So now that we hopefully have established that torturing as well as ordering torture is indeed against US law and since we have a new time line that makes it very likely that Bush ordered torture after the US Supreme Court has made it clear that the detainees at Guantanamo were protected by the Geneva Convention, what now?
This is not about whether he should have done it or not, whether is was ok or not, or whether you think water boarding is even torture or not.
This is about an administration knowingly violating US laws in an area that should be very near and dear to all of us, detaining and at least humiliating if not torturing people while ignoring the limits set by the Supreme Court.
So, what is more important, partisanship or the rule of law?
hopefully we’ve established that you’re an idiot . . . . if water boarding is not torture - then you have no point to make here . . .
So you still have not read those treaties?
Yet I am an idiot for knowing better than you what they contain?
Even humiliating them would be off limits and against the law.
Besides the fact that people were jailed and even executed for waterboarding by the US before.
So what is it to be?
Rule of laws?
Or an elected dictator?
LMAO - what a maroon . . . we had this discussion in several other threads and now you assume because you moved it to a new thread and stated the conclusion you wanted (but that has not been agreed upon) that all argument on your perspective is over and you were right - sad, truly, truly sad - but have fun with this . . . .[/quote]
Even if you don’t agree with the definition of torture he is using, the supreme court does, and thats all that matters for his point to be true, so no he isn’t a moron. Waterboarding is considered torture by the supreme court, we waterboarded someone, we broke the law, whoever made the call should be held responsible. It’s pretty simple.