• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

ADK_Forever

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
3,706
Reaction score
1,001
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Rice adviser wrote memo alleging tactics violated ban on cruel punishment.

A former Bush administration official is set to testify Wednesday as Senate Democrats hold a hearing into the use of harsh interrogation techniques.

As a top adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Philip Zelikow argued against the use of waterboarding and other enhanced techniques.

In a 2005 memo, he said some of the tactics violated the constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Zelikow recently wrote on Foreign Policy magazine's Web site that the White House tried to collect and destroy every copy of his memo.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy told the hearing that the "rule of law in the United States means no one is above the law ... not anyone in this room and not the president of the United States."

"The American people deserve to know what mistakes were made and what we intend to do about it," he added.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told Wednesday's hearing that the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, left the country "rattled," and the Bush administration "did some things that aren't going to make us safer in the long run."

"The fact we embrace the rule of law is a strength not a weakness," Graham said.

From: Ex-Bush official to testify on waterboarding - Security- msnbc.com
There's a video interview of Zelikow.

Just another notch in the belt for Bush and Cheney's corrupt and lying administration.
Here's some accountibility for ya'll.

Here we have yet another ex-Bush aide coming clean on what really happened during those 8 years in which torture was shoved down the American people's throats as... uhh... legal. :doh

Should be interesting how the right wingers try to minimize this guy since I don't think he has a book coming out. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
The Constitution only applies to US Citizens, not Terrorist scum... but you don't care about what the Constitution actually says, or means... just what is convenient for you.
 
Last edited:
The Consitution only applies to US Citizens, not Terrorist scum... but you don't care about what the Cosntitution actually says, or means... just what is convienient for you.

The Constitutional violations committed by the Bush Administration are horrifying. The Constitution does not simply grant citizens protection it protects all people that are under our jurisdiction. This has been held in both statutory law as well as case law.

Can you please show us any incident that the US Constitution was inclusive of citizens only?
 
The Constitutional violations committed by the Bush Administration are horrifying. The Constitution does not simply grant citizens protection it protects all people that are under our jurisdiction. This has been held in both statutory law as well as case law.

Can you please show us any incident that the US Constitution was inclusive of citizens only?

Can you show where KSM has any constitutional rights?

Can you please list, in order, the violations you claim the Bush Administration committed in reference to the Constitution. Please state the violation, and the corresponding section of the Constitution therein. I ask this because everytime someone comes in screaming about Bush violating the constitution... they ALWAYS fail to show where and how. Just a bunch of accusations without backing, or links to prisonplanet or other such non-sense. If you have some real grounds here... well let's see them.

The Constitution covers... GASP! American Citizens. Not foreigners, and certainly not enemy combatants. That makes all the difference in the world.
 
The Consitution only applies to US Citizens, not Terrorist scum... but you don't
care about what the Cosntitution actually says, or means... just what is
convienient for you.

Not sure how “convenience” comes into play here. To me, honor and integrity and law abiding are at the top of my list of what is important in this issue. But, we each have different values.

I can see that not knowing how to spell it isn't the only thing you don't know about our "constitution".
 
Not sure how “convenience” comes into play here. To me, honor and integrity and law abiding are at the top of my list of what is important in this issue. But, we each have different values.

I can see that not knowing how to spell it isn't the only thing you don't know about our "constitution".

Oh damn, a TYPO! Damn me, I gave you something to avoid the issue at hand didn't I?

Could you please show where in the Constitution, that Enemy Combatants whom are NOT US Citizens... are covered by the Constitution?

You can toss the term "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" out all you want, and that's fine, but you and I both know that's a very subjective term.
 
Oh damn, a TYPO! Damn me, I gave you something to avoid the issue at hand didn't I?

Could you please show where in the Constitution, that Enemy Combatants whom are NOT US Citizens... are covered by the Constitution?

You can toss the term "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" out all you want, and that's fine, but you and I both know that's a very subjective term.

Here's an idea... why don't YOU show us where they are NOT covered in the Constitution?

Sweet Jesus... I remember when Conservatives were SUPPORTING traditional American values!!!
 
Rice adviser wrote memo alleging tactics violated ban on cruel punishment.



From: Ex-Bush official to testify on waterboarding - Security- msnbc.com
There's a video interview of Zelikow.

Just another notch in the belt for Bush and Cheney's corrupt and lying administration.
Here's some accountibility for ya'll.

Here we have yet another ex-Bush aide coming clean on what really happened during those 8 years in which torture was shoved down the American people's throats as... uhh... legal. :doh

Should be interesting how the right wingers try to minimize this guy since I don't think he has a book coming out. :2wave:

I didn't catch tricky Dick II on Cavuto, but I'm guessing this never came up. Opps...

Someone put in an order for Penguin-size orange coveralls.
 
The Consitution only applies to US Citizens, not Terrorist scum... but you don't care about what the Cosntitution actually says, or means... just what is convienient for you.

Here I agree with you from a legal standpoint. The terrorist who committed the acts of 9/11 were not U.S. citizens. Furthermore, since the War on Terror wasn't against a "recognized" government by the UN but rather just some Mulsim nations, it's hard to use the U.S. Constitution or the Geneva Convention as a rallying cry for the illegality of waterboarding. However, the moral arguement, as well as how using such methods did more to hurt U.S./Islamic relations domestically but more specifically abroad has had far reaching consequences.

Regardless, this is just a continuation of "fear" the Republican party is trying to shove down the American people's collective throats. Perhaps the U.S. did gain more intel through torture, but I believe we did more to stop the threat of terrorist acts domestically and abroad by following the money trails and doing more to secure our boarders and ports than committing torture ever could. Of course, those are aspects of the security shield that receives little headlines nor discussion.
 
Last edited:
Here's an idea... why don't YOU show us where they are NOT covered in the Constitution?
As terrorists are not criminals but unlawful combatants, the pertinent rights of the Constitution, being properly apprehended as the rights of the accused in a criminal trial, are wholly non-applicable.

These terrorists have violated no US law, because they are not beholden to US law. As their actions stand outside of US law, they themselves stand outside the protections afforded defendants under the Constitution.
 
The Constitution only applies to US Citizens, not Terrorist scum... but you don't care about what the Constitution actually says, or means... just what is convenient for you.
I don't think the Constitution provides for some major executive departments that ADK would have a heart attack, after having a cow, over if we suddenly eliminated them overnight. But like you said, no liberal ever thought the Constitution had enough pages to it. So waterboarding was approved. So what? I'm against many things my managers do or decide. So what? Hell, Pelosi herself knew all about the waterboarding, what more do we need to know? They waterboarded some terrorists. What are you going to do about it? Nothing, who's going to send Condi Rice to jail? Huh? Come on! Patrick Leahy, now there's a pinnacle of virtue.
 
As terrorists are not criminals but unlawful combatants, the pertinent rights of the Constitution, being properly apprehended as the rights of the accused in a criminal trial, are wholly non-applicable.

These terrorists have violated no US law, because they are not beholden to US law. As their actions stand outside of US law, they themselves stand outside the protections afforded defendants under the Constitution.

That's from the Constitution? I can't recall reading that section, maybe you can post a link for me. Or is this just your interpretation?
 
Here's an idea... why don't YOU show us where they are NOT covered in the Constitution?

Sweet Jesus... I remember when Conservatives were SUPPORTING traditional American values!!!

I do support traditional American Values.

My Grandfather fought in WWII, we went and saw "Saving Private Ryan" together... I asked him about it. He said it was crap. The combat was "about right", but prisoners... that's not how we did it.

I asked him "What, you didn't free them?" he chuckled darkly and said "No, we didn't capture them either, we just shot them".

I bet some of you here would call for him to be tried as a war criminal. :roll:

Why did I bring this up? To give a bit of contrast to all the hyperventilating about waterboarding. And Jovial One, I asked first. I know that not a ONE of you can prove me wrong, thus it's NO surprise that you are attempting to turn the tables on me.

HOWEVER, I'll use this simple google search return to let you chew on.

Answer

Excellent but difficult question. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and there is a lot unsaid in the Constitution. It was not possible, nor was it the plan, for the Constitution to cover any possible issue that might arise.

Article IV Section 2 says: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed in the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

The 14th Amendment Paragraph 1 says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Article IV material has to do with each state giving credit to the public acts of every other state. It makes specific reference to Citizens. The reference to non-citizens (A Person charged...) relates not to Privileges and Immunities, but to the States' rights to demand the return of anyone charged with a crime.

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship. Again, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, it is not open to private interpretation. But it does appear that while any person in the US should enjoy basic rights that any person anywhere should have (Declaration), certain Privileges and Immunities seem to be reserved for citizens. This seems reasonable; the United States is a Sovereign State, and has the right and power (given by the People) to establish laws and enforce the rule of law. Privileges and Immunities of citizenship are not (and should not be) simply extended to anyone who crosses our borders. No nation on earth does that.
WikiAnswers - Does the constitution protect citizens or all people living in the US

Enjoy.
 
Last edited:
That's from the Constitution? I can't recall reading that section, maybe you can post a link for me. Or is this just your interpretation?
There are no parts of the Bill of Rights addressing rights imputed to detained unlawful enemy combatants in time of war.
 
I do support traditional American Values.

My Grandfather fought in WWII, we went and saw "Saving Private Ryan" together... I asked him about it. He said it was crap. The combat was "about right", but prisoners... that's not how we did it.

I asked him "What, you didn't free them?" he chuckled darkly and said "No, we didn't capture them either, we just shot them".

I bet some of you here would call for him to be tried as a war criminal. :roll:

Why did I bring this up? To give a bit of contrast to all the hyperventilating about waterboarding. And Jovial One, I asked first. I know that not a ONE of you can prove me wrong, thus it's NO surprise that you are attempting to turn the tables on me.

HOWEVER, I'll use this simple google search return to let you chew on.


WikiAnswers - Does the constitution protect citizens or all people living in the US

Enjoy.

I would recommend your reading the Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene. Look it up.
 
These terrorists have violated no US law, because they are not beholden to US law. As their actions stand outside of US law, they themselves stand outside the protections afforded defendants under the Constitution.

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?

Geneva Conventions: Part 1, Article 2

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.
 
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?

What do the Geneva Conventions have to do with the Bill of Rights? Entirely distinct legal constructs, they.
 
I would recommend your reading the Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene. Look it up.

That case was in reference to
The majority found that the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus review applies to persons held in Guantanamo and to persons designated as enemy combatants on that territory.[4][5][6][7] If Congress intends to suspend the right, an adequate substitute must offer the prisoner a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate he is held pursuant to an erroneous application or interpretation of relevant law, and the reviewing decision-making must have some ability to correct errors, to assess the sufficiency of the government's evidence, and to consider relevant exculpating evidence.[4][5][6][7] The court found that the petitioners had met their burden of establishing that Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 failed to provide an adequate substitute for habeas corpus.
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.
 
Last edited:
Waterboarding can not be against the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment given that the terrorist suspects were not being punished.

Interrogation is not punishment.
 
Can you show where KSM has any constitutional rights?

Yes, i sure can in fact the US Supreme Court affirmed this very issue that you are arguing.

In a stinging defeat for the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled today that detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court and that congressional legislation has failed to provide a reasonable substitute for such a hearing.

Otherwise known as the Constitutional right to due process.

Can you please list, in order, the violations you claim the Bush Administration committed in reference to the Constitution. Please state the violation, and the corresponding section of the Constitution therein.

Not only the Constitution but both domestic and international laws as well.

Right To Due Process:
US Constitution Ammendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Torture Domestic Law:
U.S.C. Chapter 113C § 2340
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.

Torture International Law:
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

I ask this because everytime someone comes in screaming about Bush violating the constitution... they ALWAYS fail to show where and how. Just a bunch of accusations without backing, or links to prisonplanet or other such non-sense. If you have some real grounds here... well let's see them.

The Constitution covers... GASP! American Citizens. Not foreigners, and certainly not enemy combatants. That makes all the difference in the world.

Unfortunately the Constitution fails to back up your assertion here. Non-Citizens of the United States are afforded the same constitutional rights that citizens have been afforded since the inception of the constitution. Thousands of cites can be provided or you could just research that one.

Here's an idea... why don't YOU show us where they are NOT covered in the Constitution?

Sweet Jesus... I remember when Conservatives were SUPPORTING traditional American values!!!

TJO damn good to see you my fellow PF refugee :D
 
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? :roll:
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom