Obama proud of torturing american civilians.

[drsmith1072]

It says that the LA plot was foiled based on the information gotten from waterboarding. That this information was not able to be obtained any other way.

And this is part of the timeline that does not make sense.

W and his administration say that the LA plot was foiled in 2002 and yet the memo claims they got this info from enhanced interrogation techniques (not specifically waterboarding, that is an assumption on your part) after they captured KSM in 2003.

You understand yet how that is completely impossible based on the FACT that 2002 is BEFORE 2003 and using enhanced techniques on KSM in 2003 could not have led to foiling the plot that had already been foiled previously in 2002.

Your memo was written in 2005, the white house info that I have provided from W's own whitehouse was from 2006 and 2007.

Do you understand how time works??

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Thank God we have a President who gets it...

The US should not engage in torture

Absolutely correct...and we have NEVER engaged in torture because waterboarding wasn't torture until it became politically expedient.

Dood. Waterboarding is torture. You can skwerm all over the topic if you want, but it is.

There are multiple journalists who have tried to prove it's not...and failed.

Here's a conservative radio guy: Mancow...who was converted.

Conservative Radio Host Has Himself Waterboarded (Video) - Culture - The Atlantic

You should just come out and admit it.

Wrong ..... Show me one law in the U.S. Code where it SPECIFICALLY STATES "waterboarding is torture."

 

[Vanquish]

How about the constitution? Would that work?

Try the Eight Amendment.

I'll wait for the predictable response to see if you get that far.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

How about the constitution? Would that work?

Try the Eight Amendment.

I'll wait for the predictable response to see if you get that far.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You guys are so funny. An Obama declasified Department of Justice/CIA memo that goes into great detail doesn't have the facts correctly.

Believe it or not, the government often lies to itself and the People when the facts are unpleasant.

I am arguing with idiots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

Then stop arguing with yourself and listen to the other posters.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

CMike reminds me a lot of publicinfantwhatever

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Ask Captain Edwin F. Glenn and Elihu Root about what happened in 1898/1902.

Ask U.S. Airman Chase J. Nielsen, who was waterboarded by the Japanese- his torturers were tried after the war for the crime and at least one was hanged.

Ask Texas sheriff James Parker whether G.W. Bush granted clemency when he was convicted of waterboarding prisoners or whether Bush thought parker wasn't above the law.

Reagan’s DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff For Waterboarding Prisoners | The Public Record

In Vietnam, the US told its soldiers waterboarding was illegal.


Read the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment, or Punishment of 1984, which was ratified, which is a treaty and is Constitutionally as binding as the Constitution itself.

Waterboarding as Torture in U.S. Law Levellers

Three major treaties that the United States has signed and unambiguously ratified prohibit the United States from subjecting prisoners in the War on Terror to this kind of treatment. First, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which the Senate unanimously ratified in 1955, prohibits the parties to the treaty from acts upon prisoners including “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; . . . outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”[18] Second, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Senate ratified in 1992, states that “[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”[19] Third, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, which the Senate ratified in 1994, provides that “[e]ach State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction,”[20] and that “[e]ach State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture . . . .”[21]
The United States has enacted statutes prohibiting torture and cruel or inhuman treatment. It is these statutes which make waterboarding illegal.[22] The four principal statutes which Congress has adopted to implement the provisions of the foregoing treaties are the Torture Act,[23] the War Crimes Act,[24],and the laws entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons Under Custody or Control of the United States Government”[25] and “Additional Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[26] The first two statutes are criminal laws while the latter two statutes extend civil rights to any person in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world.
The Torture Act makes it a felony for any person, acting under color of law, to commit an act of torture upon any person within the defendant’s custody or control outside the United States.[27] Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”[29] Under this law, torture is punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment unless the victim dies as a result of the torture, in which case the penalty is death or life in prison.[30]
The War Crimes Act differs from the Torture Act in several respects. It applies to acts committed inside or outside the United States, not simply to acts committed outside the United States.[31] Second, it prohibits actions by any American citizen or any member of the armed forces of the United States, not simply to persons acting under color of law.[32] Third, violations of the War Crimes Act that do not result in death of the victim are punishable by life in prison, not simply for a term of twenty years.[33] Finally, when it was enacted in 1996, the War Crimes Act did not mention torture or any other specific conduct like the Torture Act does, but rather contained a very broad definition of the offense. The original statute provided that “war crimes” included any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions.[34] In 2006, in the Military Commissions Act, Congress defined the term “grave breach” of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention to include “torture” as well as “cruel or inhuman treatment” of prisoners.[35] As in the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006) defines “torture” as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”[36] Cruel or inhuman treatment is defined as “serious physical or mental pain or suffering,” and also includes “serious physical abuse.”[37] The law defines “serious physical pain or suffering” as including “extreme physical pain.”[38] All of these clarifications of the term “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 were made retroactive to 1997.[39] The 2006 Act replaced the requirement that mental harm be “prolonged” with a more broad definition that mental harm be merely “serious and non-transitory.”[40]
The third federal statute that prohibits waterboarding is entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons under Custody or Control of the United States Government.”[41] This law was enacted in 2005 as part of the Detainee Treatment Act,[42] and in 2006 it was supplemented in the Military Commissions Act by a statutory provision entitled “Additional Prohibition on Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[43] These civil rights laws very simply state that no person under the physical control of the United States anywhere in the world may be subjected to any “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,”[44] and they each define “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” to be any treatment or punishment which would violate the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.[45] These civil rights laws award the same rights to all prisoners who are in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world as citizens of the United States are entitled to under the Constitution. This means that if it is unconstitutional to subject prisoners in the United States to waterboarding, then it is illegal to commit this act against prisoners in the War on Terror, wherever they are being detained.
There is no doubt that waterboarding is illegal under the plain language of each of these four statutes. When it is practiced in other countries, the State Department characterizes waterboarding as “torture.”[46] Waterboarding inflicts “severe pain and suffering” on its victims, both physically and mentally, and therefore it is torture within the meaning of the Torture Act and the War Crimes Act.[47] It inflicts “serious pain and suffering” upon its victims, and it qualifies as “serious physical abuse,” therefore it is “cruel or inhuman treatment” within the meaning of the War Crimes Act.[48] Finally, American courts have ruled that when prisoners in the United States are subjected to waterboarding, it is a violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore it would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000dd and 2000dd-0 prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.[49]

Waterboarding is Illegal - Washington University Law Review

Reagan’s DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff For Waterboarding Prisoners | The Public Record


See also:
Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CMike]

How about the constitution? Would that work?

Try the Eight Amendment.

I'll wait for the predictable response to see if you get that far.

The memo actually deals with the legality of it.

http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf

Pages 1-5, once again the formatting is a bit of a problem.

By its terms, Article 16 is Hmite,d to conduct v.1thin "territory under [United States]
jurlsdiction." Wecondude that territory under United States jutlsdiclion includes, 'at mosf,areas

over whic1i the United States exercises at feast de facto authority as the government. Based on
CIA assurances, we unders~and that the interrogations do not take place in any such areas. We
therefore conclude .that Micle 16 is inapplicable to the CIA's interrogation practices and that
those practices thus cannot violateArticie 16. Further, the United States undertook its
obligations under Article 16 subject to a Senate reservation, which, as relevant here, explicitly
limits those obligations to "the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment ... prohibited by the Fifth
Amendment, .. to the Constitution ofthe United States:';! There is a strong argument that
through this reserVation the Senate intended to limit the scope ofUnited States obligations under
Artide 16 to those imposed by the relevant provisions of the Constitution. As construed by the
courts, the FiahAmcndment does not apply to aliens outsjd~ the United States. The CIA has
assured us that the interrogation techn.iques are not used within the United States or against
United States persons, including both United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.
Because tb~ geographic limitation on the face of Article 16 renders it inapplicable to tbe CIA
interrogation program in any event, we need not decide in this memorandum the precise effect, if
any, afthe Senate reservation on the geographic reach of United States obligations under Article
16. Forthese reasons, we conc!ude in Part nthat the interrogation techniques where and as used
by the CIA are not subject to, and therefore do not violate, Article 16


Page 38-40

Accordingly. \Ve conclude that, in of "an understanding of traditional executive
behavior, of contemporary practice, and of standards of blame generally applied to them," the
use enhanced interrogation techniques in the CIA interrogation program as we understand
it~ does not constitute government behavior that "is so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly
be said to the contemporary conscience." Lewis, 523 U.S. at 847 n8,

 

[CMike]

You guys are so funny. An Obama declasified Department of Justice/CIA memo that goes into great detail doesn't have the facts correctly.

Believe it or not, the government often lies to itself and the People when the facts are unpleasant.

I am arguing with idiots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

Then stop arguing with yourself and listen to the other posters.

Prove that they were lying.

I am not aruging with myself, i am arguing with idiots who believe left wing bloggers who made wild assumptions, rather than DOJ/CIA documents

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Since you seem to have missed it

Ask Captain Edwin F. Glenn and Elihu Root about what happened in 1898/1902.

Ask U.S. Airman Chase J. Nielsen, who was waterboarded by the Japanese- his torturers were tried after the war for the crime and at least one was hanged.

Ask Texas sheriff James Parker whether G.W. Bush granted clemency when he was convicted of waterboarding prisoners or whether Bush thought parker wasn't above the law.

Reagan’s DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff For Waterboarding Prisoners | The Public Record

In Vietnam, the US told its soldiers waterboarding was illegal.

Read the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment, or Punishment of 1984, which was ratified, which is a treaty and is Constitutionally as binding as the Constitution itself.

Waterboarding as Torture in U.S. Law Levellers

Three major treaties that the United States has signed and unambiguously ratified prohibit the United States from subjecting prisoners in the War on Terror to this kind of treatment. First, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which the Senate unanimously ratified in 1955, prohibits the parties to the treaty from acts upon prisoners including “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; . . . outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”[18] Second, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Senate ratified in 1992, states that “[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”[19] Third, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, which the Senate ratified in 1994, provides that “[e]ach State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction,”[20] and that “[e]ach State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture . . . .”[21]
The United States has enacted statutes prohibiting torture and cruel or inhuman treatment. It is these statutes which make waterboarding illegal.[22] The four principal statutes which Congress has adopted to implement the provisions of the foregoing treaties are the Torture Act,[23] the War Crimes Act,[24],and the laws entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons Under Custody or Control of the United States Government”[25] and “Additional Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[26] The first two statutes are criminal laws while the latter two statutes extend civil rights to any person in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world.
The Torture Act makes it a felony for any person, acting under color of law, to commit an act of torture upon any person within the defendant’s custody or control outside the United States.[27] Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”[29] Under this law, torture is punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment unless the victim dies as a result of the torture, in which case the penalty is death or life in prison.[30]
The War Crimes Act differs from the Torture Act in several respects. It applies to acts committed inside or outside the United States, not simply to acts committed outside the United States.[31] Second, it prohibits actions by any American citizen or any member of the armed forces of the United States, not simply to persons acting under color of law.[32] Third, violations of the War Crimes Act that do not result in death of the victim are punishable by life in prison, not simply for a term of twenty years.[33] Finally, when it was enacted in 1996, the War Crimes Act did not mention torture or any other specific conduct like the Torture Act does, but rather contained a very broad definition of the offense. The original statute provided that “war crimes” included any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions.[34] In 2006, in the Military Commissions Act, Congress defined the term “grave breach” of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention to include “torture” as well as “cruel or inhuman treatment” of prisoners.[35] As in the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006) defines “torture” as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”[36] Cruel or inhuman treatment is defined as “serious physical or mental pain or suffering,” and also includes “serious physical abuse.”[37] The law defines “serious physical pain or suffering” as including “extreme physical pain.”[38] All of these clarifications of the term “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 were made retroactive to 1997.[39] The 2006 Act replaced the requirement that mental harm be “prolonged” with a more broad definition that mental harm be merely “serious and non-transitory.”[40]
The third federal statute that prohibits waterboarding is entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons under Custody or Control of the United States Government.”[41] This law was enacted in 2005 as part of the Detainee Treatment Act,[42] and in 2006 it was supplemented in the Military Commissions Act by a statutory provision entitled “Additional Prohibition on Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[43] These civil rights laws very simply state that no person under the physical control of the United States anywhere in the world may be subjected to any “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,”[44] and they each define “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” to be any treatment or punishment which would violate the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.[45] These civil rights laws award the same rights to all prisoners who are in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world as citizens of the United States are entitled to under the Constitution. This means that if it is unconstitutional to subject prisoners in the United States to waterboarding, then it is illegal to commit this act against prisoners in the War on Terror, wherever they are being detained.
There is no doubt that waterboarding is illegal under the plain language of each of these four statutes. When it is practiced in other countries, the State Department characterizes waterboarding as “torture.”[46] Waterboarding inflicts “severe pain and suffering” on its victims, both physically and mentally, and therefore it is torture within the meaning of the Torture Act and the War Crimes Act.[47] It inflicts “serious pain and suffering” upon its victims, and it qualifies as “serious physical abuse,” therefore it is “cruel or inhuman treatment” within the meaning of the War Crimes Act.[48] Finally, American courts have ruled that when prisoners in the United States are subjected to waterboarding, it is a violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore it would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000dd and 2000dd-0 prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.[49]

Waterboarding is Illegal - Washington University Law Review

Reagan’s DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff For Waterboarding Prisoners | The Public Record


See also:
Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CMike]

That's because of the circumstances of the waterboarding.

Prove that waterboarding is toture based on the CIA guidelines?

The DOJ ruled that it was legal.

And I cited the memo where they explain it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You are about as dumb as they come.

PI would be proud of his idiot illegitimate child.

 

[CMike]

You are about as dumb as they come.

PI would be proud of his idiot illegitimate child.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Ask Captain Edwin F. Glenn and Elihu Root about what happened in 1898/1902.

Ask U.S. Airman Chase J. Nielsen, who was waterboarded by the Japanese- his torturers were tried after the war for the crime and at least one was hanged.

Ask Texas sheriff James Parker whether G.W. Bush granted clemency when he was convicted of waterboarding prisoners or whether Bush thought parker wasn't above the law.

Reagan’s DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff For Waterboarding Prisoners | The Public Record

In Vietnam, the US told its soldiers waterboarding was illegal.


Read the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment, or Punishment of 1984, which was ratified, which is a treaty and is Constitutionally as binding as the Constitution itself.

Waterboarding as Torture in U.S. Law Levellers

Three major treaties that the United States has signed and unambiguously ratified prohibit the United States from subjecting prisoners in the War on Terror to this kind of treatment. First, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which the Senate unanimously ratified in 1955, prohibits the parties to the treaty from acts upon prisoners including “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; . . . outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”[18] Second, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Senate ratified in 1992, states that “[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”[19] Third, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, which the Senate ratified in 1994, provides that “[e]ach State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction,”[20] and that “[e]ach State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture . . . .”[21]
The United States has enacted statutes prohibiting torture and cruel or inhuman treatment. It is these statutes which make waterboarding illegal.[22] The four principal statutes which Congress has adopted to implement the provisions of the foregoing treaties are the Torture Act,[23] the War Crimes Act,[24],and the laws entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons Under Custody or Control of the United States Government”[25] and “Additional Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[26] The first two statutes are criminal laws while the latter two statutes extend civil rights to any person in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world.
The Torture Act makes it a felony for any person, acting under color of law, to commit an act of torture upon any person within the defendant’s custody or control outside the United States.[27] Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”[29] Under this law, torture is punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment unless the victim dies as a result of the torture, in which case the penalty is death or life in prison.[30]
The War Crimes Act differs from the Torture Act in several respects. It applies to acts committed inside or outside the United States, not simply to acts committed outside the United States.[31] Second, it prohibits actions by any American citizen or any member of the armed forces of the United States, not simply to persons acting under color of law.[32] Third, violations of the War Crimes Act that do not result in death of the victim are punishable by life in prison, not simply for a term of twenty years.[33] Finally, when it was enacted in 1996, the War Crimes Act did not mention torture or any other specific conduct like the Torture Act does, but rather contained a very broad definition of the offense. The original statute provided that “war crimes” included any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions.[34] In 2006, in the Military Commissions Act, Congress defined the term “grave breach” of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention to include “torture” as well as “cruel or inhuman treatment” of prisoners.[35] As in the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006) defines “torture” as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”[36] Cruel or inhuman treatment is defined as “serious physical or mental pain or suffering,” and also includes “serious physical abuse.”[37] The law defines “serious physical pain or suffering” as including “extreme physical pain.”[38] All of these clarifications of the term “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 were made retroactive to 1997.[39] The 2006 Act replaced the requirement that mental harm be “prolonged” with a more broad definition that mental harm be merely “serious and non-transitory.”[40]
The third federal statute that prohibits waterboarding is entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons under Custody or Control of the United States Government.”[41] This law was enacted in 2005 as part of the Detainee Treatment Act,[42] and in 2006 it was supplemented in the Military Commissions Act by a statutory provision entitled “Additional Prohibition on Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[43] These civil rights laws very simply state that no person under the physical control of the United States anywhere in the world may be subjected to any “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,”[44] and they each define “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” to be any treatment or punishment which would violate the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.[45] These civil rights laws award the same rights to all prisoners who are in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world as citizens of the United States are entitled to under the Constitution. This means that if it is unconstitutional to subject prisoners in the United States to waterboarding, then it is illegal to commit this act against prisoners in the War on Terror, wherever they are being detained.
There is no doubt that waterboarding is illegal under the plain language of each of these four statutes. When it is practiced in other countries, the State Department characterizes waterboarding as “torture.”[46] Waterboarding inflicts “severe pain and suffering” on its victims, both physically and mentally, and therefore it is torture within the meaning of the Torture Act and the War Crimes Act.[47] It inflicts “serious pain and suffering” upon its victims, and it qualifies as “serious physical abuse,” therefore it is “cruel or inhuman treatment” within the meaning of the War Crimes Act.[48] Finally, American courts have ruled that when prisoners in the United States are subjected to waterboarding, it is a violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore it would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000dd and 2000dd-0 prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.[49]

Waterboarding is Illegal - Washington University Law Review

Reagan’s DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff For Waterboarding Prisoners | The Public Record


See also:
Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry...opinions don't mean a damn thing...cite U.S. Code where it specifically says "waterboarding" is defined as torture....specifically.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

There you have it folks- even when they're given a thorough legal explanation that cites the very laws which make the act illegal and given legal precedent where waterboarding was specifically found to be illegal torture, they simply refuse to read it.

 

[CMike]

That was an opinon peace.

The DOJ specifically dealt with the legality of waterboarding, and it was found to be legal, when done based on the criteria that it was done.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Wow...the government said that what the government did was okay, existing law (including treaties, which have the same weight as the Constitution itself) and precedent be damned.

Shocking...


That's like asking Charles Manson whether it should be illegal to kill people.

 

[CMike]

Wow...the government said that what the government did was okay, existing law (including treaties, which have the same weight as the Constitution itself) and precedent be damned.

Shocking...


That's like asking Charles Manson whether it should be illegal to kill people.

Actually that's now that it said.

Why don't you read it and find out

 

[ABikerSailor]

You cling to this one piece of "evidence" written by the Bush administration, yet you ignore everything else that shows that piece of "evidence" was actually a fabrication.

Just like WMD's and Saddam having a connection to the Taliban.

Crazy Mike, after all this, you STILL have faith in Bush Jr's admin?

Like I said douchebag........you're weapons grade stupid.

 

[Vanquish]

How about the constitution? Would that work?

Try the Eight Amendment.

I'll wait for the predictable response to see if you get that far.

You think because your dumb ass posts some picture then you win? You're an idiot of the first order. You think that the ends justify the means when they clearly dont.

You are evil. You are a scumbag. You're everything that is wrong with America.
If you have the balls, take a good long honest look at yourself and wonder why someone would feel ok calling you all those words - and take some fucking responsibility.

I normally try not to insult people, but you're just trash.