Bush did absolutely nothing wrong... doubt it. I doubt any president does absolutely nothing wrong, but if you think I have said Bush should be impeached or punished then you haven't been listening to me. You can't even impeach Obama without a trial or investigation, and I think that is what some of these people are calling for.
I personally don't expect anything to happen..
Pointing out he wasn't punished doesn't prove ****. Clinton lied under oath, but he wasn't punished.. guess it's legal to lie under oath then, right? I guess that means Clinton did absolutely nothing wrong, right? No, it's not.. The fact is, politicians don't have to play by the rules. If you are a politician with money, you can even kill somebody and get away with it, as Ted Kennedy proved it's possible.
And it also looks like Obama has kept us safe too, even with that ban on waterboarding... We have had a couple of 9/11 anniversaries since he took office, so he has kept us safe longer than Bush did.
I am done with you and this discussion.
I am not all over the board. I have said the same things over and over again..
I think you are the one not thinking critically here.. You are saying its OK to torture non uniformed, non military enemies, who have no sovereign nation. If you don't understand that the people against the USSR were not identifying with the USSR as a nation, did not wear uniforms, and were not military.. then you don't understand the problem with your argument and why I find it deplorable.
And as far as the history in South Africa.. they were imprisoning people on islands and torturing them. The ANC was called a terrorist org. Nelson Mandela was on the US terrorist list for years.. in fact, he was just taken off it about 5 years ago.. so you're views are very problematic and I have many reasons to say I despise them. If you don't like that, then change your views or reword them. Clarify yourself, but don't call me nuts for debating the issues with your argument.
And furthermore, the HvR case had little to nothing to do with what you think
Summary of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) - Supreme Court Geneva Conventions Case
This is a complex case, with three big questions:
Is the U.S. government bound by the Geneva Conventions when dealing with "enemy combatants"?
Is the executive branch's establishment of new judicial processes, to try the Guantanamo detainees, consistent with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and/or legislated by 2001's Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF)?
Can conspiracy be punished as a war crime?
The Geneva Conventions and the Binding Authority of International Law:
In 1949, the United States signed the Geneva Conventions regulating treatment of prisoners of war. The Bush administration has charged that terrorists and other paramilitary combatants are not covered by the Geneva Conventions because they're not soldiers in the traditional sense, are not covered by the U.S. Bill of Rights because they're not citizens, and are therefore "enemy combatants" who have no clearly outlined rights.
The Plurality Ruling:
The Court's complex 73-page opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter, holds that (among other things):
"Enemy combatants" are protected by the Geneva Conventions.
The AUMF does not grant Bush the authority to create new tribunals without congressional mandate.
Conspiracy is not a war crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
What the USSR did was a war crime.. and what SA did to the ANC were crimes.. Just because somebody doesn't have a sovereign nation behind them and they aren't a national military, doesn't make it ok to torture them according to international law
Last edited by SheWolf; 11-14-10 at 12:36 AM.
I also think you are in fact nuts for your justifications for torture, and saying people aren't protected by international law because they aren't military and have no sovereign nation.. I could go on and on with abuses that took place against such people throughout, but I won't bother. I am afraid you aren't seeing the connection to it and your argument..
And you don't think there is anything common between the events and social responses in SA and here? I don't know how much you know about SA history then..
Terrorist Organization Profile - START - National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism
The African National Congress (ANC) is an influential organization in South Africa. Founded in 1912, it was one of the primary forces that pressed for racial equality in South Africa. After nearly 50 years of nonviolent protest, the ANC adopted terrorist tactics in the early 1960s. ANC terrorism would continue until the group was legalized in 1990. Following the group's legalization, ANC and its famous jailed member Nelson Mandela pushed for the final abolishment of apartheid. Today, ANC is a legal political party and current South African President Thabo Mbeki is an ANC politician.
In 1961, nearly fifty years after its formation, ANC imitated terrorist attacks against government facilities. The ANC formed a military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (aka MK or Spear of the Nation), to lead its terrorist attacks. ANC and Umkhonto directed their terrorist attacks against facilities and did not directly target people. Police raids and arrests eradicated Umkhonto by 1964. Resistance to apartheid continued throughout the 1960s, '70s and '80s. The ANC was implicated in several terrorist incidents in the 1980s that targeted international corporations with facilities in South Africa.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.