Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 52

Thread: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

  1. #21
    Global Moderator
    Silent Bob for President!

    RedAkston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    33,785
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Does the United States "stand outside" of International Laws? International laws that we signed on to with the sworn promise that we would both uphold and adhere to them?
    Enemy combatants (aka terrorists) don't fall under the Geneva convention. I know you're new around here, but this has been beaten to death already.

    Both sides are playing the semantics game here, and it's crap. It all boils down to what is torture and what isn't. Many see waterboarding as torture and many don't. So an ex-Bush official sees waterboarding as torture, woop-dee-doo. I think the bigger part of this story (the one that so many of you are missing out on) is the part about "the White House tried to collect and destroy every copy of his memo". If this is true, then that's yet another black eye against the Bush administration. But for full disclosure, this is a story from "msnbc.com staff and news service reports", so you need a truckload of salt to take it with. As we all know, msnbc.com staff don't have an agenda, didn't outwardly pull for Obama in the election and never, ever make stuff up, right?
    Welfare (Food Stamps, WIC, etc...) are not entitlements. They are taxpayer funded handouts and shouldn't be called entitlements at all. Social Security and Veteran's benefits are 'Entitlements' because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.

  2. #22
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    They were not tortured, waterboarding is not inflicting severe anything, and has no lasting mental problems. So you fail... right then and there. Torture is inflicting pain and anguish simply because you can. On that score alone, waterboarding three terrorist fails to meet that standard.

    However, the obvious next question is, for you, we capture another KSM, and we treat him "oh so nicely" and say.. a big attack goes off, like the one that was prevented by waterboarding and finding out in time....

    Let's jsut say that happens, can the survivors and families sue because we had the man with information and did not prevent the attack?

    Who has more rights? The living US Citizen to live free from death and anguish from terror attacks, or the terrorist bent on committing said acts?


    Sounds like plenty of you here are willing to let others die to protect terrorist feelings.
    Last edited by Renae; 05-13-09 at 01:10 PM.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  3. #23
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    What do the Geneva Conventions have to do with the Bill of Rights? Entirely distinct legal constructs, they.
    Indeed, they are entirely distinct legal constructs, and we are legally, morally, and ethically obligated to adhere to both sets of laws.

    Whether or not the Constitution/the Bill of Rights afford the same legal rights to citizens and non-citizens, the Geneva Conventions clearly state that we must follow certain humanitarian laws and legal procedures when dealing with non-citizens of any stripe, else risk prosecution for war crimes.

    International Laws to which we are signatories such as Geneva Conventions trump both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

  4. #24
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Indeed, they are entirely distinct legal constructs, and we are legally, morally, and ethically obligated to adhere to both sets of laws.

    Whether or not the Constitution/the Bill of Rights afford the same legal rights to citizens and non-citizens, the Geneva Conventions clearly state that we must follow certain humanitarian laws and legal procedures when dealing with non-citizens of any stripe, else risk prosecution for war crimes.

    International Laws to which we are signatories such as Geneva Conventions trump both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
    The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorist... it applies to the armed forces of governments, not to terrorist.

    Sorry, they don't play by the rules, why should the rules apply to them ANYWAY.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  5. #25
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by P/N View Post
    Enemy combatants (aka terrorists) don't fall under the Geneva convention. I know you're new around here, but this has been beaten to death already.
    WE fall under the Geneva Conventions. We signed on, and we are therefore obligated to adhere to its rules and regulations, even when/if others are not.

    If you don't understand the following legal statement from the GC, just let me know and I'll try to help you sort it out.

    Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

  6. #26
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:18 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,558

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Indeed, they are entirely distinct legal constructs, and we are legally, morally, and ethically obligated to adhere to both sets of laws.

    Whether or not the Constitution/the Bill of Rights afford the same legal rights to citizens and non-citizens, the Geneva Conventions clearly state that we must follow certain humanitarian laws and legal procedures when dealing with non-citizens of any stripe, else risk prosecution for war crimes.
    And we can adhere to the Geneva Conventions without affording Bill of Rights protections to our war prisoners. In fact, until the Bush Administration, no one ever argued that the Bill of Rights applied to wartime prisoners. Ever.

    International Laws to which we are signatories such as Geneva Conventions trump both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
    No. They do not. If you think they do, then you don't know much about the Constitution OR international law. I suggest you educate yourself.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  7. #27
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    That case was in reference to Boumediene v. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Not the issue at hand. Since they have not ruled on that, the 14th still applies otherwise. Unless you implying the 14th Amendment now no longer applies...

    Thus you are attempting to take a ruling over a specific issue, Habeas Corpus and applying it to the Constitution as a whole in regards to all persons of the world. Doesn't work like that, nice try though.
    Your claim was that the constitution did not apply to non-citizens. How does this case not address that point?

  8. #28
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:18 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,558

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    WE fall under the Geneva Conventions. We signed on, and we are therefore obligated to adhere to its rules and regulations, even when/if others are not.

    If you don't understand the following legal statement from the GC, just let me know and I'll try to help you sort it out.
    You still don't get it.

    Non-uniformed, non-state combatants are specifically excluded from prisoner of war status protection BY the Geneva Conventions.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  9. #29
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorist... it applies to the armed forces of governments, not to terrorist.
    Once again WE are signatories to the GC. Therefore WE are obligated to follow its rules. EVEN IF OTHERS DON'T.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Sorry, they don't play by the rules, why should the rules apply to them ANYWAY.
    *sigh*

    WE said WE'D play by the rules.

  10. #30
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:18 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,558

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Once again WE are signatories to the GC. Therefore WE are obligated to follow its rules. EVEN IF OTHERS DON'T.



    *sigh*

    WE said WE'D play by the rules.
    One more time . . .

    The "rules" by which we play say non-uniformed, non-state combatants are specifically excluded from prisoner of war status protection.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •