Bush's torture memo's

[Detroitej72]

Logic tells us no such thing. Although that is a moot point as this is not torture by definition.

You have to be posting this absurd comments just to get a reaction out of folks here. Nobody can be that naive, even real conservatives agree that torture took place at Gitmo and abroad.

[Lorax]

CCBatty and 4Heel are in the bag for the Repugnican Reich, and simply spew back talking points dictated to them by the Australian fascist, Rupert Murdoch.

With Big Dick Cheney out there on all the talk shows trying desperately to shape his legacy, is sort of like trying to get the toothpaste back into the tube, a little messy, and ultimately impossible.

There is no doubt that crimes were committed by this band of thugs, and anything short of indictment and prison would be tragedy.

The damage done by the Tushies and the Repugnican Reich is so deep and will take generations to work out of our system.

Read the Downing Street Memos as well, they show the link between Tush and Blair, and how they colluded/conspired to fix the policy around the Iraq war. Pre-emptive war as a first resort- only despots and tin horn dictators use these tactics, and that is what Tush and Cheney are.

These people are criminals, plain and simple, and have been investigated by the European courts, and in the case of the Tushies, they will be arrested if they travel to any of the EU member nation.

[ccbatson]

I was referring to water boarding when describing it as less than torture.

[rb336]

And yet we have prosecuted Americans for waterboarding in the past, the GC considers it torture, Torquemada used it and it was considered torture back then

[ccbatson]

Japan was not using waterboarding as we have [[the biggest clue being that the subjects had a funny way of expiring from it).

[rb336]

Since the bushies would not de-classify info on the deaths at Gitmo, how do you know the same didn't occur there?

[mjs]

I was referring to water boarding when describing it as less than torture.

I got to thinking on the whole thing of how torture is defined. It is clearly and definitively defined as a federal crime under Title 18. It was written in a manner free from other countries' invasion of our sovereignty.

As used in this chapter—

[[1) “torture� means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering [[other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

[[2) “severe mental pain or suffering� means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— [[A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
[[B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
[[C) the threat of imminent death; or
[[D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

[[3) “United States� means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/us...I_20_113C.html

Waterboarding, walling, and many others were designed to be a "threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering." If I threaten to kill someone, whether I can or will do it is irrelevant under the law. The issue is whether the person being threatened would reasonably believe the threat.

That is the law. The Executive branch is tasked with enforcing the laws, not rewriting them. The Executive branch can not redefine a congressionally defined term no matter how many memos are written. If the Excutive branch doesn't like the law, the Constitution gives them the means to pressure the Legislative branch to rewrite it.

[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