So now we are going to prosecute him for the war?What is this crap? You should know better then to argue the slippery slope. Come on.
And this is why we don't do this. Because every political disagreement turns into legal prosecutions. -- Dios
In his entry in Unclaimed Territory for July 10, 2006, Greenwald explains, "I decided voluntarily to wind down my practice in 2005 because I could, and because, after ten years, I was bored with litigating full-time and wanted to do other things which I thought were more engaging and could make more of an impact, including political writing."[9]Oooh scandalous...
suggesting a systematic collapse of professional ethics driven by the Pentagon itself. He describes body searches undertaken for no legitimate security purpose, simply to sexually invade and humiliate the prisoners. This was a standardized Bush Administration tactic–the importance of which became apparent to me when I participated in some Capitol Hill negotiations with White House representatives relating to legislation creating criminal law accountability for contractors. The Bush White House vehemently objected to provisions of the law dealing with rape by instrumentality. When House negotiators pressed to know why, they were met first with silence and then an embarrassed acknowledgement that a key part of the Bush program included invasion of the bodies of prisoners in a way that might be deemed rape by instrumentality under existing federal and state criminal statutes. While these techniques have long been known, the role of health care professionals in implementing them is shocking.No reason to bring up the 'hypothetical' about rape. It happened and it was authorized.
That's why my point has been that this is a political matter that needs to be settled politically. Criminal and civil litigation brings a whole bunch of baggage into these matters which will allow those who want to see the US keep on torturing to muddy the waters. By focusing on the political aspects, you get what you saw today, which was Lindsey Graham trying to say that torture has been effective since the middle ages and that's why it is still around. Every time they are forced to defend torture on a straight-up policy basis, they will lose and we will win.So what you're saying is that we, as a policy, should not torture, but at the same time torture should not be illegal because that would mean courts would have to get involved? Frankly that's so stupid it's not even worth trying to come up with a counter argument. But I will point out that the policy was changed in secret by the bush administration. There was no public debate and they obviously didn't intend for anyone to find out. How that fact applies to your argument is left as an exercise for the reader.
When courts get involved, then other values which the court must also endeavor to uphold will often come into conflict with learning about torture. Some decisions will go against those prosecuting torture, because those values are too pressing. People will be forced to make compromise decisions, like the President is forced to do now. He has to balance the need to protect the troops he commands with the need to get the photos out to inform the people. Lives may be lost because of his decision. It isn't easy.
Gregg Magee, a deputy sheriff who testified against Sheriff Parker and three of the deputies said he witnessed Harkless being handcuffed to a chair by Parker and then getting “the water treatment.”But, whatever. I doubt I can convince you that the controlled drowning of a person to the point where they may need an emergency tracheotomy (2005 CIA memo) is torture if you haven't come to that conclusion on your own.
“A towel was draped over his head,” Magee said, according to court documents. “He was pulled back in the chair and water was poured over the towel.”
Harkless said he thought he was “going to be strangled to death,” adding: “I couldn't breathe.”
And so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.If the president says it's legal, it's legal. QED.
ryoshu: why is that the worst of the worst? Presumably the administration had some belief that an Iraq-AQ connection existed. As such, why would the administration not be interested in using EIT to find out about it? -- DiosWow, either you're not paying attention or you're retarded.
"The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is —I don't know enough to tell you whether that individual at that point in time falls under that definition or which part.
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States."
« Older The Medea Hypothesis: Is Life on Earth Ultimately ... | Been to your local cineplex la... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by chunking express at 12:06 PM on May 12, 2009