Cheney Admits He Authorized Torture Against Guantanamo Detainees

[glockmail]

...[blah blah,,,bush sucks.. blah, blah, blah]...

Now that your boy Obama is doing the same thing why say you?

 

[DiveCon]

...[blah blah,,,bush sucks.. blah, blah, blah]...

Now that your boy Obama is doing the same thing why say you?

:crickets:

 

[SpidermanTuba]

...[blah blah,,,bush sucks.. blah, blah, blah]...

Now that your boy Obama is doing the same thing why say you?

The same what thing?

 

[Gunny]

You said the SCOTUS doesn't have authority over the executive. The Constitution explicitly gives the SCOTUS jurisdiction over the actions of ambassadors. So I figured either you didn't think ambassadors were part of the executive or you hadn't read the Constitution.

again, what the fuck does that have to do with the topic at hand?

YOU are the one who erroneously mentioned the SCOTUS doesn't have authority over the executive, were you just babbling? See,. you said:

"what court has authority over the executive?
not the SCOTUS
they are co-equal branches
same as congress"


We you not talking about the topic at hand?

What kind of smoke are you trying to blow up his ass? The Supreme Court has authority to interpret law and make legal rulings based on those interpretations. It has no authority over any other branch of government.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

again, what the fuck does that have to do with the topic at hand?

YOU are the one who erroneously mentioned the SCOTUS doesn't have authority over the executive, were you just babbling? See,. you said:

"what court has authority over the executive?
not the SCOTUS
they are co-equal branches
same as congress"


We you not talking about the topic at hand?

What kind of smoke are you trying to blow up his ass? The Supreme Court has authority to interpret law and make legal rulings based on those interpretations. It has no authority over any other branch of government.

So the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court doesn't get to preside over impeachment trials of the President?

 

[glockmail]

...[blah blah,,,bush sucks.. blah, blah, blah]...

Now that your boy Obama is doing the same thing what say you?

The same what thing?

In a stunning departure from his rhetoric on Guantánamo Bay prison, President Barack Obama signaled Friday he will continue Bush Administration policy with regard to detainees held at a US airbase in Afghanistan, saying they have no right to challenge their detentions in US courts -- and denying them legal status altogether.

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

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Now that your boy Obama is doing the same thing what say you?

The same what thing?

In a stunning departure from his rhetoric on Guantánamo Bay prison, President Barack Obama signaled Friday he will continue Bush Administration policy with regard to detainees held at a US airbase in Afghanistan, saying they have no right to challenge their detentions in US courts -- and denying them legal status altogether.

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

I'm pretty sure its legal to keep prisoners in an active war zone - until hostilities cease - as long as you don't TORTURE then like Dick Cheney ordered. When did Obama ever admit to ordering torture? What evidence is there that he has ordered torture? The Geneva Convention permits the holding of combatants in active war zones until the end of hostilities provided they are treated humanely and you fucking know that.

 

[Toome]

I don't know. I kind of hate to admit it, but I don't have a huge problem using water torture against terrorists who would seek to hurt us. I think it's actually a humane way of getting them to talk, considering the litany of alternative options. So for that, I can appreciate Cheney's ruthlessness. On the other hand, this administration's ruthlessness -- to the point of lawlessness -- has been the result of policies I disagree with.

I don't think water boarding is a good idea at all. Fundamental principle to prisoner interrogations is to get the prisoner to tell the truth. Water boarding will get someone to talk, but any information obtained would be completely unreliable.

Interrogation is a seduction. It is an art form. It's a matter of breaking through psychological barriers and getting the subject to willingly tell information.

Applying anything ranging from physical discomfort to actual physical pain only motivates the subject to say anything that will put an end to the discomfort/torture, and the subject will most likely say exactly what the interrogator wants to hear.

Sure, torture looks easy when Jack Bauer does it on TV. In the real world, however, it's not worth putting the lives of troops on the line to pursue any "leads" that come out of one of these "interrogations."

As for ruthlessness, I think that's a relative term. War requires ruthlessness. I don't think the Bush administration has even approached ruthlessness. FDR crossed that line quite easily as did Truman. No other president has since with the exception of Nixon.