• 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!

UN torture envoy: US must prosecute Bush lawyers

Devil505 said:
Look...The truth here is very simple:

Bush wanted to torture prisoners so he got a few bad apple lawyers to torture logic & the English language to say it was legal. (If Bush wanted to rob banks, these same lawyers would find a way to say bank robbery was legal)

Get it?? ...It's really very simple, as the jury will eventually find.
Click to expand...

:rofl quite the :funny Farcical of course, but funny in a farcical kind of way.
 
Devil505 said:
Look...The truth here is very simple:

Bush wanted to torture prisoners so he got a few bad apple lawyers to torture logic & the English language to say it was legal. (If Bush wanted to rob banks, these same lawyers would find a way to say bank robbery was legal)

Get it?? ...It's really very simple, as the jury will eventually find.
Click to expand...

There's some nice, moderate posting right there. :roll:

Care to take the legal memos apart point by point and show examples of the "torture" of logic and the English language? Let's see it. If it's as simple as you say, it should be no problem.
 
Harshaw said:
There's some nice, moderate posting right there. :roll:

Care to take the legal memos apart point by point and show examples of the "torture" of logic and the English language? Let's see it. If it's as simple as you say, it should be no problem.
Click to expand...

Sure....Explain to me how, if one of our citizens was being held in Syria & was blindfolded, bound & almost drowned how YOU would not consider that torture & a crime. Come on....String together some English words to make that torture sound like it isn't a crime..........Unless WE do it!

(I'll save you the trouble.......No grouping of words can make a reasonable person believe the Earth is flat, if I drop a hammer & it won't fall down or that we didn't torture people
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
Sure....Explain to me how, if one of our citizens was being held in Syria & was blindfolded, bound & almost drowned how YOU would not consider that torture & a crime. Come on....String together some English words to make that torture sound like it isn't a crime..........Unless WE do it!
Click to expand...

Simple. Syrians doing that to Americans is not a crime, merely a casus belli. The solution to the situation would be
  1. Rescue mission by Delta Force or Seal Team Six (Special Warfare Development Group/DEVGRU) to extract Americans being so treated
  2. Point a couple of Tomahawk cruise missiles at Damascus.
 
celticlord said:
Simple. Syrians doing that to Americans is not a crime, merely a casus belli. The solution to the situation would be
  1. Rescue mission by Delta Force or Seal Team Six (Special Warfare Development Group/DEVGRU) to extract Americans being so treated
  2. Point a couple of Tomahawk cruise missiles at Damascus.
Click to expand...


Why would we do that?? The Syrians weren't doing anything wrong!...Right?
 
Devil505 said:
Why would we do that?? The Syrians weren't doing anything wrong!...Right?
Click to expand...
Catch a clue, dude.

I said it wasn't a crime, merely a casus belli--a reason for the United States to deliver a bit of smackdown on Syria.

By way of analogy, if you're out with your woman or significant other and some loudmouth boor makes an impolite overture to your woman or significant other, said boor has not committed any crime, but you would be eminently justified (even by the laws of most states) in jack-slapping said boor.

Not every "wrong" is a crime, and not every offense merits a trial. Some offenses merely merit a wee bit o' whup-ass.
 
celticlord said:
By way of analogy, if you're out with your woman or significant other and some loudmouth boor makes an impolite overture to your woman or significant other, said boor has not committed any crime, but you would be eminently justified (even by the laws of most states) in jack-slapping said boor.
Click to expand...

You'll have to show me an "EXACT" example of how insulting a man's "woman" is justification to "jack-slapping" said guy legally by the laws of most states.

I call Bull**** there.
 
Devil505 said:
Sure....Explain to me how, if one of our citizens was being held in Syria & was blindfolded, bound & almost drowned how YOU would not consider that torture & a crime. Come on....String together some English words to make that torture sound like it isn't a crime..........Unless WE do it!

(I'll save you the trouble.......No grouping of words can make a reasonable person believe the Earth is flat, if I drop a hammer & it won't fall down or that we didn't torture people
Click to expand...

Depends....was he caught in terrorist acts?

What crimes did Nick Berg and Daniel Perl commit?

Seriously. You're playing the BS Moral Equivalency Game, and you just got trumped.

Throw in your hand, don't re-ante.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
You'll have to show me an "EXACT" example of how insulting a man's "woman" is justification to "jack-slapping" said guy legally by the laws of most states.

I call Bull**** there.
Click to expand...

Texas Penal Code Chapter 9, Section 31 on Self Defense:

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
Click to expand...
 
TheNextEra said:
From your link:



Insulting someone's woman is hardly an act of force.
Click to expand...

No kidding.....

An impolite overture--aka, a "pass"--would be, however, a declaration of sexual intent, creating a likelihood of sexual assault, and justifying the loudmouth boor crapping his teeth for the next week.
 
celticlord said:
No kidding.....

An impolite overture--aka, a "pass"--would be, however, a declaration of sexual intent, creating a likelihood of sexual assault, and justifying the loudmouth boor crapping his teeth for the next week.
Click to expand...

Again, show me a case that someone was aquited on that. If not, I call Bull****.

You can show me your interpretation, but until I see that on an actual case, sorry I call bull**** on your interpretation. Hitting on someone's woman is not going to be grounds to beat on someone.
 
Those attorneys left out very pertinent info in their effort to make torture look legal. By leaving that info out they showed they were aware how an argument could be made for its illegality. They are guilty! It's sad that Obama and Holder aren't accusing them of their crimes and basically passing the buck to the Bar Ethics committee.
 
Devil505 said:
Sure....Explain to me how, if one of our citizens was being held in Syria & was blindfolded, bound & almost drowned how YOU would not consider that torture & a crime. Come on....String together some English words to make that torture sound like it isn't a crime..........Unless WE do it!
Click to expand...

That's not what I asked you.

I asked you to take the memos written by the attorneys, parse them piece by piece, and explain exactly how they "torture" logic or the English language.

As I said, if it's that simple, it should be no problem. So, do it. Or, you know, dodge again, but that too will tell us something quite meaningful.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Those attorneys left out very pertinent info in their effort to make torture look legal. By leaving that info out they showed they were aware how an argument could be made for its illegality.
Click to expand...

1) Show that they did that.

2) THEN show that it's not standard practice for the type of memos they were writing.
 
TheNextEra said:
Again, show me a case that someone was aquited on that. If not, I call Bull****.

You can show me your interpretation, but until I see that on an actual case, sorry I call bull**** on your interpretation. Hitting on someone's woman is not going to be grounds to beat on someone.
Click to expand...

Nice thread derailment.
 
Harshaw said:
That's not what I asked you.

I asked you to take the memos written by the attorneys, parse them piece by piece, and explain exactly how they "torture" logic or the English language.

As I said, if it's that simple, it should be no problem. So, do it. Or, you know, dodge again, but that too will tell us something quite meaningful.
Click to expand...

If I asked you to read a book who's final premise was that the Earth is indeed flat (& a ship would fall off the edge if it sailed to far) & then asked you to "parse them piece by piece, and explain exactly how they "torture" logic or the English language."....I don't think you'd waste your time either.
I therefore refuse to accept your bait as a ridiculous waste of time. For any lawyer to write any legal opinion claiming torture is legal is so ridiculous that it's not really worthy of being discussed, let alone devoting much time in refuting.

Thanks....but no thanks.
 
Harshaw said:
1) Show that they did that.

2) THEN show that it's not standard practice for the type of memos they were writing.
Click to expand...

That's why they're being sent to the ethics committee. :doh
 
Devil505 said:
If I asked you to read a book who's final premise was that the Earth is indeed flat (& a ship would fall off the edge if it sailed to far) & then asked you to "parse them piece by piece, and explain exactly how they "torture" logic or the English language."....I don't think you'd waste your time either.
I therefore refuse to accept your bait as a ridiculous waste of time. For any lawyer to write any legal opinion claiming torture is legal is so ridiculous that it's not really worthy of being discussed, let alone devoting much time in refuting.

Thanks....but no thanks.
Click to expand...

Oh, like I'm surprised. :roll: You simply cannot show what you claim is so to be true. It's not my "bait" -- it's your very specific claim that it's up to you to support.

Not that I ever expected you to.
 
ADK_Forever said:
That's why they're being sent to the ethics committee. :doh
Click to expand...

Then, as I said to your Grover Dill above, it should not be very difficult for you to do exactly what I asked.
 
Harshaw said:
Oh, like I'm surprised. :roll: You simply cannot show what you claim is so to be true. It's not my "bait" -- it's your very specific claim that it's up to you to support.

Not that I ever expected you to.
Click to expand...

Alright...I will answer your challenge as soon as you answer mine:

Please take the Bible, parse it piece by piece, page by page...story by story and explain exactly how it doesn't specifically argue against torture. Then....Do the same thing with our Constitution.
I'll be awaiting your reply.....& be specific!!

(I won't be surprised if you fail to take my challenge as that will prove that your position is untenable & you are probably grossly overweight to boot!)
 
Last edited:
Also, let's not lose sight of what we are arguing here: You say it perfectly OK for our country to TORTURE individuals (who haven' been convicted of ANY crime) & I say no it isn't OK.
 
Harshaw said:
Then, as I said to your Grover Dill above, it should not be very difficult for you to do exactly what I asked.
Click to expand...

I responded to your questions with all the detail they deserve. The points you choose to ignore, and think carry no significance, sure seemed to be very significant to the Justice Department. The answers you seek are in the article linked to from the OP. Maybe you should read it. Maybe you'll learn something from it. Hey, ya nevah know. :mrgreen:
 
Devil505 said:
Alright...I will answer your challenge as soon as you answer mine:

Please take the Bible, parse it piece by piece, page by page...story by story and explain exactly how it doesn't specifically argue against torture. Then....Do the same thing with our Constitution.
I'll be awaiting your reply.....& be specific!!

(I won't be surprised if you fail to take my challenge as that will prove that your position is untenable & you are probably grossly overweight to boot!)
Click to expand...

I don't have to, because I never made any claims of any kind about the Bible, or the Constitution, and torture. You, on the other hand, made specific claims about specific people and their specific writings, and it's up to you to back them up.

But it's painfully clear now that you can't. Run along, little boy, and let the adults talk. :roll:
 
ADK_Forever said:
The answers you seek are in the article linked to from the OP. Maybe you should read it.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't. You said this:

Those attorneys left out very pertinent info in their effort to make torture look legal. By leaving that info out they showed they were aware how an argument could be made for its illegality.
Click to expand...

I challenged thusly:

1) Show that they did that.

2) THEN show that it's not standard practice for the type of memos they were writing.
Click to expand...

The article in the OP, in its entirety, reads:

VIENNA (AP) - The U.S. is obligated by a United Nations convention to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who allegedly drafted policies that approved the use of harsh interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects, the U.N.'s top anti-torture envoy said Friday.

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama left the door open to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations. He had previously absolved CIA officers from prosecution.

Manfred Nowak, who serves as a U.N. special rapporteur in Geneva, said Washington is obligated under the U.N. Convention against Torture to prosecute U.S. Justice Department officials who wrote memos that defined torture in the narrowest way in order to justify and legitimize it, and who assured CIA officials that their use of questionable tactics was legal.
"That's exactly what I call complicity or participation" to torture as defined by the convention, Nowak said at a news conference. "At that time, every reasonable person would know that waterboarding, for instance, is torture."
Nowak, an Austrian law professor, said it was up to U.S. courts and prosecutors to prove that the memos were written with the intention to incite torture.

Nowak also said any probe of questionable CIA interrogation tactics must be independent and have thorough investigative powers.

"It can be a congressional investigation commission, a special investigator, but it must be independent and with thorough investigative powers," Nowak said.

On Thursday, Obama's press secretary suggested Obama does not care for an independent panel.

Last week, the Obama administration released secret CIA memos detailing interrogation tactics sanctioned under Bush.

The memos authorized keeping detainees naked, in painful standing positions and in cold cells for long periods of time. Other techniques included depriving them of solid food and slapping them. Sleep deprivation, prolonged shackling and threats to a detainee's family also were used.

Nowak said Saturday that Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA operatives who used questionable interrogation practices violates the same U.N. convention. But at that point he did not specifically address the issue of how the convention would apply to those who drafted the interrogation policy and gave the CIA the legal go-ahead.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in that article having anything to do with your claim, nor does anything in it answer my two challenges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom