement in his analysis.While we have identified various disagreements with the August 2002 Memorandum, we have reviewed this Office's prior opinions addressing issues involving treatment of detainees and do not believe that any of their conclusions would be different under the standards set forth in this memorandum.
I think it's time the critics quit screaming torture and cite specific law, treaty, or convention that has been violated and then explain why there have been no prosecutions.
So, go ahead.
That's the request from the CIA to the OLC. Bybee then signed off the controversial memo.
Quoting from Wiki:
Bybee signed that legal memorandum which defined "enhanced interrogation techniques" in ways that are regarded as torture by the Obama Justice Department,[11] Amnesty International,[12] Human Rights Watch,[13] some medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[14][15] some intelligence officials,[16] and American allies.[17] This memo has been the source of controversy and calls for his impeachment. Bybee is currently the subject of a war crimes investigation in Spain,.[18]
Apparently, there's broad consensus it is indeed torture as described on the request.
Poor judgement and even incompetence isn't an excuse to violate the law. As a matter of fact, they couldn't even claim ignorance seeing they're both well versed in the laws. Furthermore, they did a complete disservice to any moral high ground this country had by virtually declaring that the US will turn around and take a on any treaties it signed and promised to uphold. The same treaties the US uses to make claims when they're on the other side of the fence.
Not only that, since you ask specific citations of law, there are specific laws that address torture (18 U.S.C. § 2340A) and criminalizes severe breaches to the Geneva convention (18 U.S.C. § 2441), both in armed and non-armed conflicts.
Even if you go to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, torture amounts to cruelty, assault and maltreatment, all penalized under that code (Article 93)
Not only people that take part of the act are liable, but also those that order it.
Last edited by ElNono; 09-15-2011 at 11:55 PM.
lol yoni claims to have been waterboarded
lol yoni making claims about the legality and then not knowing a single law that applies to it
No one has posted a clip of Shepard Smith dropping an f-bomb on fox news saying "we don't in torture"?
I dare you to tell this guy that torture still doesn't work.
How could I tell him?
Hmmm... Not a single court in that list.
And, yet, you don't list one court that has found the enhanced technique, called waterboarding, is either torture or a severe breach to the Geneva convention.
You have a bunch of people claiming it is -- generally, these are people opposed to President Bush -- but, you don't have any courts that have adjudicated the issue and have said what the U.S. did, during the interrogation of those four terrorists, is either torture, a severe breach to the Geneva convention, or any other violation of any laws having jurisdiction on the matter.
You won't see a court until and if they're brought to justice. Doesn't change the fact that waterbording = torture. I'll take the word of the Attn General of the US over your any day of the week.
You don't need a court to find a specific action as torture for that action to be torture. If you think you do, please explain why you do, and how does the actions in that memo are not considered assault, cruelty or maltreatment.
That type of torture dates back to the Spanish inquisition (toca), and there isn't anything really novel about it. It was considered torture back then, and there's nothing different to it now.
Because the persons were not brought to justice. That doesn't mean that what they did was not what they did. You could kill somebody tomorrow and get away with it. It's still murder.
Describe your waterboarding experience, yoni.
In full.
Capital punishment achieves something, it stops people from committing a crime again, doesn't it?
Of course, I'm sure you could rationally waterboard someone. :p
And not surprisingly, you sidestepped the entire point of my post.
I would've assumed you understood I meant people who are explicitly trying to induce a sense of imminent death.
Intentionally obtuse? From the person who tries to associate torture with a drunk driver?
Read up on what soldiers can and can't do, and whiter threatening someone with death is or isn't allowed. I don't think CIA folks should be allowed that ability.
And yet, it was considered torture throughout all of history before we used it. Funny that. I guess it's ok since as have professionals doing it, and people don't die as often when we torture them.
That assertion has only been challenged in the court of public opinion; nowhere else.[/QUOTE]
I don't see the difference for the afflicted.
Obviously, there's disagreement with your position.
Again, you're lumping the enhanced interrogation technique, called waterboarding, with other practices -- some of which, I agree, were torture -- also called waterboarding, throughout history.
If you won't admit there are fundamental differences in the various applications and definitions of this practice, what's the point of arguing? Calling something "waterboarding" doesn't make it torture simply because some other practice, back in time, was also called "waterboarding."
You never explained what those differences were. You only posted a memo.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
