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?
Here's the thing: if this new administration tries to indict Bush then it opens itself up (Obama specifically) to the same treatment from the next subsequent administration. I think in the name of keeping a wide and open latitude on power there will be no further pursuit of this issue. Abuse of power will continue to be the status quo.
I guarantee Obama will violate international laws before his stint is over -- especially as the first term nears an end. It will be a completely political move to appear tough.
Exactly, which is precicesly why voting for either of the two major parties is retarded. Neither of them actually give two craps about the little people, they only care about getting more power and control. Unfortunately it looks like within the next few presidential terms, almost absolute power will be had by whoever is the president. Hell they already break any law they want and never get called to the mat for it so perhaps it is already the case. Either way when they start pinching us harder and harder, it will become hopefully clear to both sides of the brainwashed isles who is thier friend and who is thier foe. Hopefully we can hold out long enough to be there for them when they do make the distinction.
Don't let the fact that the US has prosecuted people, including US citizens, under torture statutes for water boarding in the past deter you from your idiot fantasies that somehow it isn't torture. Nope, no conflicts there. Move along.
I agree with the sentiment but in reality none will open the door to give up power. That is the nature of rule. Once we have it we do not let it go.
Even if Obama were to lose the next election -- which I think he will -- he still is going to expect to be able to travel in the same circles of power as his peers. He won't be "in power" but he will still have some influence. That is where I think the real power lies -- behind the scenes. If he were to prosecute one of his own then everything changes and he hurts his chances at any maintaining any legitimacy post presidency.
In effect it is our desire for popularity (legitimacy) that the status quo is maintained.
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 . . . .
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.
LMAO- oh really - which Supreme court ruling would that be? the one from the 1920's? and what was the actual circumstances and the actual statement about the "water cure" in that case?
The ruling only held that the confession obtained by what was basically a mob was inadmissible as evidence in a court of law because of the circumstances under which it was obtained. The specific act perpetrated against the young man was call brutal treatment and the entire circumstances under which his two confessions were obtained were called barbaric - but this also included a bloody corpse, a lynch mob, some obvious violence and a few other facts as well . . .
and from that you are trying to extrapolate that the current narrowed technique and actual application of that narrowed technique constitute torture according to the Supreme Court's opinion on an entirely different matter and certainly different technique and circumstances - - - While no such judgment or declaration was actually ever made by the Supreme Court . . . .
No really he did, also google is your friend, if you google something and can't find anything then come here and ask for it stating you tried to search it out on your own. If you are really interested in learning then this is what you do, if you mereley want to continue to believe what you do and defend your position, then you don't. It's pretty simple.