It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rice: When the president approves it, it is not illegal

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
We've all got a choice here in the matter.

Waterboard these bastard terrorists; save you childrens' lives.

Use no enhanced interrogation methods; attend your childrens' funeral.

It's clearcut as black and white. There are no areas of grey.

If I had it my way, waterboarding would be the mildest thing I could do to these bastard son-of-bitches!




posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kernel Korn

Originally posted by jjkenobi
This smells like a witch hunt to me - as in Democrats only interested in going after Republicans.


Uh huh. Business as usual. However we're talking about war crimes here, not a case of someone lying about a BJ.


Uh, another believer in either "revisionist history", or not paying attention to the facts.

For the whatever the number is time, Clinton was not impeached over fooling around with Monica. It was over his perjury - lying under oath.

While we're on the subject of Clinton lies, try this one on for size:

Clinton lied, and the 9/11 victims died



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Indeed. Being that the powers of the Presidency are clearly defined in the Constitution, what Obama is doing right now is breaking his Oath of Office. As far as I'm concerned if we were to start following the Constitution today we would have to posthumously, and post-duty, impeach every president from Lincoln to Obama.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


You see, this flies in the face of all the things we've built upon the foundations of the American Revolution.

There are always grey areas. It is simplistic to say otherwise.


+3 more 
posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysterE


Was waterboarding illegal at the time of use?




Waterboarding was illegal since the passing of the third Geneva Convention, in 1949. It was also illegal enough in 1945 for us to try Japanese POW's who used the technique as criminals of war, and many of them were executed.


Originally posted by Highground

WELL. That depends on what the treaty says. The treaty protects lawful combatants. Who we captured were not lawful combatants, by definition. This is most likely what they lawyers were going on when they said it was legal.

I'm kinda sick of the McCarthyist policies the left is taking up now. Aren't THEY supposed to be "above" that?




Legally, there is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant". It's a term the Bush Administration used to torture our detainees, by not classifying them as "combatants" (who are protected from torture under the third Geneva Convention, and "civilians" (who are protected under the fourth Geneva Convention.




there is no gap between the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protection of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war ... he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of [the Fourth Convention], provided that its article 4 requirements [defining a protected person] are satisfied.


Source

Furthermore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:




No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.


Source

And, the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment specifically states that:




Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.


Source

So Rice's argument that she was under the impression she was working within her legal rights does not hold water. The interrogation techniques used clearly fall under "cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment", and therefore is illegal under three bodies of international law, domestic law and the Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, anyone who authorized or approved of such interrogation techniques is a war-criminal, both internationally and domestically.

This is FAR from McCarthyism. This is seeking justice for crimes that have damaged our name as a nation.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211


Uh, another believer in either "revisionist history", or not paying attention to the facts.

For the whatever the number is time, Clinton was not impeached over fooling around with Monica. It was over his perjury - lying under oath.

While we're on the subject of Clinton lies, try this one on for size:

Clinton lied, and the 9/11 victims died



What does Clinton lying under oath about receiving oral sex have to do with the 9/11 victims? Your post makes absolutely no sense.

You are either purposefully trying to derail the thread, or your argument in favor of torture has fallen so flat that you've resorted to the old, "blame Bill for lying" tactic. I, personally, fail to see the connection.

I have to ask, do you hold any responsibility for the government's massive failures on 9/11 to the Bush administration, which was actually in power on that day? Or are you simply a partisan player who only sees the faults of the "other side"?



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
We've all got a choice here in the matter.

Waterboard these bastard terrorists; save you childrens' lives.

Use no enhanced interrogation methods; attend your childrens' funeral.

It's clearcut as black and white. There are no areas of grey.

If I had it my way, waterboarding would be the mildest thing I could do to these bastard son-of-bitches!


Someone needs to hit people who think like this with the 911 commission report.

You live in another world man, with no understanding of anything whatsoever in the real world.

All you are doing is supporting the robbing of your pocket, that of your kids and the oppression of many nations including your own.

Good luck in life!



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I will concede that I have not done much, if any, real research into the legalities of waterboarding, which is why I posed the question. However, this thread was about a comment by Condi Rice, and in my origional post I pointed out that there were several instances of mis-quoting, and wanted to set the record straight.

-E-

Edit to add that I think some of the Bush administration are criminals for the false flag attack on America on 9/11.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by MysterE]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
So, in context, one could say that Hitler approved it and it was not illegal? Didn't work for all of those nazis.

Also, if we executed Japanese for doing the same technique, doesn't that set a precidence?

And furthermore, non-combatant does not even make sense the way they are trying to use it. They were fighting or plotting against us, weren't they?



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by MysterE
 


No it was not. We never had a law passed or a supreme court ruling making it legal nor did we ever withdraw from the Geneva convention which declares it torture... therefore since we were signatures of that treaty then it was the law of the land and still is.

All we had were some hot shot legal stuffed shirts saying that it was OK but that does not change the law which was the Geneva convention treaty.

Once a treaty is ratified by congress and signed by the president it is defacto the law of the land regardless of what some lawyer says... and that doesn't change just because a different party is in power.

IF bush minor had formally withdrawn from the Geneva convention treaty then that would have been an entirely different beast but he did not.


Exactly. It doesn’t matter whether we say it’s legal or not. We agreed to a set of rules that we hold everyone else accountable to.



Originally posted by Highground

WELL. That depends on what the treaty says. The treaty protects lawful combatants. Who we captured were not lawful combatants, by definition. This is most likely what they lawyers were going on when they said it was legal.

I'm kinda sick of the McCarthyist policies the left is taking up now. Aren't THEY supposed to be "above" that?

It’s not a political issue, it’s a legal one. Just like Clintons lie.
It in no way compares to McCarthy. That was a purely political issue designed to discredit people based on their alleged affiliations and I believe no one was ever charged with any crimes, only with allegedly being “communists”. A word I see being used a lot lately.

If they were in fact, NOT lawful combatants then they would be subject to the laws of those who incarcerate them, i.e. UCMJ. Unless of course you take the approach that they were actually on American soil (Gitmo) in which case they would be entitled to the same rights we extend to anyone else. Even under the Patriot Act they only lose habeas corpus.


Originally posted by centurion1211
If not already, this will soon describe obama, as well. Forcing business executives to resign? Where is that listed as a presidential power?

EDIT: Forgot this part. When you shell out billions of dollars to someone, you've got every right to attach more than a few strings



Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Kernel Korn

Originally posted by jjkenobi
This smells like a witch hunt to me - as in Democrats only interested in going after Republicans.


Uh huh. Business as usual. However we're talking about war crimes here, not a case of someone lying about a BJ.


Uh, another believer in either "revisionist history", or not paying attention to the facts.

For the whatever the number is time, Clinton was not impeached over fooling around with Monica. It was over his perjury - lying under oath.

While we're on the subject of Clinton lies, try this one on for size:

Clinton lied, and the 9/11 victims died

If you look up an inch or 2 you will see he specifically said lying about a bj
The only revision I see going on here is in your ability to quote someone.
And Clinton was almost 2 years out of office when 9/11 happened.
How about the Bush admin was incompetent and 9/11 victims died (and that’s giving them the benefit of the doubt).

Edit: Typos
[edit on 30-4-2009 by Grimstad]

[edit on 30-4-2009 by Grimstad]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
It’s not a political issue, it’s a legal one. Just like Clintons lie.
It in no way compares to McCarthy. That was a purely political issue designed to discredit people based on their alleged affiliations and I believe no one was ever charged with any crimes, only with allegedly being “communists”. A word I see being used a lot lately.

If they were in fact, NOT lawful combatants then they would be subject to the laws of those who incarcerate them, i.e. UCMJ. Unless of course you take the approach that they were actually on American soil (Gitmo) in which case they would be entitled to the same rights we extend to anyone else. Even under the Patriot Act they only lose habeas corpus.
[edit on 30-4-2009 by Grimstad]


It IS a political issue. It's being made into one - if you cannot see that, you must be blind. I'm all for the prosecution of those responsible, but I feel it must also be fair. If you prosecute one person, you have to prosecute them all. What I meant by the McCarthy-ish tactics, is that the Obama administration is only going after who they see fit, their political opponents. However, quite a few democrats were involved in the decision-making process, yet we're only hearing about the same republicans we've heard about since day one.

Don't get me wrong, I personally believe that waterboarding is NOT torture, but that is not up to me to decide. If this is considered torture by any laws that apply, then people must be prosecuted. However, it is not fair for only one group of the guilty to be prosecuted, while the other watches from the sidelines (and even accuses the others).



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
If you go after the Bush admin for torture then you are going to have to go after every leader of every country. You cant tell me that almost every country doesnt use some form of torture to interogate people that are a threat to their nation.

I guess when somebody is going to kill your citizens you are suppose to ask them real nicely if they will pleae tell you the plan so you can prevent it. I hope they are feeling special on that day and decide that you are so kind that they should share the info with you.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


It's fascinating, isn't it? The March to Revisionism happening right before our eyes. Bushie fundamentalists all towing the party line...Cheney, Rove, now Rice. Funny how Rummy is strangely quiet. Gonzo is laying low. Who's next to take up the mantle?? Predictions?



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
First off, Condi is a waste of space, just like the rest of the elite scumbags running our nation into the ground today. Morally bankrupt, sick individuals. So twisted in fact that they can't seem to keep their dirty little secrets to themselves, they are just so out of touch with reality that the crap just leaks.

On to replying to other posters...



Originally posted by MysterE
Was waterboarding illegal at the time of use?


Yes. We executed Japanese soldiers for water boarding in the late 40's / early 50's and nothing relevant changed between then and now. No matter how much the Bush II administration tried to twist legal reality water boarding most assuredly remained illegal.




Originally posted by jjkenobi
This smells like a witch hunt to me - as in Democrats only interested in going after Republicans. If anyone were truly interested in justice then EVERYONE who knew or was briefed about the interrogation techniques and did not stop them should be hauled into court. Would include members of the previous administration, a portion of the current administration who held office then, and half of congress now. Great let's do it.


A common right-wing fantasy. I am 100% for prosecuting ANYONE responsible for torture. I have said this in many threads. This is NOT a partisan witch hunt, although I believe that the vast majority of those who are finally held accountable will be former members of the Bush II administration.



[QUOTE]
By the way if anyone cares just 28% [of U.S. voters] think the Obama administration should do further investigating of how suspected terrorists were questioned during the Bush years (Rasmussen).
[/QUOTE]

Interesting when compared to other sources. 1 2 3 4 With averages of 38-58% of voters being for further investigation.





Oh that's right, opinion polls that don't agree with your opinion are either skewed or don't matter.


So, how do you feel about the above polls? Skewed? Irrelevant? Or legitimate?




Originally posted by centurion1211
If not already, this will soon describe obama, as well. Forcing business executives to resign? Where is that listed as a presidential power?


Back on topic?




Originally posted by Intelearthling
We've all got a choice here in the matter.

Waterboard these bastard terrorists; save you childrens' lives.

Use no enhanced interrogation methods; attend your childrens' funeral.

It's clearcut as black and white. There are no areas of grey.

If I had it my way, waterboarding would be the mildest thing I could do to these bastard son-of-bitches!


Ah, another keyboard-commando! Hoe entertaining!

You and all you anonymous bravado! How incredibly daft!

what i see as one of the most humorous things about the pro-torture stance people here on ats is how they think they know BETTER than the professionals.

i love how they assure us that although these acts are heinous they are essential to protect lives.

lets have a quick look at what professionals in the fields of intelligence and military think on the issue:

From the Army Field Manual:



PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.
link

Pentagon's Chief Lawyer:



The military agency that provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."
link

Veteran CIA Officers:


Some perennially high-profile retired CIA officers like Bob Baer, Frank Anderson, and Vincent Cannistraro recently spoke out to Knight Ridder about their opposition to torture on practical grounds (Cannistraro said that detainees will "say virtually anything to end their torment"). But over the past 18 months, several lesser-known former officers have been trying, publicly and privately, to convince both the agency and the public that torture and other unduly coercive questioning tactics are morally wrong as well.
link

these excerpts were dug up in 10 minutes, I am sure I could flood you with similar pieces of information if I wanted to put int he time.

so why should i listen to a bunch of keyboard commandos talk about protecting our nation as a justification for torture when the REAL heroes are saying the opposite?

it is hard to comprehend what makes the lot of you think you know better? is it because the leader of your party of choice, the drug addict, rush limbaugh told you what the REAL truth was?

if not that than what makes you think you have some form of superior knowledge to the PROFESSIONALS who deal with these matters?

i am sorry but those who keep towing the pro-torture line look more and more idiotic and sheep like with ever day that passes.

'24' is not real life, jack bower does not exist, and those who have / had 'jack bowers' job disagree with the use of torture so why don't you?



[edit on 30-4-2009 by Animal]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I really think 24Hour did really a great job to brainwash the common Joe to think torture is ok. When I first saw the trailer of the session about torture it was easy to see the brainwash machine at work to legitimate the torture in people mind.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimstad
 


And Clinton was almost 2 years out of office when 9/11 happened.

You need to do a little fact checking.

Clinton's term ended on January 20, 2001. 9/11 attack took place on September 11, 2001.

That's 9 months, not two years.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


One point of fact, Condi is no longer a public official. She is no more accountable to the public for her current affairs than any one of us are.

What happened in the past is a black eye for America but it is not an isolated incident in this country. Our past shows us to be quite barbaric towards people we perceive to be the enemy.

Torture should not be condoned however I doubt seriously that anything will come of this.

Of course with the smoke screen of the H1N1 virus out there who knows what the government is doing about other things while the public is nearly panicking about the flu.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Waterboard these bastard terrorists; save you childrens' lives.

Use no enhanced interrogation methods; attend your childrens' funeral.

It's clearcut as black and white. There are no areas of grey.




No areas of grey until you realise that very few of the people you're torturing are terrorists, most of them are people who we suspect might have been in contact with a terrorist at some point in their life, whether they realise it or not.

Read the declassified files released due to judicial requests... they're an eye opener.



So yeah, if torturing innocent people gives you a false sense of security, it must be right... right?


Heck, you might have come in contact with a terrorist at some point in your life and not know it... where do you live?
I'll come with a battery and two wet alligator clips.
We'll find out if you know anything useful.



I'll re-phrase your claim for you...

Don't waterboard anyone, your children die.

Waterboard people in the hopes they might know a terrorist, your children still die.

Only this time... you've just given people a desire to see the rest of your family dead.


Only idiots deal in absolutes.
The world has never been black and white, the world will never be black and white.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by johnsky]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I posted this question and would like to post it here.

Why are we so interested in prosecuting those who gave the greenlight for torture now?

The US and other Countries have been practicing torture in every War since the Geneva Convention.

Does it make it right? Not really, but why are we now choosing to enforce the law?

I have stated that I am for torture under certain conditions. But my view aside, I am really perplexed on why we chose now to enforce this law.

If we are to enforce this law we would have to treat the government as a buisness and dig back as far as we can to find out how long and prosecute each living ex President and all the other political figures that have been involved in this practice.

We cannot just choose to prosecute one administration and let the others slide.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
Why are we so interested in prosecuting those who gave the greenlight for torture now?

The US and other Countries have been practicing torture in every War since the Geneva Convention.

Does it make it right? Not really, but why are we now choosing to enforce the law?



Can't speak for predecessors, maybe they were lazy? Complicit? Ignorant?
My guess is ignorant.


And the reason it's all coming down now is awareness.

Times change.
People are now more aware of the world than ever before. The introduction and widespread use of the Internet now enables everyone to gain access to information worldwide, unfiltered, un-blocked... no more government telling you what you're allowed to believe... we're seeing the world and our own nations for what they are.

Now that the average person can see what is going on in their own country, allot of them are really ticked off! And rightly so. These aren't the nations we were told about, the nations we grew up being told to love... the "greatest nation on earth" so to speak.

(Yes, it may come as a surprise to you, but your nation, whichever it may be, is not the only one that drills "greatest nation on earth" into their students heads. Most nations do.)

... now we're seeing our countries for what they really are.


And we know the lies we've been told, and the disgusting acts our nations do, don't have to happen... it doesn't have to be this way.


We're awake now.
And we're really ticked off with what we've opened our eyes to.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by johnsky]



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join