Bush lawyers (including Yoo) are more or less "cleared."

[blu]

It's a pretty sad day when you're got people cheering that war criminals will get away with their crimes.

lawyers giving opinions are war criminals?

 

[Polk]

It's a pretty sad day when you're got people cheering that war criminals will get away with their crimes.

Not as sad as the fact that you and some of your ilk blithely bandy about the term "war criminal" as though because you maintain it, it's so.

It is so. They were actively involved in the commission of a war crime. That makes them war criminals.

 

[Liability]

It's a pretty sad day when you're got people cheering that war criminals will get away with their crimes.

Not as sad as the fact that you and some of your ilk blithely bandy about the term "war criminal" as though because you maintain it, it's so.

It is so. They were actively involved in the commission of a war crime. That makes them war criminals.

You ignorant opinion -- no matter how fervently you subscribe to it -- does not a fact make.

So, no.

You are wrong.

There is no substance to your contention.

 

[blu]

It's a pretty sad day when you're got people cheering that war criminals will get away with their crimes.

Not as sad as the fact that you and some of your ilk blithely bandy about the term "war criminal" as though because you maintain it, it's so.

It is so. They were actively involved in the commission of a war crime. That makes them war criminals.

I would love to see you make this argument with their actions mapped to the definition of war crimes

 

[Wry Catcher]

Hey fly catcher! Speaking of shit, you are exactly like a pile of freshly made dog shit. You DO attract flies.

Anyway, wading through that gibberish you just posted, it appears that you have added your mere opinion to my expressed opinion of some leftist political opinion.

But you objected to offering opinions.

You are a special kind of shit. In this latest example, you have again established that you are a complete dipshit!

x1

And you're a punk and a coward. Bet if we met 1x1 you'd piss your pants. I suspect you've got some experience doing that too.

did you seriously bust out some internet tough guy rant in attempt to mute his point? wow....

Nope, done solely because Liability is an arrogant jerk; of course he being a RW arrogant jerk made it all the more appropriate (you know, from the set of all chicken hawks).

 

[Polk]

Logic 101.
If all A are a subset of B and all B are a subset of C, then A is a subset of C.

Waterboarding is torture.
Torture is a war crime.
Therefore, waterboarding is a war crime.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not as sad as the fact that you and some of your ilk blithely bandy about the term "war criminal" as though because you maintain it, it's so.

It is so. They were actively involved in the commission of a war crime. That makes them war criminals.

I would love to see you make this argument with their actions mapped to the definition of war crimes

No one that claims they were war crimes can take your challenge because it simply is NOT true.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Logic 101.
If all A are a subset of B and all B are a subset of C, then A is a subset of C.

Waterboarding is torture.
Torture is a war crime.
Therefore, waterboarding is a war crime.

Waterboarding was not a war crime dumb ass. In fact it was still legal for awhile under Obama as well. You see retard, in this Country, one can not go retroactively back and make a claim of a crime. Since it was NOT illegal until Obama and Holder made it illegal you have no case. TRY again.

 

[Polk]

US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441

(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act 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 for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

 

[elvis]

Logic 101.
If all A are a subset of B and all B are a subset of C, then A is a subset of C.

Waterboarding is torture.
Torture is a war crime.
Therefore, waterboarding is a war crime.

premise number one was not legally true until a few months ago.

 

[Polk]

Logic 101.
If all A are a subset of B and all B are a subset of C, then A is a subset of C.

Waterboarding is torture.
Torture is a war crime.
Therefore, waterboarding is a war crime.

Waterboarding was not a war crime dumb ass. In fact it was still legal for awhile under Obama as well. You see retard, in this Country, one can not go retroactively back and make a claim of a crime. Since it was NOT illegal until Obama and Holder made it illegal you have no case. TRY again.

It won't be an ex post facto law because torture has already been defined as a crime by our laws for decades.

 

[jillian]

It's a pretty sad day when you're got people cheering that war criminals will get away with their crimes.

Not as sad as the fact that you and some of your ilk blithely bandy about the term "war criminal" as though because you maintain it, it's so.

It is so. They were actively involved in the commission of a war crime. That makes them war criminals.

No. They were idealogues and weren't acting as lawyers should. But they weren't war criminals. And suggesting they were diminishes any point you would otherwise have made.

So no.... it isn't so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Logic 101.
If all A are a subset of B and all B are a subset of C, then A is a subset of C.

Waterboarding is torture.
Torture is a war crime.
Therefore, waterboarding is a war crime.

Waterboarding was not a war crime dumb ass. In fact it was still legal for awhile under Obama as well. You see retard, in this Country, one can not go retroactively back and make a claim of a crime. Since it was NOT illegal until Obama and Holder made it illegal you have no case. TRY again.

It won't be an ex post facto law because torture has already been defined as a crime by our laws for decades.

And waterboarding was NOT defined as torture dumb ass. In fact we do it to our own troops in training exercises.

 

[Bfgrn]

The witch-hunt appears to be over -- at least on this front.

Newsweak reports:

Report: Bush Lawyer Said President Could Order Civilians to Be 'Massacred' - Declassified Blog - Newsweek.com

About damn time. The fuckers may disagree with what the "memos" contended and, in disagreeing, they may even be in the right. (I certainly take issue with this part: "The chief author of the Bush administration's "torture memo" told Justice Department investigators that the president's war-making authority was so broad that he had the constitutional power to order a village to be "massacred * * * "). But to argue that they deserve to even arguably be professionally disciplined over what amounts to a LEGAL OPINION [and a sharp disagreement as to that opinion] is to undermine the foundation of professional advocacy and the rendering OF legal opinions. The "investigation" into whether the lawyers should be "disciplined" was, from jump street, totally political in the worst form of unduly partisan bullshit, and utterly absurd.

This should warm the heart of a statist like you...your beloved government has the authority to commit genocide.

If only you had a heart...

Another in your endless, stupid, pointless lies.

I wonder if you could ever make an argument without reliance on lies? It appears unlikely.

First of all, as you already know, I am not a Statist. I stand opposed to Statists and Statism. This is why I oppose the bullshit you spew. Indeed, the truth is that YOU are the Statist. Yep. Tis true. Too bad you don't seem to understand the meaning of the term or how it applies to you. You appear not to even grasp the import of your own miserably ignorant political philosophy.

Secondly, that part of the Yoo memo, as paraphrased in the quote I offered in the OP, is the very thing I contested in the OP. there may be a kernel of truth to it despite the fact that it is repugnant, but I disputed it before and I dispute it now.

Thirdly, you remain pointless.

If you only had a brain. And integrity. You could use a hefty dose of that, too.

You 'stand opposed to Statists and Statism.' You just always revel in empowering the state. ESPECIALLY when human beings are tortured, arrested, incarcerated or DIE at the HANDS of the state.

I enjoy your responses when I point out your blind but always blatant statism. The truth makes you squirm, and your replies reveal it...

 

[jillian]

And waterboarding was NOT defined as torture dumb ass. In fact we do it to our own troops in training exercises.

yeah...because they pretended it wasn't torture...not because it isn't.

if i call my rabbit a duck, he still isn't a duck.

 

[Polk]

Waterboarding was not a war crime dumb ass. In fact it was still legal for awhile under Obama as well. You see retard, in this Country, one can not go retroactively back and make a claim of a crime. Since it was NOT illegal until Obama and Holder made it illegal you have no case. TRY again.

It won't be an ex post facto law because torture has already been defined as a crime by our laws for decades.

And waterboarding was NOT defined as torture dumb ass. In fact we do it to our own troops in training exercises.

We do it to our own troops as part of torture resistance training, which makes my point.
And since you want to get into military usage, the Army Field Manuel defines it as torture. We've also put enemy POWs on trial for war crimes for using waterboarding on American soldiers. The State Department's list of states which engage in torture includes several states which are listed as torturers for their use of waterboarding (and before you claim it's something Hillary did, those listings were made during the Bush administration).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And waterboarding was NOT defined as torture dumb ass. In fact we do it to our own troops in training exercises.

yeah...because they pretended it wasn't torture...not because it isn't.

if i call my rabbit a duck, he still isn't a duck.

It was not illegal, pretty simply concept. If it were then all those troops we waterboarded can now sue the Government for torture.

 

[Polk]

Not as sad as the fact that you and some of your ilk blithely bandy about the term "war criminal" as though because you maintain it, it's so.

It is so. They were actively involved in the commission of a war crime. That makes them war criminals.

No. They were idealogues and weren't acting as lawyers should. But they weren't war criminals. And suggesting they were diminishes any point you would otherwise have made.

So no.... it isn't so.

They should have let everyone at Nuremberg go free then, since they weren't actively engaging in the act, only issuing the orders.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It won't be an ex post facto law because torture has already been defined as a crime by our laws for decades.

And waterboarding was NOT defined as torture dumb ass. In fact we do it to our own troops in training exercises.

We do it to our own troops as part of torture resistance training, which makes my point.
And since you want to get into military usage, the Army Field Manuel defines it as torture. We've also put enemy POWs on trial for war crimes for using waterboarding on American soldiers. The State Department's list of states which engage in torture includes several states which are listed as torturers for their use of waterboarding (and before you claim it's something Hillary did, those listings were made during the Bush administration).

It is illegal for the Government to torture, that INCLUDES it's own troops, if waterboarding were illegal and torture they could not have practiced it on our troops, pretty damn simple concept, even a retard like you can grasp.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's a pretty sad day when you're got people cheering that war criminals will get away with their crimes.

lawyers giving opinions are war criminals?

Lawyers conspiring with and providing cover to policy makers might just be war criminals.