Bush's torture memo's

[firstandten]

Here' some reading for you I don't think this is going away anytime soon


http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html

[d.mcc]

Here' some reading for you I don't think this is going away anytime soon


http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html

Condy and Cheney both signed off on torture practices too. If I can quote a famous ER doctor:

"Go fuck yourself Mr. Cheney!"

[ccbatson]

Redefine the word torture and then the whole deception being proposed [[all of which is irrelevant and moot now anyway) begins.

[firstandten]

Redefine the word torture and then the whole deception being proposed [[all of which is irrelevant and moot now anyway) begins.

You know what torture is , just like the folks that say I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it !

Its not a moot point these memo's and the discuss of these memo's goes to the every essence of what this country stands for and why we have some of the situations we are now in.

[rb336]

Redefine the word torture and then the whole deception being proposed [[all of which is irrelevant and moot now anyway) begins.

let's see -- define it as we did in the 40s after wwii? we prosecuted waterboarding and several of the other approved "enhanced interegation techniques" against both enemy and our own

Torture works for only one thing -- getting someone to say what YOU WANT them to, not getting to the truth

[Big Dog]

RB, I understand that you are 100% correct.

[d.mcc]

RB, I understand that you are 100% correct.

Redefine 100% and Correct, and suddenly the meaning begins to change

[ccbatson]

Nobody has died from it...not so imminent then, is it?

[mjs]

Threat of imminent death you idiot. You don't need a death to have a believable death threat. Furthermore, it also speaks to threats of severe physical pain or suffering.

To use your example, we can't defend our attack on Iraq as a response to an imminent threat because Iraq has never attacked Americans on American soil.

[Detroitej72]

Threat of imminent death you idiot. You don't need a death to have a believable death threat. Furthermore, it also speaks to threats of severe physical pain or suffering.

To use your example, we can't defend our attack on Iraq as a response to an imminent threat because Iraq has never attacked Americans on American soil.

Home run, mjs.

[ccbatson]

Threat as perceived by whom? The detainee? Or the interrogators? If the latter is the case...and nobody is killed [[ever), then it is not torture.

[mjs]

The detainee. You're thinking of assault with intent to do great bodily harm.

When someone pours water on someone else with the intent of making them think they are drowning, its torture, felony assault, and battery. By the 80th time, the fear of death and great bodily harm is gone, so it drops to misdemeanor assault and battery.

The detainee is evaluated from a reasonable person test. If the detainee has an unreasonable fear of something like say bugs and you know it and threaten him with bugs, you're back to misdemeanor assault. If you touch him with the bugs, you add misdemeanor battery. If you tell him they're poisonous, you add felony assault. If they are poisonous, you add felony battery and assault to do great bodily harm. Its one of the most common items on the bar, so all attorneys, even Bush attorneys, had to learn this to pass the bar.

[rb336]

If the latter is the case...and nobody is killed [[ever), then it is not torture.

possibly the stupidest thing you have ever posted. torture is not meant to kill, otherwise it would be called "execution" burning at the stake was not torture, dunking was not torture. these were methods of carrying out a death sentence [[if you lived through dunking, sometimes they considerred that the waters rejected you and you were then considerred guilty. stupid religious fanatics)

[Detroitej72]

If the latter is the case...and nobody is killed [[ever), then it is not torture.

Yet despite your support for torture, it is still illegal by everyone's standard...except for Bush and Cheney's.

[ccbatson]

And all of the lawyers that rendered their legal opinions on the matter to congress on several occasions. You know, the briefings that Pelosi claims never to have had...those legal opinions.

[Detroitej72]

I would gladly let Pelosi be prosecuted if it meant the prosecution of Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the neo-con regime.

[ccbatson]

She would be sanctioned and removed from the position of speaker [[not prosecuted) for conduct unbecoming the office completely different than the obtuse claims made against GWB.

Perhaps a case could be made for treason for her in her undermining our intelligence agencies publicly.

[mjs]

I don't even care if she remains Speaker of the House. Just get her off the Senate Intelligence Committee since she claims she doesn't realize her ability to pass laws restricting their actions. Especially if they are in response to wisdom she has from being on the committee.

[ccbatson]

A Conviction for treason with Panetta as the prosecutor would be good...it is never going to happen, but it would be justice.

[rb336]

nothing obtuse at all about the claims against Dubya and his thugminestration

[ccbatson]

and....Rb, you always leave things hanging like that. You make a comment, and then...no supporting arguments and it falls flat.

[rb336]

and....Rb, you always leave things hanging like that. You make a comment, and then...no supporting arguments and it falls flat.

coming from you, that is quite funny. it only took you a month and a half to come up with that?

it was a direct response to your #69 in this thread in which, surprise surprise, "You make a comment, and then...no supporting arguments and it falls flat"

what is it about you that you can't see that you constantly bitch about people not doing things you NEVER do? delusion?

[Detroitej72]

Conservatives like to use the "do as I say, not as I do" approach when preaching to the masses.

[ccbatson]

My concise logical and compelling arguments are not the same as Rb's complete absence of, well, anything at all.

[rb336]

My concise logical and compelling arguments are not the same as Rb's complete absence of, well, anything at all.

I challenge you to list one logical and compelling argument, bolstered by actual facts, that you have made here