Bush and His Cult of Cronyism Sign Off On Torture (Then Lied About It)

[Brassmask]

To act like it is ok since we have been "doing it" is morally relativistic.

I haven't offered an opinion about the morality of torture.

I take issue with the idea that this is something new and Bush invented the process.

But see, therein is the point I'm making.  They DID do it and they DID lie about it and it IS wrong to do both.

Not saying that it is wrong for us to do that while then, in fact, saying that "we" have been doing it forever is morally relativistic and appears (without any follow up on your part) to be an attempt to relieve the "administration" of any guilt in the original approval of the torture and the subsequent cover-up of said approval of torture (which breaks the Geneva convention).

If torture is wrong (which it was agreed by civilized types in the Geneva Conventions), then Bush and his Cult of Cronies are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be impeached.

The idea that Bush's AG and others told him it was "legal" with a nudge and wink is not a defense.  He and they are criminals.

[BT]

If torture is wrong (which it was agreed by civilized types in the Geneva Conventions), then Bush and his Cult of Cronies are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be impeached.

And that brings us full circle. I have repeatedly said this new interest in humane warfare is politically driven. You want Bush impeached.

Just say so and let's quit with the charade of tenuous arguments.

[Brassmask]

If torture is wrong (which it was agreed by civilized types in the Geneva Conventions), then Bush and his Cult of Cronies are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be impeached.

And that brings us full circle. I have repeatedly said this new interest in humane warfare is politically driven. You want Bush impeached.

Just say so and let's quit with the charade of tenuous arguments.

Whoa, whoa, that is NOT the point.  Yes, I would love to his a criminal sent to jail but that does not change the fact that they are CRIMINALS.

Are you saying that it does?

[BT]

Whoa, whoa, that is NOT the point.  Yes, I would love to his a criminal sent to jail but that does not change the fact that they are CRIMINALS.

Are you saying that it does?

No, i make no such judgment.

I am saying that this is politically driven. That it is all about Bush as your thread title implies.

That you and others in this forum have denied barbaric practices on our part in the past.

From small pox blankets to VC and helicopters to the School of America's and the institution of rendering during the last administration.

That our new found fondness for torture increases the likelihood that our boys will be tortured, but that didn't seem to matter with the Japanese and the hosts of the Hanoi Hilton, even though we were allegedly pure as the driven snow.

At least Bear was honest about that.

[Brassmask]

Whoa, whoa, that is NOT the point.  Yes, I would love to his a criminal sent to jail but that does not change the fact that they are CRIMINALS.

Are you saying that it does?

No, i make no such judgment.

I am saying that this is politically driven. That it is all about Bush as your thread title implies.

That you and others in this forum have denied barbaric practices on our part in the past.

From small pox blankets to VC and helicopters to the School of America's and the institution of rendering during the last administration.

That our new found fondness for torture increases the likelihood that our boys will be tortured, but that didn't seem to matter with the Japanese and the hosts of the Hanoi Hilton, even though we were allegedly pure as the driven snow.

At least Bear was honest about that.

So, its ok for us to be up front about our torturous ways, then?

Ok, cool.

Then why did Bush and his cronies lie about torture?  Over and over again, Bush has said, "the US does not torture..."  From what you're saying, you seem 100% cool about that.

Just want to make sure I understand you.

[BT]

Then why did Bush and his cronies lie about torture?  Over and over again, Bush has said, "the US does not torture..."  From what you're saying, you seem 100% cool about that.

According to his legal advisers we don't. So how could he be lying?

You may disagree with the legal opinion, and the courts may disagree with the legal opinion, but it is still a legal opinion. And in government it is all about "best effort"

When i call the city attorney about something, i don't ask if a proposed action is legal, i ask if a proposed action is defensible under our codebook. If he says yes then we proceed, if he says no, then we look for another way or we change the codes.

I don't think it is that much different at the national level.

[Brassmask]

According to his legal advisers we don't. So how could he be lying?

So, if an attorney tells someone that robbing a bank is NOT illegal that's an excuse for that person having robbed a bank?

You may disagree with the legal opinion, and the courts may disagree with the legal opinion, but it is still a legal opinion. And in government it is all about "best effort"

When i call the city attorney about something, i don't ask if a proposed action is legal, i ask if a proposed action is defensible under our codebook. If he says yes then we proceed, if he says no, then we look for another way or we change the codes.

I don't think it is that much different at the national level.

Defensible, in the case of Bush and his cronies, should be translated into "what can we get away with?"

This isn't about opinions, its about laws and treaties which are spelled out.

[Amianthus]

So, if an attorney tells someone that robbing a bank is NOT illegal that's an excuse for that person having robbed a bank?

See Linda Tripp for an example.

[BT]

This isn't about opinions, its about laws and treaties which are spelled out.

Nonsense.

If laws were crystal clear there would be no need for half the court cases that judges review.

And the people who write (including legal staff) them get to bill defend or challenge them.

Nice racket.

There is very little in this world that is totally black and white.

[Brassmask]

No torture can be something else?

No torture can be "do torture"?

What?  Are we "through the looking glass here, people"?

[hnumpah]

At least Bear was honest about that.

Bear does his best to be completely honest, despite the assertions of some to the contrary. What I do feel is that this affair is a slap in the face, an insult to the armed forces that these people claim to respect and support so much. What I do feel is that if, as reported, Colin Powell had any part in this, my estimation of him has dropped tremendously. My estimation of the rest of Bush's asshole buddies is already at record lows, but I gave Powell credit for having perhaps a shred of honor left. I may have been wrong.

[BT]

No torture can be something else?

define torture

[sirs]

No torture can be something else?

define torture

I think I tried that once, in another thread.  Couldn't get anywhere close to any concensus of what defined "torture".  Being made to eat lima beans & listen to rap music was pretty much torture for me.  Being made to wear panties on one's head apparently is "torture" for others

[Brassmask]

No torture can be something else?

define torture

Class is in session...

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."[2] In addition to state-sponsored torture, individuals or groups may inflict torture on others for the same reasons as those acting in an official capacity; however, another motive for torture can be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer, as was the case in the Moors Murders.

Torture is prohibited under international law and the domestic laws of most countries; however, Amnesty International estimates that 75% of the world's governments currently practice torture.[3]

Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of effecting political re-education. In the 21st century, torture is widely considered to be a violation of human rights, and is declared to be unacceptable by Article 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In times of war, signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention agree not to torture protected persons (POWs and enemy civilians) in armed conflicts.

International legal prohibitions on torture derive from a philosophical consensus that torture and ill-treatment are immoral.[4] These international conventions and philosophical propositions not withstanding, organizations such as Amnesty International that monitor abuses of human rights report a widespread use of torture condoned by states in many regions of the world.[5]

[BT]

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Pretty vague.

Would it be considered torture to serve an observant Jewish enemy combatant  pork for dinner or would it be considered humane?