Bush White House-approved interrogation techniques amounted to "war crimes."

I love these false stories brought up. First the Constitution applies to citizens ONLY. That's the reason to become a citizen. DUH!!!

Second waterboarding is not like torture. Torture is pulling finger nails, using the rack, chinese water torture, burning at the stake, cruicifiction, stuff like that. It's kinda like liberals who think the death penalty is curel and unusual except the people who wrote it were big fans of the death penalty, and hey in 1789 they didnt even have DNA!!!!!!!!!!

Third I dont care if we torture, that's like people who complain about overcrowding in jail and jail being too hard.....sorry dont care. If you're at war with us, and you are not uniformed you have zero rights at all. If you are uniformed then you might have a gripe, but still it would depend on the circumstances of the case.
 
And of course you can identify them by sight, eh?


Yeah, they're the ones with towels wrapped around their heads and bombs strapped to their chests.

Great, now conservatives are going to send drones to target well-stacked, long-haired college girls fresh out of the shower.

Well maybe that's why you guys dont like profiling you're bad at it. we can tell the difference between Amir and Candy the DD phenom.
 
Yeah, they're the ones with towels wrapped around their heads and bombs strapped to their chests.

Great, now conservatives are going to send drones to target well-stacked, long-haired college girls fresh out of the shower.

Well maybe that's why you guys dont like profiling you're bad at it. we can tell the difference between Amir and Candy the DD phenom.

Caution! Everyone knows that conservatives are prone to premature attackulation.
 
Great, now conservatives are going to send drones to target well-stacked, long-haired college girls fresh out of the shower.

Well maybe that's why you guys dont like profiling you're bad at it. we can tell the difference between Amir and Candy the DD phenom.

Caution! Everyone knows that conservatives are prone to premature attackulation.

ooooh witty comeback, but whether it's funny or not, I like the truth
 
What it proves is that one person had different view on if water boarding is torture nothing more nothing less.
 
Who's surprised?

Everyone knew that the Bush administration engaged in torture...despite the denials. Even the administration's 'tortured logic' (no pun intended) about detainees not being prisoners of war (and therefore not subject to the Geneva Convention's restrictions on torture), and John Yoo's memo's outlining why 'enhanced interrogation techniques' didn't violate the US Constitution, US treaties, and US laws did nothing more than make a mockery of our laws and stated ideals by simply attempting to rationalized (and legalize) illegality. I think that the Bush administration's attempts to destroy all copies of Zelikow's memo is acknowledgement enough of that fact.

Let the conservative apologists begin their usual spin. Then when they're done doing that, they can again start up with their argument that President Obama is a thug.

WASHINGTON -- A six-year-old memo from within the George W. Bush administration that came to light this week acknowledges that White House-approved interrogation techniques amounted to "war crimes." The memo's release has called attention to what has changed since President Barack Obama took office, but it also raises questions about what hasn't.


The Bush White House tried to destroy every copy of the memo, written by then-State Department counselor Philip Zelikow. Zelikow examined tactics like waterboarding -- which simulates drowning -- and concluded that there was no way they were legal, domestically or internationally.


“We are unaware of any precedent in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or any subsequent conflict for authorized, systematic interrogation practices similar to those in question here," Zelikow wrote.



The memo has been obtained by George Washington University's National Security Archive and Wired's Spencer Ackerman.
On his second full day in office, President Barack Obama formally disavowed torture, banning the types of techniques Zelikow had objected to so strongly in his memo.

New Bush-Era Torture Memo Released, Raises Questions About What Has Changed And What Hasn't


So, whats your point? Got news for you bud, in WW2, Cold War, Korea,and Vietnam the enemy employed what ever tactic, including death, to extract information, we have always, and will continue to value life. So how many prisoners died in the hands of US operatives and US armed forces as the result of torture? What US laws apply in the time of war to enemy combatants? The problem with liberals is they seem to think one size fits all.
 
Who's surprised?

Everyone knew that the Bush administration engaged in torture...despite the denials. Even the administration's 'tortured logic' (no pun intended) about detainees not being prisoners of war (and therefore not subject to the Geneva Convention's restrictions on torture), and John Yoo's memo's outlining why 'enhanced interrogation techniques' didn't violate the US Constitution, US treaties, and US laws did nothing more than make a mockery of our laws and stated ideals by simply attempting to rationalized (and legalize) illegality. I think that the Bush administration's attempts to destroy all copies of Zelikow's memo is acknowledgement enough of that fact.

Let the conservative apologists begin their usual spin. Then when they're done doing that, they can again start up with their argument that President Obama is a thug.

"Everyone knew that the Bush administration engaged in torture...despite the denials."

Your conjecture is patently false, as shown by the following exchange:



" [Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at clarifying the Obama Justice Department’s definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?"
Eric Holder: Waterboarding is not torture

Au contraire.

I remember Bush answering a question about torture and whether (or not) America was torturing suspected al Qaeda members etc.

With a smirk and a funny look on his face, Bush denied that America tortured/tortures anyone. Despite the fact that all politicians lie (about a number of things, both big and small), and the fact that politicians have years of practicing the art of being less than forthcoming (or even honest, for that matter), it was obvious to me that Bush was lying. I'm quite sure it was obvious to anyone else watching, as well. I don't say that as a person who routinely thought Bush was lying. Like most politicians, Bush was good at being evasive and not answering questions directly. This was one time when the question was direct (I think it was a hot topic at the time), and Bush directly answered it. Frankly, I can't believe that anyone who watched that exchange could reach any other conclusion because it was simply so glaringly obvious.

Your basic misunderstanding stems for not having learned the following:

a. The claim that enhanced interrogation is 'torture' is what is known as a political term of art. There is no real meaning to the torture charge outside of its use as a political strategy: it is a weapon against the Bush administration.
(Notice how successful the ploy is with the Democrat-Janissaries, such as yourself: you referred to President Bush six times above.)

b. It can be reduced to the Liberal bumper sticker: "see, what a good boy am I."

c. It evidences a woeful lack of understanding of the most fundamental function of the federal government: protection of the citizens.

There was no 'torture'...only interrogation.
 
The Bataan death march was torture, the Nazi Death Camps were torture.the Hanoi Hilton was torture water boarding not so much in my opinion.

Torture?


From “Magnifico: The Brilliant Life and Violent Times of Lorenzo De Medici,” by Miles Unger, p. 227-228.

"An incident recorded by the diarist Luca Landucci vividly illustrated the dangers awaiting those who threatened bodily harm to the leading citizens of the regime:

27th September [1481]. A certain hermit came to the house of Lorenzo de’ Medici at the Poggio a Caiano; and the servants declared that he intended to murder Lorenzo, so they took him and sent him to the Bargello, and he was put to the rack.

15th October. This hermit died at Santa Maria Novella, having been tortured in various ways. It was said that they skinned the soles of his feet, and then burnt them by holding them in the fire till the fat dripped off them; after which they set him upright and made him walk across the hall; and these things caused his death. Opinions were divided as to whether he were guilty or innocent."
 
The biggest torture of all is listening to Obama speak without a teleprompter, I know retards that are more coherent.
 
Classification as torture

Waterboarding is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[1][37][38] politicians, war veterans,[39][40] intelligence officials,[41] military judges,[42] and human rights organizations.[24][43] David Miliband, then United Kingdom Foreign Secretary, described it as torture on 19 July 2008, and stated "the UK unreservedly condemns the use of torture."[44] Arguments have been put forward that it might not be torture in all cases, or that it is unclear.[15][45][46][47] The U.S. State Department has recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in other circumstances, for example, in its 2005 Country Report on Tunisia.[48]
The United Nations' Report of the Committee Against Torture: Thirty-fifth Session of November 2006, stated that state parties should rescind any interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, that constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.[49]
Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Who's surprised?

Everyone knew that the Bush administration engaged in torture...despite the denials. Even the administration's 'tortured logic' (no pun intended) about detainees not being prisoners of war (and therefore not subject to the Geneva Convention's restrictions on torture), and John Yoo's memo's outlining why 'enhanced interrogation techniques' didn't violate the US Constitution, US treaties, and US laws did nothing more than make a mockery of our laws and stated ideals by simply attempting to rationalized (and legalize) illegality. I think that the Bush administration's attempts to destroy all copies of Zelikow's memo is acknowledgement enough of that fact.

Let the conservative apologists begin their usual spin. Then when they're done doing that, they can again start up with their argument that President Obama is a thug.

WASHINGTON -- A six-year-old memo from within the George W. Bush administration that came to light this week acknowledges that White House-approved interrogation techniques amounted to "war crimes." The memo's release has called attention to what has changed since President Barack Obama took office, but it also raises questions about what hasn't.


The Bush White House tried to destroy every copy of the memo, written by then-State Department counselor Philip Zelikow. Zelikow examined tactics like waterboarding -- which simulates drowning -- and concluded that there was no way they were legal, domestically or internationally.


“We are unaware of any precedent in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or any subsequent conflict for authorized, systematic interrogation practices similar to those in question here," Zelikow wrote.



The memo has been obtained by George Washington University's National Security Archive and Wired's Spencer Ackerman.
On his second full day in office, President Barack Obama formally disavowed torture, banning the types of techniques Zelikow had objected to so strongly in his memo.

New Bush-Era Torture Memo Released, Raises Questions About What Has Changed And What Hasn't
So, terrorist lover. Wah Wah.
 
Everyone knew that the Bush administration engaged in torture...despite the denials. Even the administration's 'tortured logic' (no pun intended) about detainees not being prisoners of war (and therefore not subject to the Geneva Convention's restrictions on torture), and John Yoo's memo's outlining why 'enhanced interrogation techniques' didn't violate the US Constitution, US treaties, and US laws did nothing more than make a mockery of our laws and stated ideals by simply attempting to rationalized (and legalize) illegality. I think that the Bush administration's attempts to destroy all copies of Zelikow's memo is acknowledgement enough of that fact.
This is illustrative of conservatives’ contempt for the rule of law, where ‘the ends justify the means,’ as practiced by GWB, his father before him, Reagan before that, and ultimately Nixon.

And a future republican administration will be just as likely to engage in the same illegal practices, using the same justification.
IDiot!
 
Well lets take this another direction on questionable legal actions by a President there are many on the left including everyone's favorite the ACLU who feel our use of drone strikes is illegal this was started under Bush and has continued and increased under Obama. So do you believe that both men are legally justified in using the drones? Are both criminals for doing so? Or do you take that it's ok for one to do it but not the other mindset. For the record I support the drone strikes from both men.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top