Bush official claims his memo against the use of torture was destroyed

[eots]

Obama Backs Bush On Bagram Detainees

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.

In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.


Obama Backs Bush On Bagram Detainees

If this...is true, then it is a good Idea to work against Obama starting now.

oh its true


Obama: No rights for Bagram prisoners - White House- msnbc.com

The Raw Story | Despite rhetoric, Obama continues Bush policy on detainees: Indefinite detention, no legal rights

Newsmax.com - Obama Backs Bush: No Rights for Bagram Prisoners

 

[Yurt]

did the japanese waterboard the same exact way? was it solely waterboarding they were convicted for? laws and times change, my understanding is they were not convicted on a statute rather just convicted and if so, are you claiming that is precedent? i don't think the law works that way. was it the scotus? who convicted them and on what grounds?

Yes the waterboarded the same way and yes some were convicted solely for waterboarding. Cites posted earlier in these threads about waterboarding:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...to-info-that-aborted-9-11-style-attac-20.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/74682-torture-poll.html

I'm not sure how it might apply as legal precedent.

But our nation unequivocally said that when someone else does it to our guys, its torture and a war crime and you will be punished for it.

where is your proof they waterboarded the same way? from what i have seen, it was not the same at all.

no, the nation did not say it, unless the court is the SCOTUS, that court doesn not speak legally for the entire US. i'm curious what court or was it a legislative body said they were guilty and i want to know exactly what they were guilty of. if you can't provide a direct link to that, then how do you know it was exactly the same circumstances?

 

[Iriemon]

did the japanese waterboard the same exact way? was it solely waterboarding they were convicted for? laws and times change, my understanding is they were not convicted on a statute rather just convicted and if so, are you claiming that is precedent? i don't think the law works that way. was it the scotus? who convicted them and on what grounds?

Yes the waterboarded the same way and yes some were convicted solely for waterboarding. Cites posted earlier in these threads about waterboarding:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...to-info-that-aborted-9-11-style-attac-20.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/74682-torture-poll.html

I'm not sure how it might apply as legal precedent.

But our nation unequivocally said that when someone else does it to our guys, its torture and a war crime and you will be punished for it.

where is your proof they waterboarded the same way? from what i have seen, it was not the same at all.

no, the nation did not say it, unless the court is the SCOTUS, that court doesn not speak legally for the entire US. i'm curious what court or was it a legislative body said they were guilty and i want to know exactly what they were guilty of. if you can't provide a direct link to that, then how do you know it was exactly the same circumstances?

In the threads I cited, there are cites to numerous sources including testimony of the US airman who was waterboarded against the Japanese for war trial.

This thread is about the destruction of the memo; I don't see a lot of benefit of regurgitating OT information on torture that is in the threads debated in detail yesterday.

 

[JimH52]

Bush and Uncle Fester felt if they could destroy all the memos advising against interrogations methods, such as waterboarding, they would be home free. That is not the case.

 

[manu1959]

Fortunately not, there are enough of us that object to using torture.

We shall see how it unfolds. Amazing stuff.

It's not torture when you have medical personnel on hand to prevent harm to the terror suspects. This will definitely harm Obama's presidency.

Are you a frigin lunatic? Doctors are also available at executions. Can we stop calling these procedures executions and start calling them interrogations? That is the Bush mentality...or lack thereof.

Obama will not be hurt. Maybe the moral standing of our country will be restored. What is amazinf is that the majority of the people who support the Bush definition of interrogation are "so called" Christians. How do we explain that?

nah christians would be calling eye for an eye.....

 

[JimH52]

nah christians would be calling eye for an eye.....

Actually that is a Jewish thing, but unfortunately the characteristic has been adopted by many of my brothers and sisters.

 

[jreeves]

I wasn't there. I'll take your word for it. Great. So what.

It's in the memos and others that were there stated it was so. It's not torture if you're not causing permanent injury.

If waterboarding is not torture because it doesn't cause permanent injury, then why did we sentence Japanies persons who did it to Americans in WWII 15 years hard labor for war crimes for doing it?

So the Navy tortures their own people? Where was the outrage when Kennedy authorized waterboarding when he was President? You all are freaking unbelievable...

 

[jreeves]

Fortunately not, there are enough of us that object to using torture.

We shall see how it unfolds. Amazing stuff.

It's not torture when you have medical personnel on hand to prevent harm to the terror suspects. This will definitely harm Obama's presidency.

Are you a frigin lunatic? Doctors are also available at executions. Can we stop calling these procedures executions and start calling them interrogations? That is the Bush mentality...or lack thereof.

Obama will not be hurt. Maybe the moral standing of our country will be restored. What is amazinf is that the majority of the people who support the Bush definition of interrogation are "so called" Christians. How do we explain that?

Doctors at the executions don't try and prevent permanent injury. Obama will be hurt when there is a terror attack in the US. I am agnostic....So I can't