Obama Opposes Releasing Photos of U.S. Detainee Abuse

[del]

Haha sure. Just cause some of them died from the abuse doesn't mean its torture.

so everytime someone beats someone up and they die from the wounds it was torture......of course not....only a moron would think so

Then do tell me what is torture Yurt. Define it for me, since you seem to want to keep changing the goalposts.

reading your posts springs to mind.

 

[Father Time]

I think that's good news!

Probably...but it makes you wonder why we ever did something we have to hide from ourselves.

Except they're not really hidden, just classified and yet on the record.

I'm just glad they will be kept from being fodder for the media.

or 4chan. *shudder*

 

[jreeves]

So basically, torture and mistreatment doesn't keep us safe an it doesn't keep the troops safe.

Morons.

Yes and nothing the CIA did in EIT's was even close to torture. Just ask Pelosi in 2002...

 

[Ame®icano]

I don't know if anyone asked this question earlier, or clarified if asked, but do we have a law that clearly states and explain what is a torture and what's not?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I don't know if anyone asked this question earlier, or clarified if asked, but do we have a law that clearly states and explain what is a torture and what's not?

No... Because torture is a concept which can mean anything to anyone... OKA: a term of relevance.

What is perfectly acceptable to serve a moral imperative of sparing thousands of people from irrational, unjustified slaughter; would not be acceptable where applied against one's neighbor, to determine the whereabouts of one's weed-eater.

Where the law would prohibit what is UNACCEPTABLE in the case of the neighbor, would preclude it's reasonable use... against the slaughter of innocents.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't know if anyone asked this question earlier, or clarified if asked, but do we have a law that clearly states and explain what is a torture and what's not?

No we do not. And in point of fact President Bush repeatedly ask the New Democratic Congress in 2007 to spell it out for him, and they declined.

 

[Ame®icano]

Thank you both, Publius and RGS. There are three things I would like to say.

1st, even per our laws, torture is against the law, the same law is not saying, "waterboarding is a torture", nor explaining what torture is. Therefore, torture is left to be perception issue.

2nd, if Obama view is that waterboarding is torture, that still has to be voted on and signed into law. Since US Constitution explicitly forbids ex post facto (retroactive) laws (Article 1, Section 9), previous administration cannot be tried under new law. For the same reason, AIG executives cannot be taxed 90% on their bonuses.

3rd, I do think that waterboarding is torture, but since there is no law that clearly states that, there is no legal base to prosecute anyone.

 

[Nik]

Thank you both, Publius and RGS. There are three things I would like to say.

1st, even per our laws, torture is against the law, the same law is not saying, "waterboarding is a torture", nor explaining what torture is. Therefore, torture is left to be perception issue.

Not quite. Torture isn't defined in the statute illegalizing torture, but we do have torture defined in areas of law. See convention against torture, for example.

2nd, if Obama view is that waterboarding is torture, that still has to be voted on and signed into law. Since US Constitution explicitly forbids ex post facto (retroactive) laws (Article 1, Section 9), previous administration cannot be tried under new law. For the same reason, AIG executives cannot be taxed 90% on their bonuses.

Again, incorrect. A law that is interpreted to be one way or another can be interpreted after the law has taken force and does not count as ex post facto. All it would take would be for someone to prosecute the previous administration for torture. If the court decided that fell under torture, it would.

3rd, I do think that waterboarding is torture, but since there is no law that clearly states that, there is no legal base to prosecute anyone.

Lots of laws are unclear/open to interpretation. Hence why we have a judicial branch.

 

[jreeves]

Thank you both, Publius and RGS. There are three things I would like to say.

1st, even per our laws, torture is against the law, the same law is not saying, "waterboarding is a torture", nor explaining what torture is. Therefore, torture is left to be perception issue.

Not quite. Torture isn't defined in the statute illegalizing torture, but we do have torture defined in areas of law. See convention against torture, for example.

2nd, if Obama view is that waterboarding is torture, that still has to be voted on and signed into law. Since US Constitution explicitly forbids ex post facto (retroactive) laws (Article 1, Section 9), previous administration cannot be tried under new law. For the same reason, AIG executives cannot be taxed 90% on their bonuses.

Again, incorrect. A law that is interpreted to be one way or another can be interpreted after the law has taken force and does not count as ex post facto. All it would take would be for someone to prosecute the previous administration for torture. If the court decided that fell under torture, it would.

3rd, I do think that waterboarding is torture, but since there is no law that clearly states that, there is no legal base to prosecute anyone.

Lots of laws are unclear/open to interpretation. Hence why we have a judicial branch.

Nik what law specifically do you think the previous administration violated? Make sure you back it up with codes violated or conventions violated....

Lay out your case right here? Proof...

 

[Ame®icano]

Not quite. Torture isn't defined in the statute illegalizing torture, but we do have torture defined in areas of law. See convention against torture, for example.

US did signed UN Convention against torture, but our law do not specifically define torture. If I am mistaken, please provide a confirmative link.

Again, incorrect. A law that is interpreted to be one way or another can be interpreted after the law has taken force and does not count as ex post facto. All it would take would be for someone to prosecute the previous administration for torture. If the court decided that fell under torture, it would.

Laws that could be interpreted one way or another have to be clarified before enforced. Imagine if someone gets idea that criticizing government is illegal or racism and begin arresting people for, lets say, saying that president is black.

Lots of laws are unclear/open to interpretation. Hence why we have a judicial branch.

Hence, regardless of the color of his skin*, president is not judical branch.

*sarcasm

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Thank you both, Publius and RGS. There are three things I would like to say.

1st, even per our laws, torture is against the law, the same law is not saying, "waterboarding is a torture", nor explaining what torture is. Therefore, torture is left to be perception issue.

Not quite. Torture isn't defined in the statute illegalizing torture, but we do have torture defined in areas of law. See convention against torture, for example.
LOL... What graqde are you in sonny boy? You're quite sharp for a youngster... but you're misinformed...

Torture is a term of relevance... it can mean anything to anyone and, as has been said MANY TIMES AND MANY WAYS... what may be TORTURE in one circumstance, may well NOT be 'torture' in another... Does that mean that there aren't things, actions, behaviors which cannot be specifically defined as torture?

Heck no... If I come ot your house, open your door, walk into your kitchen and beat you senseless and you wake up to find yourself tied to the basement work bench... and you see me holding your 1/2" Drill with a 1" Bit and I'm about to drill a hole through your kneecaps... you can be sure that I am committing a STRING of VERY SERIOUS "CAPITAL CRIMES"... The LEAST of which would be torture...

2nd, if Obama view is that waterboarding is torture, that still has to be voted on and signed into law. Since US Constitution explicitly forbids ex post facto (retroactive) laws (Article 1, Section 9), previous administration cannot be tried under new law. For the same reason, AIG executives cannot be taxed 90% on their bonuses.

Again, incorrect. A law that is interpreted to be one way or another can be interpreted after the law has taken force and does not count as ex post facto.

ROFLMNAO... That is incomprehenible gibberish...

The US Executive is not some dude in Wisconsin determining the constitutionality of the US Tax Code...

A law which is 'interpreted one way' is already in effect, as you've described it as "law"...

All it would take would be for someone to prosecute the previous administration for torture.

I am all for it... I don't have any friends in the Bush administration and when this administration gets the boot, the economic train-wreck they leave behind will provide for prosecutions which will make the French terrors look like a walk in the park...

Of course, that kind of tit-4-tat is REAL HARD on a nation... so while I couldn't care less if you idiots prosecute the Bush administration and I will make the advocacy for prosecuting these criminals the focus of my entire life... I think that the smart play would be to apply sound reason and prudent judgment which is designed towards the best interests of the Republic.

If the court decided that fell under torture, it would.

Wow... You should go pre-law... you're REALLY sharp in this stuff...

3rd, I do think that waterboarding is torture, but since there is no law that clearly states that, there is no legal base to prosecute anyone.

Lots of laws are unclear/open to interpretation. Hence why we have a judicial branch.

Hence why it's important to remember why the judiciary is a SEPARATE AND EQUAL BRANCH of the US Government... NOT The Supreme Branch...


Waterboarding is torture, when it's being applied against a 12 year old by the perv who abducted her and is using it to help her find her soft spot...

When it's being applied against a person who is reasonably believed to be involved in the wholesale slaughter of THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE... to cull TIME SENSITIVE information to PREVENT THAT IMMINENT THREAT...

Ehh... not so much.

 

[Nik]

Not quite. Torture isn't defined in the statute illegalizing torture, but we do have torture defined in areas of law. See convention against torture, for example.

US did signed UN Convention against torture, but our law do not specifically define torture. If I am mistaken, please provide a confirmative link.

The CAT would count as evidence of what torture is, although it likely would not be dispositive.

Again, incorrect. A law that is interpreted to be one way or another can be interpreted after the law has taken force and does not count as ex post facto. All it would take would be for someone to prosecute the previous administration for torture. If the court decided that fell under torture, it would.

Laws that could be interpreted one way or another have to be clarified before enforced. Imagine if someone gets idea that criticizing government is illegal or racism and begin arresting people for, lets say, saying that president is black.

All laws can be interpreted one way or another. Hence why we have a judicial branch. You can advocate thats not the way it should be, and perhaps you might have a point, but you can't say thats not the way it is.

Lots of laws are unclear/open to interpretation. Hence why we have a judicial branch.

Hence, regardless of the color of his skin*, president is not judical branch.

*sarcasm

Thanks for bringing up the color of his skin. Very relevant here. However since, obviously, the president isn't part of the judicial branch, you haven't seen him saying anyone will go to jail or not. Rather he is talking about who will be prosecuted, that is, dragged in front of the judicial branch.

 

[Ame®icano]

Not quite. Torture isn't defined in the statute illegalizing torture, but we do have torture defined in areas of law. See convention against torture, for example.

US did signed UN Convention against torture, but our law do not specifically define torture. If I am mistaken, please provide a confirmative link.

The CAT would count as evidence of what torture is, although it likely would not be dispositive.

I wouldn't call it evidence, rather an explanation. Most of married man could use the same meaning (at least mental pain and suffering part) to explain their marriage during woman's period or when they make mistake. Yet, it's not called torture, but marriage.

All laws can be interpreted one way or another. Hence why we have a judicial branch. You can advocate thats not the way it should be, and perhaps you might have a point, but you can't say thats not the way it is.

Thanks for bringing up the color of his skin. Very relevant here. However since, obviously, the president isn't part of the judicial branch, you haven't seen him saying anyone will go to jail or not. Rather he is talking about who will be prosecuted, that is, dragged in front of the judicial branch.

Exactly opposite. Color of his skin is irrelevant to me, but might become very relevant in interpretation of laws from his point of view. If not true, Congress wouldnt be talking about hate crime bill these days.

I haven't seen him saying anyone will go to jail, neither. But I did hear him deciding that waterboarding is torture, and thats NOT his decision to make, since he's NOT judical branch.

 

[Amanda]

Didn't the Bush administration also decline to make these pics public? Did the left agree that was a good move or not?

 

[Nik]

US did signed UN Convention against torture, but our law do not specifically define torture. If I am mistaken, please provide a confirmative link.

The CAT would count as evidence of what torture is, although it likely would not be dispositive.

I wouldn't call it evidence, rather an explanation. Most of married man could use the same meaning (at least mental pain and suffering part) to explain their marriage during woman's period or when they make mistake. Yet, it's not called torture, but marriage.

Difference between rape and sex. Consent matters.

All laws can be interpreted one way or another. Hence why we have a judicial branch. You can advocate thats not the way it should be, and perhaps you might have a point, but you can't say thats not the way it is.

Thanks for bringing up the color of his skin. Very relevant here. However since, obviously, the president isn't part of the judicial branch, you haven't seen him saying anyone will go to jail or not. Rather he is talking about who will be prosecuted, that is, dragged in front of the judicial branch.

Exactly opposite. Color of his skin is irrelevant to me, but might become very relevant in interpretation of laws from his point of view. If not true, Congress wouldnt be talking about hate crime bill these days.

I haven't seen him saying anyone will go to jail, neither. But I did hear him deciding that waterboarding is torture, and thats NOT his decision to make, since he's NOT judical branch.

[/quote]

Nice. People who aren't minorities can be for hate crime legislation as well you know.

And he can decide whatever the hell he wants. Just because he is president doesn't mean he can't have opinions. Its just not enforcable if its not within his executive power.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Not quite. Torture isn't defined in the statute illegalizing torture, but we do have torture defined in areas of law. See convention against torture, for example.

US did signed UN Convention against torture, but our law do not specifically define torture. If I am mistaken, please provide a confirmative link.

The CAT would count as evidence of what torture is, although it likely would not be dispositive.



All laws can be interpreted one way or another. Hence why we have a judicial branch. You can advocate thats not the way it should be, and perhaps you might have a point, but you can't say thats not the way it is.

Lots of laws are unclear/open to interpretation. Hence why we have a judicial branch.

Hence, regardless of the color of his skin*, president is not judical branch.

*sarcasm

Thanks for bringing up the color of his skin. Very relevant here. However since, obviously, the president isn't part of the judicial branch, you haven't seen him saying anyone will go to jail or not. Rather he is talking about who will be prosecuted, that is, dragged in front of the judicial branch.

Golly... I haven't seen The Lord of the Idiots say anything of the kind...

Care to offer an example?

What I've seen him say is limited to empty platitudes which tosses the left their helping of red meat, but when the rubber of reality hits the road ACTION... He's pretty much adopted the same policy which Bush implemented... So it's unlikely that He's been talking about anyone in that group who he wants to see prosecuted, as once he goes down that road... HE is just sealing his own fate...

He's a Marxist, so his intellectual means are limited, but he doesn't seem to be completely stupid.

 

[jreeves]

Not quite. Torture isn't defined in the statute illegalizing torture, but we do have torture defined in areas of law. See convention against torture, for example.

US did signed UN Convention against torture, but our law do not specifically define torture. If I am mistaken, please provide a confirmative link.

The CAT would count as evidence of what torture is, although it likely would not be dispositive.



All laws can be interpreted one way or another. Hence why we have a judicial branch. You can advocate thats not the way it should be, and perhaps you might have a point, but you can't say thats not the way it is.

Lots of laws are unclear/open to interpretation. Hence why we have a judicial branch.

Hence, regardless of the color of his skin*, president is not judical branch.

*sarcasm

Thanks for bringing up the color of his skin. Very relevant here. However since, obviously, the president isn't part of the judicial branch, you haven't seen him saying anyone will go to jail or not. Rather he is talking about who will be prosecuted, that is, dragged in front of the judicial branch.

Umm...do you have a charge specifically or are you speaking out of your ass again?